Gran Jurado del Condado de Ventura
2004-2005
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F01:
The Superintendent of Ventura County Schools prepared and distributed training materials explaining Brown Act requirements for county school boards.
F02:
The Brown Act was often referred to in meeting agendas.
F03:
The Brown Act was often referred to verbally during meetings.
F04:
No violations of the Brown Act were observed at the monitored meetings. Conclusions C-01. Both school board members and the public appeared to be aware of the Brown Act. (F-01 thru F-03) C-02. Based on the meetings monitored, the Brown Act is being observed. (F-04) C-03. The Brown Act has had a major impact on the way public school boards conduct business. (F-01 thru F-04) Recommendations None noted. Responses None required. Attachments 1. Brown Act Observance Checklist Checklist Brown Act Observance at School Board Meetings 1. Public may comment on agenda items before or during consideration by board. 2. Time must be set aside for public to comment on any other matter under the board's jurisdiction. 3. Meeting facilities accessible to disabled persons. 4. Public may obtain a copy (at cost) of an existing recording made available by board. 5. Public may listen/view an original tape made by board. All votes must be cast in public: not secret ballots. 7. At an open meeting following a closed session, the body must report on final action taken in the closed session. (Public may receive copies of contracts, settlements, etc.) 8. Public may not be asked to register or identify themselves to attend public meetings. 9. Materials provided to a majority of a body not exempt from disclosure must be provided, upon request, to members of the public without delay. 10. Agenda containing a brief description of each matter to be considered or discussed must be posted at least 72 hours prior to meeting. 11. Twenty-four hour notice must be provided to members of legislative body and media outlets including brief description of matters to be considered or discussed. 12. All items to be considered in closed session must be described in the notice or agenda for the meeting. Attachment (1) (This page intentionally left blank)
Recomendaciones adicionales
7
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R5:
Public may listen/view an original tape made by board. All votes must be cast in public: not secret ballots.
R7:
At an open meeting following a closed session, the body must report on final action taken in the closed session. (Public may receive copies of contracts, settlements, etc.)
R8:
Public may not be asked to register or identify themselves to attend public meetings.
R9:
Materials provided to a majority of a body not exempt from disclosure must be provided, upon request, to members of the public without delay.
R10:
Agenda containing a brief description of each matter to be considered or discussed must be posted at least 72 hours prior to meeting.
R11:
Twenty-four hour notice must be provided to members of legislative body and media outlets including brief description of matters to be considered or discussed.
R12:
All items to be considered in closed session must be described in the notice or agenda for the meeting. Attachment (1) (This page intentionally left blank)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
23 hallazgos
F01:
VCPA prepares a report for the court’s information in domestic violence cases that is used after a conviction to provide the judge with sentencing recommendations.
F02:
This report is prepared by VCPA after a preliminary risk assessment of the defendant as to the appropriateness of a probation sentence. As part of the assessment the defendant’s substance abuse history, prior criminal and prison history, and results of an interview with the defendant are considered.
F03:
If probation is indicated, the report recommends certain terms and conditions. These typically include one year of domestic violence counseling, certain fees, community service work and protective terms for the victim. If substance abuse was indicated in the crime, recommendations for drug testing, alcohol testing and abstinence from drugs and alcohol are also included. Probation Supervision
F04:
After sentencing, the defendant is instructed to go to the VCPA office to sign up for the various ordered programs, including the domestic violence group therapy.
F05:
A list of approved providers of domestic violence classes is given to the defendant, from which he or she chooses the one he or she wishes to attend. There are four approved providers in Ventura County with treatment locations in Camarillo, Newbury Park, Ojai, Oxnard, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks and Ventura.
F06:
VCPA’s general handling of cases is described as setting up an initial visit in order to go over the terms and conditions of probation, seeing the client monthly to check compliance, visiting the client’s home, possible search of the home and the collection of proof of compliance with the terms and conditions of probation.
F07:
VCPA’s description of the anger management counseling is that it consists of a 52 week course in 55 weeks (up to 3 absences allowed). The group sessions last 1-1/2 to 2 hours, once a week.
F08:
Probation officers never attend any of the sessions as the treatment providers find it disruptive.
F09:
VCPA views defendants as being capable of making a complaint to their probation officer if there is a problem with a treatment provider. Approval Process for Treatment Providers and Programs
F10:
California state law governs treatment provider criteria and protocol and is contained in Penal Code sections 1203.097 and 1203.098. Examples of the criteria are that classes must be group settings, two hours long, limited to 15 per group, have a specified curriculum and no victim is to be part of the counseling program.
F11:
VCPA has sole authority to approve a treatment provider and approval must be renewed annually.
F12:
Provider approval is sought by the completion of a written application describing the treatment program, demonstrating the ability to administer and operate a batterer’s program, and documenting at least one year’s experience. The application process also includes an on-site review of the program and the payment of approval fees.
F13:
VCPA has sole authority to deny, suspend or revoke approval for reasons such as violation of the penal code or misrepresenting any material fact alleged in the approval process.
F14:
Approval is an accreditation process and does not result in a contract between the county and the provider.
F15:
Each program must reapply yearly for approval by submitting an approval application, paying the fee and providing documentary support.
F16:
Standards and Guidelines directs VCPA as follows in the monitoring of group sessions: VCPA shall conduct a site monitoring of at least one batterer’s group session, per program. The selection of the group and date shall be within the discretion of VCPA and may be unannounced. At the determination of VCPA, additional sessions of the same group may be monitored, all groups offered by the program may be monitored, or only selected sessions may be monitored. This determination shall be within the discretion of VCPA. VCPA shall record the observations in a written report on a uniform document and shall determine program compliance with these standards based upon observations and report. Program Content
F17:
The California Penal Code directs that the anger management program content focus on education about gender roles, socialization, the nature of violence, the dynamics of power and control, and the effects of abuse on victims and children.
F18:
Program content challenges attitudes that promote the use of violence, i.e., the belief that one is entitled to control the activities of another, rigid sex role stereotypes, gender superiority and privilege, attitudes which restrict the show of emotions, or the belief that aggression can be used to enforce privilege and authority.
F19:
Program content promotes the following ideas: respect for the equal rights of partners in a relationship, the belief in human equality in society, an awareness of the costs of abusive behavior and empathy for the victim’s experiences. VCPA’s Authority and Responsibility
F20:
VCPA investigates every complaint it receives about providers. The investigations include interviewing the complaining party and other clients.
F21:
VCPA would have investigated this complaint if they had received it. They rely on clients to make such a complaint to their supervising probation officer.
F22:
Senior deputy probation officers make provider site visits. The visits are usually only during the approval process and are scheduled. Visits could be made at other times but due to time constraints they probably are not made.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
VCPA should develop a tighter policy of monitoring providers with random unannounced site visits at times other than during the approval process. (C-01 thru C-04)
F23:
VCPA is developing a different policy regarding the purging of client files to ensure that records will be retained for an appropriate period of time before being destroyed. Conclusions C-01. It is unreasonable to expect that a defendant, court-ordered into a program and dependent on the provider to report compliance, would complain to the VCPA about unethical behavior on the part of the provider. (F-09, F-21) C-02. Unethical or coercive behavior on the part of a provider could undermine the potential benefits of the treatment for the defendants. (F-17 thru F-19) C-03. Program providers are accountable to VCPA. (F-11, F-13 thru F-16) C-04. Random unannounced site visits to groups would serve to preserve the integrity of the programs. (F-08, F-16) C-05. In the interest of preserving important information, the VCPA has begun to develop new purge criteria for deceased client files. (F-23) Recommendations
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R02:
VCPA should provide the Grand Jury a copy of the revised purge policy upon its approval by its executive staff. (C-05) Response Requested Ventura County Probation Agency (R-01, R-02) (This page intentionally left blank)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
33 hallazgos
F01:
The Sheriff’s Department and the Thousand Oaks Police Department share a facility at 2101 East Olsen Road in Thousand Oaks.
F02:
The East County Jail is located within the shared facility.
F03:
The shared facility, including the jail, was built under a joint agreement between Thousand Oaks and the Board of Supervisors in 1988.
F04:
Budget reductions in FY2003-2004 led to the sheriff making the decision to convert the East County Jail from a 24-hour housing and booking facility to a 12-hour booking-only operation.
F05:
Further budget reductions in FY2004-2005 led the sheriff to order the suspension of operations at the East County Jail, beginning in July 2004.
F06:
Data provided by the Sheriff’s Department show that during the four year period FY1999-2000 thru FY2002-2003, when the East County Jail was fully operational, approximately 12% of all bookings were done at that facility.
F07:
Data from the Sheriff’s Department show that during FY2003-2004, when the East County Jail was open for only 12 hours, approximately 11% of all bookings were done at that facility.
F08:
From July 2004 until the present there have been no bookings at the East County Jail.
F09:
Data from the Simi Valley Police Department show that during the four year period FY1999-2000 thru FY2002-2003, when the East County Jail was fully operational, approximately 67% of their bookings were done at that facility.
F10:
Data from the Simi Valley Police Department show that during FY2003- 2004, when the East County Jail was open for only 12 hours, approximately 49% of their bookings were done at that facility.
F11:
Data from the California Highway Patrol show that during the four year period CY2000 thru CY2003, when the East County Jail was fully operational, approximately 15% of their bookings were done at that facility.
F12:
During the three year period between FY2002-2003 thru FY2004-2005 the Sheriff’s Department has reduced department staff by 196 people.
F13:
During the 12 year period between FY1991-1992 thru FY2002-2003 the number of Sheriff’s Department personnel, funded with general purpose revenue, was relatively constant.
F14:
During the two year period between FY2003-2004 thru FY2004-2005 the number of Sheriff’s Department personnel, funded with general purpose revenue, decreased by 27%.
F15:
The Sheriff’s Department’s mandatory and statutory responsibilities are used to set priorities.
F16:
The sheriff’s stated vision for the department is, “Make Ventura County the safest urban region in the United States.”
F17:
Public safety is a key element of this community’s quality of life.
F18:
The Sheriff’s Department’s published Mission Statement reads in part, “We, the members of the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, are committed to safeguard lives and property of the residents of Ventura County….”
F19:
Three programs that survived recent budget eliminations were the drug program, the air unit and the crime lab.
F20:
In addition to staff reductions and the closing of the East County Jail, the Sheriff’s Department eliminated the following programs: • Sheriff’s Crime Suppression/Gang Unit • All unincorporated community oriented policing programs • All county area DARE programs • All county School Resource Officers • All county community storefront stations • One fraud/elder abuse investigator • One rural/agricultural crimes investigator • Three helicopters • The sheriff’s “honor farm” in Ojai • Court security positions
F21:
The sheriff’s priorities, as stated in 2004, are: • Protect lifesaving and first responders programs • Focus efforts on criminal gangs, drug dealers and terrorists • Maintain quality of service in spite of reductions • Sustain infrastructure for future growth • Build toward restoration of desired services
F22:
Twenty-two percent of the Sheriff’s Department budget for FY2004-2005 comes from contract cities (Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai and Thousand Oaks).
F23:
Forty-six percent of the Sheriff’s Department budget for FY2004-2005 comes from the county general fund.
F24:
With the closure of the East County Jail, officers patrolling in the east end of the county must drive to the Main Jail to book a suspect.
F25:
The distance between the Main Jail and the Simi Valley City Hall is approximately 40 miles.
F26:
The distance between the Main Jail and the Thousand Oaks City Hall is approximately 24 miles.
F27:
The time to drive from the east end of the county to the Main Jail, book a suspect, return to the east end and resume patrol duties is estimated to take two to two and a half hours.
F28:
Deputies in the field have some discretion with respect to either booking a suspect or citing and releasing.
F29:
There is no Sheriff’s Department policy to encourage citing and releasing suspects rather than booking to avoid the delay in transporting suspects to the Main Jail.
F30:
Although they are the exception, there are instances when officers in the east end of the county cite and release, so as to avoid being off the street during the time necessary to book at the Main Jail.
F31:
On April 5, 2005, the Board of Supervisors voted to settle lawsuits involving the Board, the Sheriff and the District Attorney. The lawsuit dealt with the provisions of Proposition 172 and Ordinance 4088.
F32:
The settlement described above enables the sheriff to reopen the East County Jail.
F33:
The Sheriff’s Department’s current plan is to reopen the jail during the peak 12 hours starting in September of this year and will make the facility fully operational early in 2006. Conclusions C-01. The Sheriff’s Department’s process in establishing priorities, in an environment of declining financial resources, was reasonable and prudent, and consistent with the department’s mandatory and statutory responsibilities. (F-04, F-05, F-15 thru F-18) C-02. The Sheriff’s Department’s decisions as to which staff members and programs were to be eliminated were consistent with the department’s priorities. (F-04, F-05, F-12, F-13, F-14, F-19, F-20, F-21, F-33) C-03. “Citing and releasing” of suspects so as to avoid booking in the Main Jail was being done by some deputies in the east county. (F-24 thru F-30) C-04. Keeping the East County Jail fully operational should continue to be a high priority. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-06 thru F-11, F-30, F-22, F-31, F-32, F-33) Recommendations In light of the recent lawsuit settlement between the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff and the District Attorney, which allows for the reopening of the East County Jail and the Sheriff’s decision to reopen it, the Grand Jury has no recommendation. Responses None required. (This page intentionally left blank)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
45 hallazgos
F01:
A City document titled “City of San Buenaventura; Access to Public Records,” dated January 2005, states: “With certain exceptions, all records of the City are public documents to which the public is entitled access.”
F02:
Written City procedures define the fee for requested records, the expected time to reproduce and other pertinent information.
F03:
A written request form is most often used by Clerk employees in responding to a request for records.
F04:
Records dealing with personnel information, law suits, claims and other like matters are considered exempt from general public access.
F05:
Information related to Cemetery Memorial Park does not fall under the category of exempt records.
F06:
City policies demand that requests for public records be honored and processed in a timely fashion.
F07:
No evidence of deviation from policy and procedure was found.
F08:
No evidence of direction or request to withhold public records were found.
F09:
The Grand Jury requested and received a number of public records from the Clerk’s office.
F10:
Employees in the City Clerk’s office were cooperative and knowledgeable in the performance of their duties. Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 3 Cemetery Memorial Park
F11:
Deeds transferring the ownership of the two parcels known as the Protestant and Hebrew sections of the cemetery site are not available.
F12:
Memoranda provided by the City indicate the City acquired the Protestant and Hebrew section of the cemetery by a combination of the following actions: • The City Cemetery was shown on an official City map in 1887. • The City passed Ordinance No. 41 in 1889 to provide for regulating and protecting the public cemetery. • The City Cemetery was shown on an official City map in 1889. • The City passed Ordinance No. 86 in 1896 to set up a cemetery fund. • The City assumed ownership under provisions of the State Political Code (currently found in section 8126 of the California Health and Safety Code).
F13:
Memoranda provided by the City indicate that the City of Ventura acquired title to the Protestant and Hebrew sections of the cemetery site in 1889.
F14:
The City passed an ordinance in 1944 prohibiting burials within the city limits.
F15:
Memoranda provided by the City indicate that for many years the Protestant and Hebrew cemeteries were allowed to deteriorate.
F16:
Memoranda provided by the City indicate that for many years the St. Mary’s Cemetery was allowed to deteriorate.
F17:
The City acquired ownership of the 1.12 acre westernmost portion of St. Mary’s Cemetery in 1955 after a negotiation with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, a Superior Court condemnation judgment and the payment of $15,000 to the Archbishop (Archdiocese).
F18:
The City acquired ownership of the 2.57 acre portion of St. Mary’s Cemetery in 1965 when the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles deeded the property to the City.
F19:
The deed transferring ownership of the 2.57 acre portion of St. Mary’s Cemetery to the City states: “Said real property is granted for cemetery use, provided, however, that if said cemetery is abandoned or no longer maintained for such purposes, the real property shall revert to the grantor.”
F20:
A memorandum to the City Council from the City Manager, dated March 22, 1963, stated there are a total of 2,298 graves on the cemetery property. Msgr. Francis J. Webber, Archivist for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, writing in the Ventura County Historic Society Quarterly, Fall 1980, stated there are approximately 2,980 internments, but the exact number cannot be determined. Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park
F21:
Msgr. Francis J. Webber, Archivist for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, writing in the Ventura County Historic Society Quarterly, Fall 1980, states “… the westernmost 110 feet of Saint Mary’s Cemetery were never developed for interment purposes…”
F22:
The cover letter to a 2005 City sponsored public survey dealing with Cemetery Memorial Park states, “According to written statements from the Catholic Archdiocese, the westernmost 110x400 feet does not contain any gravesites.” The same letter states, “Various informational sources indicate that there may possibly be burials in this area.”
F23:
In 1955 the City built a youth recreation center on the southern end of the westernmost portion of St. Mary’s Cemetery.
F24:
Sometime shortly after 1955, the youth recreation center was demolished due to severe slippages and unstable land.
F25:
Since 1944, as families of those interred moved away, private attention to the graves grew less frequent.
F26:
Since 1944, as earlier sources of revenue such as income from sale of plots and family provided bonds were depleted, maintenance of the cemetery gradually stopped.
F27:
Memoranda provided by the City show that there was almost no maintenance or attention to any of the graves, except the City’s annual weeding and cleaning, for the twenty years prior to the City’s cemetery improvement project.
F28:
Memoranda provided by the City show that vandalism such as the pushing over breaking and carrying off of headstones was a common occurrence.
F29:
In 1963 the City adopted a plan to improve the cemetery site.
F30:
Memoranda provided by the City cite the Health and Safety Code of California as the legal basis giving the City the authority to proceed with the cemetery improvement plan.
F31:
Memoranda provided by the City indicate the Health and Safety Code of California, section 7600 as the authority to remove human remains from a cemetery that has not had an interment for a period of two years.
F32:
The cemetery improvement plan, proposed by the City Manager and adopted by the City Council in March 1963, called for the following: • Remove all existing markers • Flush grade the area • Install walkways • Install benches and fountains • Install plantings • Install lawn Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 5 • In place of individual headstones, set small brass markers flush with the ground with a number keyed to a large memorial • Two memorials, one each for the Catholic and Protestant sections may be required • The memorials will carry the names of all those interred
F33:
The City notified the families of the deceased of the planned development by mail, sent letters to all local churches and published articles about the project in local newspapers.
F34:
A form letter (presented in its entirety in Attachment 3), sent to one particular family, dated January 3, 1964, and signed by the City Manager, states, in part, the following: Over 90% of the graves are no longer cared for. Headstones have been broken and moved, curbing has deteriorated, and iron work has rusted away. We feel this condition should not be permitted to continue, yet the expense of putting all the plots back into original condition with proper plantings, and repairing or resetting existing monuments, would be very high. Furthermore, if this was done, maintenance would be extremely costly because of the necessity to hand-trim between plots and around monuments. Also there was no perpetual care fund provided to take care of this expense. We propose to remove all existing markers, finish-grade the area, install walkways, benches and fountains, plantings and lawn; but rather than install individual stones, set small brass markers flush with the ground, with the number keyed to a large memorial. It will be necessary to have separate memorials for the Catholic and Protestant sections. These memorials would carry the names of all those interred, including all graves that are not now marked. The proposed program has been explained to the Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles and is acceptable to the Church. A deed to their property will be granted to the City, provided the work is done as outlined.
F35:
Cemetery Memorial Park does not have walkways, fountains or grave markers flush with the ground, with the numbers keyed to either a large single memorial or separate memorials for the Catholic and Protestant sections.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Ventura thoughtfully consider a wide range of options in the on-going process to improve Cemetery Memorial Park. (C-07 thru C-12)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Ventura consider improvement options that will rectify the mistakes of the past and re-establish a more serene and sacred environment more consistent with a cemetery. (C-07 thru C-12)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Ventura consider improvement options that will appropriately acknowledge the historical significance of those interred on the site. (C-07 thru C-12)
F36:
The City has a policy and procedure for installing grave markers for anyone interred in Cemetery Memorial Park, if requested by a family member. The City’s Park Division will establish the location and perform the physical installation. The family member will bear the cost for the marker and the installation. Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park
F37:
Cemetery Memorial Park has had a number of flush-mounted markers installed since the cemetery was converted to a dual-function cemetery and park.
F38:
Memoranda provided by the City indicate that 500 tombstones and crypts were removed and stored in a variety of locations during a seven year period.
F39:
Memoranda provided by the City indicate that some tombstones and crypts were used to protect the Olivas Park and Golf Course, some destroyed and others discarded.
F40:
Cemetery Memorial Park, located in a residential section of the city, is a well maintained passive park with trees, shrubs, a grass lawn and an unrestricted view of the ocean.
F41:
Cemetery Memorial Park is used by individuals, families and pets.
F42:
The City provides bags and a container for the removal of dog waste in the park.
F43:
The City has installed signage to encourage dog owners to pick up after their pets.
F44:
The City has installed signage requiring dog owners to obey the City’s leash laws.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Ventura enforce the existing leash laws. (C-14) 8 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park Response City Manager of the City of San Buenaventura (R-01 thru R-04) Attachments 1. A Brief History of Cemetery Memorial Park 2. Aerial Photograph Showing Cemetery Memorial Park, (2004) 3. Letter from the City of San Buenaventura titled “Proposed Improvement – City Cemetery,” dated 1964 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 9 A Brief History of Cemetery Memorial Park Introduction Cemetery Memorial Park, consisting of 7.09 acres, is located in the City of San Buenaventura (Ventura). An aerial photograph is presented in Attachment 2. It lies between Main Street to the south, Poli Street to the north, and is bounded on the east by Aliso Lane. It served as a city cemetery from 1862 until 1944 when the City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting burials within the city limits. Throughout its history the property has had a number of different owners. Since 1969 it has been a dual- function cemetery and park. Cemetery Memorial Park now consists of the following three separate parcels: (1) the westernmost 1.12 acres (110x400 feet), (2) an adjacent middle 2.57 acres (290x400 feet), and (3) an easternmost 3.4 acres (370x400 feet). Originally the westernmost and the middle parcels were one 3.69-acre unit (400x400 feet). Early records indicate that the easternmost portion was longer than it is today by 30 feet. To date no record was found showing what became of the 30 foot strip. However the easternmost edge of the parcel is adjacent to Aliso Lane, so the 30 feet may have been used to make the street. Chain of Ownership In 1862, the two western parcels (3.69 acres) were deeded as a single unit to the Catholic Diocese of Monterey by George Wright, Henry Webb, Edmund Goold and Daniel Waterman. This land was subsequently given the name St. Mary’s Cemetery. In 1870 the San Buenaventura Commercial Manufacturing and Mining Company deeded the eastern parcel (3.4 acres) to the First Presbyterian Church of San Buenaventura. The deed identified the parcel as being east of and adjacent to the Catholic Cemetery (St. Mary’s) and measured 400x400 feet. This portion of the property is often referred to as the Protestant Cemetery. In 1876 the Presbyterian Church of San Buenaventura transferred title of the easternmost 100 feet of their property to the Hebrew Cemetery Association. In 1955 ownership of the 1.12 acre westernmost portion of St. Mary’s Cemetery was transferred to the City of Ventura after a negotiation between the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles and the City, a Superior Court condemnation judgment, and the payment of $15,000 to the Archbishop (Archdiocese). The City purchased the land for the purpose of building a youth center. It was completed in 1955 and had to be demolished some years later as a result of unstable land beneath the building. Attachment (1) 1 of 5 10 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park In 1965 the remaining portion of St. Mary’s Cemetery (2.57 acres) was deeded to the City of Ventura by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles. The grant deed specifies, “Said real property is granted for cemetery use, provided, however, that if said cemetery is abandoned or no longer maintained for such purposes, the real property shall revert to the grantor.” The chain of ownership of the Protestant portion is somewhat incomplete because no deed exists transferring the property from the First Presbyterian Church of San Buenaventura to the City. In 1940 the City Attorney advised that the City had assumed control of the Protestant Cemetery, including the Hebrew portion, as the result of four actions. In 1887 the cemetery was shown on an official City map. In May 1889, Ordinance No. 41 was passed to provide for regulating and protecting the public cemetery. In June of the same year the cemetery was once again shown on an official map. In 1896, Ordinance No. 86 was passed to set up a cemetery fund. In a letter to the City Council in 1963, the City Manager stated the following, “Control of the Protestant portion of the cemetery, including the area deeded to the Hebrew Cemetery Association, was apparently assumed by the City under provisions of the State Political Code (currently found in section 8126 of the Health and Safety Code).” He goes on to cite Ordinance No. 41 and 86 and suggests “evidence of control is implied” in these ordinances. In 1950, the Catholic Diocese of Los Angeles deeded a 10-foot strip of land along the north side of St. Mary’s Cemetery on Poli Street for beautification purposes and future widening of the street. In 1955, the property at 1268 Poli Street and adjacent to the westernmost portion of Cemetery Memorial Park was deeded to the City for approximately $6,500. Cemetery Conversion There have been a number of proposals and plans suggesting different usages for the land now called Cemetery Memorial Park. In 1938, the City Council proposed that the then City Cemetery be converted into a park, but this proposal was not adopted. In 1945, there was a suggestion to build a church on the St. Mary’s Cemetery portion. This proposal also was never implemented. In 1949, the City Planning Commission requested the City Council to authorize a survey relative to vacating the cemetery and acquiring the property for multiple housing. This too never came to be. In 1953 the City Council approved a plan to build a youth center on the westernmost 1.12 acres (110 foot strip) of St. Mary’s Cemetery. Attachment (1) 2 of 5 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 11 In 1955 the youth center was completed. In 1962 the City approved a budget and began planning for beautification and conversion of the cemetery into a memorial park. The opening paragraph of a City Report, titled “Report – San Buenaventura Memorial Park,” dated December 6, 1967, and unsigned, describes Cemetery Memorial Park prior to the conversion as, “…a source of embarrassment to all who lived there. Its tumbled and broken headstones indicated a neglect entirely uncharacteristic of this well-kept community.” The report further states that City officials planted high dense hedges to hide the cemetery from view. In a section, titled Legal Authority to Proceed, the same report states, in part, the following: The Health and Safety Code of California gives significant authority to the City. In the exercise of the police power, the City may forbid all future burials in the City in the interest of public health and general welfare. Under section 7600 the City may, by ordinance, compel the removal of human remains from cemeteries in which no interments have been made for a period of two years. When all such remains have been removed, the city, as the cemetery authority, may sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber the land as granted by section 7900. It is obvious that if the City is given authority to disinter and remove remains from a cemetery within a city and thereafter sell the land, the headstones can also be removed. In 1963, in a report to the City Council, the City Manager stated, “There are a total of 2,298 graves on record in both cemeteries. Less than half of these have an existing monument.” He further stated that there are approximately 600 monuments. He recommended two alternative plans for the improvement of the City Cemetery and the City Council approved the following: Remove all existing markers, flush grade the area, install walkways, benches and fountains, plantings, and lawn, but rather than install individual stones, set small brass markers flush with the ground with a number keyed to a large memorial. It probably would be necessary to have separate monuments for the Catholic and Protestant sections. These memorials would carry the names of all those interred. The City notified the families of the deceased of the planned development by mail, sent letters to all local churches, and published articles about the project in local newspapers. A form letter, sent to one particular family, dated January 3, 1964, signed by the City Manager and presented in Attachment 3 states, in part, the following: Over 90% of the graves are no longer cared for. Headstones have been Attachment (1) 3 of 5 12 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park broken and moved, curbing has deteriorated, and iron work has rusted away. We feel this condition should not be permitted to continue, yet the expense of putting all the plots back into original condition with proper plantings, and repairing or resetting existing monuments, would be very high. Furthermore, if this was done, maintenance would be extremely costly because of the necessity to hand-trim between plots and around monuments. Also, there was no perpetual care fund provided to take care of this expense. We propose to remove all existing markers, finish-grade the area, install walkways, benches and fountains, plantings and lawn; but rather than install individual stones, set small brass markers flush with the ground, with the number keyed to a large memorial. It will be necessary to have separate memorials for the Catholic and Protestant sections. These memorials would carry the names of all those interred, including all graves that are not now marked. The proposed program has been explained to the Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles and is acceptable to the Church. A deed to their property will be granted to the City, provided the work is done as outlined. A self-addressed postal card was enclosed with the letter for the family member to indicate his or her approval and comments of the cemetery improvement plan. In 1964 the City Manager, in a letter to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles stated: “All of the families that we sent written notice to have returned cards indicating approval of our program. There were no protests filed on any of the interments within St. Mary’s Cemetery.... The tomb stones are being catalogued and stored on City property so that families can take the markers if they wish.” Tombstones and Crypts Removal In 1965 the City reported that the City Cemetery Tombstones and Crypts removal was completed. The City began storing them initially at Hall Canyon City Parks Yard, where they remained for about five years. In 1969 the conversion was completed and what was once three cemeteries became a dual-purpose cemetery and park. In a City report titled Report – San Buenaventura Memorial Park, dated December 6, 1967, a section, titled Public Relations Effort states in part: There is no specific ordinance covering the ownership of headstones. Presumably a headstone belongs to the heir of the deceased. The stones taken from the City Cemetery were arranged in alphabetical order in the Park Department Yard and the heirs who could be located were invited to claim them.... It was decided all unclaimed stones would be kept a Attachment (1) 4 of 5 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 13 minimum of five years and then disposed of by burying or dropping them into the ocean. The footings and bases have been placed on a levee which was built to protect the new Olivas Park and Golf Course. In a memorandum from the Director of Parks, dated July 2, 1970, to the City Manager, it is stated, “Presently there are about five hundred (500) tombstones stored on city property for five years as requested by the City Attorney.” The Director continues with the recommendation that they not be given to the public but rather be hauled to the levee and forgotten so as to not turn up in a backyard patio. In response to the memorandum, the City Attorney recommended they be held for seven years and then disposed of as the Director of Parks sees fit. Some of the tombstones appear to have been moved to a city-owned parcel of land across from the Hall Canyon Yard and others hauled to Olivas Levee. ___________________________________ May 15, 2005 This summary was prepared by the Ventura County 2004-2005 Grand Jury from information provided by the City of San Buenaventura. Attachment (1) 5 of 5 14 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park Attachment 2 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 15 Attachment (3) 1 of 2 16 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park Attachment (3) 2 of 2 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 17 (This page intentionally left blank) 18 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park
F45:
There is no signage identifying the property as a cemetery. Conclusions Public Access to Public Records C-01. The Grand Jury was unable to find evidence that employees in the Clerk’s office of the City of Ventura failed to provide requested public documents and files concerning Cemetery Memorial Park. (F-01 thru F-10) C-02. The Grand Jury was unable to find evidence that employees in the Clerk’s office of the City of Ventura were either directed or requested to withhold public information concerning Cemetery Memorial Park. (F-01 thru F-10) C-03. The Clerk’s office has in place appropriate policies and procedures to adequately deal with requests for public records. (F-01 thru F-10) C-04. Employees in the Clerk’s office are knowledgeable and cooperative in the performance of their duties. (F-01 thru F-10) Cemetery Memorial Park C-05. The Grand Jury found no evidence of anything illegal in the acquisition of the property known as Cemetery Memorial Park. (F-11 thru F-19, F-21, F-22, F- 25 thru F-28) C-06. The Grand Jury found no evidence of anything illegal in the conversion of the Catholic, Protestant, and Hebrew cemeteries into a dual-function cemetery and park. (F-21 thru F-34) Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 7 C-07. The City appears to have been somewhat insensitive to those interred in the cemetery, their families, and the cemetery’s historical significance. (F-15, F- 16, F-25 thru F-28, F-35, F-38, F-39, F-45) C-08. The City allowed the Protestant and Hebrew sections of the cemetery to deteriorate without taking appropriate action. (F-15, F-25 thru F-28) C-09. The City failed to compel the Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles to take appropriate action to prevent the deterioration of St. Mary’s Cemetery. (F-16,
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
A Brief History of Cemetery Memorial Park
R2:
Aerial Photograph Showing Cemetery Memorial Park, (2004)
R3:
Letter from the City of San Buenaventura titled “Proposed Improvement – City Cemetery,” dated 1964 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 9 A Brief History of Cemetery Memorial Park Introduction Cemetery Memorial Park, consisting of 7.09 acres, is located in the City of San Buenaventura (Ventura). An aerial photograph is presented in Attachment 2. It lies between Main Street to the south, Poli Street to the north, and is bounded on the east by Aliso Lane. It served as a city cemetery from 1862 until 1944 when the City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting burials within the city limits. Throughout its history the property has had a number of different owners. Since 1969 it has been a dual- function cemetery and park. Cemetery Memorial Park now consists of the following three separate parcels: (1) the westernmost 1.12 acres (110x400 feet), (2) an adjacent middle 2.57 acres (290x400 feet), and (3) an easternmost 3.4 acres (370x400 feet). Originally the westernmost and the middle parcels were one 3.69-acre unit (400x400 feet). Early records indicate that the easternmost portion was longer than it is today by 30 feet. To date no record was found showing what became of the 30 foot strip. However the easternmost edge of the parcel is adjacent to Aliso Lane, so the 30 feet may have been used to make the street. Chain of Ownership In 1862, the two western parcels (3.69 acres) were deeded as a single unit to the Catholic Diocese of Monterey by George Wright, Henry Webb, Edmund Goold and Daniel Waterman. This land was subsequently given the name St. Mary’s Cemetery. In 1870 the San Buenaventura Commercial Manufacturing and Mining Company deeded the eastern parcel (3.4 acres) to the First Presbyterian Church of San Buenaventura. The deed identified the parcel as being east of and adjacent to the Catholic Cemetery (St. Mary’s) and measured 400x400 feet. This portion of the property is often referred to as the Protestant Cemetery. In 1876 the Presbyterian Church of San Buenaventura transferred title of the easternmost 100 feet of their property to the Hebrew Cemetery Association. In 1955 ownership of the 1.12 acre westernmost portion of St. Mary’s Cemetery was transferred to the City of Ventura after a negotiation between the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles and the City, a Superior Court condemnation judgment, and the payment of $15,000 to the Archbishop (Archdiocese). The City purchased the land for the purpose of building a youth center. It was completed in 1955 and had to be demolished some years later as a result of unstable land beneath the building. Attachment (1) 1 of 5 10 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park In 1965 the remaining portion of St. Mary’s Cemetery (2.57 acres) was deeded to the City of Ventura by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles. The grant deed specifies, “Said real property is granted for cemetery use, provided, however, that if said cemetery is abandoned or no longer maintained for such purposes, the real property shall revert to the grantor.” The chain of ownership of the Protestant portion is somewhat incomplete because no deed exists transferring the property from the First Presbyterian Church of San Buenaventura to the City. In 1940 the City Attorney advised that the City had assumed control of the Protestant Cemetery, including the Hebrew portion, as the result of four actions. In 1887 the cemetery was shown on an official City map. In May 1889, Ordinance No. 41 was passed to provide for regulating and protecting the public cemetery. In June of the same year the cemetery was once again shown on an official map. In 1896, Ordinance No. 86 was passed to set up a cemetery fund. In a letter to the City Council in 1963, the City Manager stated the following, “Control of the Protestant portion of the cemetery, including the area deeded to the Hebrew Cemetery Association, was apparently assumed by the City under provisions of the State Political Code (currently found in section 8126 of the Health and Safety Code).” He goes on to cite Ordinance No. 41 and 86 and suggests “evidence of control is implied” in these ordinances. In 1950, the Catholic Diocese of Los Angeles deeded a 10-foot strip of land along the north side of St. Mary’s Cemetery on Poli Street for beautification purposes and future widening of the street. In 1955, the property at 1268 Poli Street and adjacent to the westernmost portion of Cemetery Memorial Park was deeded to the City for approximately $6,500. Cemetery Conversion There have been a number of proposals and plans suggesting different usages for the land now called Cemetery Memorial Park. In 1938, the City Council proposed that the then City Cemetery be converted into a park, but this proposal was not adopted. In 1945, there was a suggestion to build a church on the St. Mary’s Cemetery portion. This proposal also was never implemented. In 1949, the City Planning Commission requested the City Council to authorize a survey relative to vacating the cemetery and acquiring the property for multiple housing. This too never came to be. In 1953 the City Council approved a plan to build a youth center on the westernmost 1.12 acres (110 foot strip) of St. Mary’s Cemetery. Attachment (1) 2 of 5 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 11 In 1955 the youth center was completed. In 1962 the City approved a budget and began planning for beautification and conversion of the cemetery into a memorial park. The opening paragraph of a City Report, titled “Report – San Buenaventura Memorial Park,” dated December 6, 1967, and unsigned, describes Cemetery Memorial Park prior to the conversion as, “…a source of embarrassment to all who lived there. Its tumbled and broken headstones indicated a neglect entirely uncharacteristic of this well-kept community.” The report further states that City officials planted high dense hedges to hide the cemetery from view. In a section, titled Legal Authority to Proceed, the same report states, in part, the following: The Health and Safety Code of California gives significant authority to the City. In the exercise of the police power, the City may forbid all future burials in the City in the interest of public health and general welfare. Under section 7600 the City may, by ordinance, compel the removal of human remains from cemeteries in which no interments have been made for a period of two years. When all such remains have been removed, the city, as the cemetery authority, may sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber the land as granted by section 7900. It is obvious that if the City is given authority to disinter and remove remains from a cemetery within a city and thereafter sell the land, the headstones can also be removed. In 1963, in a report to the City Council, the City Manager stated, “There are a total of 2,298 graves on record in both cemeteries. Less than half of these have an existing monument.” He further stated that there are approximately 600 monuments. He recommended two alternative plans for the improvement of the City Cemetery and the City Council approved the following: Remove all existing markers, flush grade the area, install walkways, benches and fountains, plantings, and lawn, but rather than install individual stones, set small brass markers flush with the ground with a number keyed to a large memorial. It probably would be necessary to have separate monuments for the Catholic and Protestant sections. These memorials would carry the names of all those interred. The City notified the families of the deceased of the planned development by mail, sent letters to all local churches, and published articles about the project in local newspapers. A form letter, sent to one particular family, dated January 3, 1964, signed by the City Manager and presented in Attachment 3 states, in part, the following: Over 90% of the graves are no longer cared for. Headstones have been Attachment (1) 3 of 5 12 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park broken and moved, curbing has deteriorated, and iron work has rusted away. We feel this condition should not be permitted to continue, yet the expense of putting all the plots back into original condition with proper plantings, and repairing or resetting existing monuments, would be very high. Furthermore, if this was done, maintenance would be extremely costly because of the necessity to hand-trim between plots and around monuments. Also, there was no perpetual care fund provided to take care of this expense. We propose to remove all existing markers, finish-grade the area, install walkways, benches and fountains, plantings and lawn; but rather than install individual stones, set small brass markers flush with the ground, with the number keyed to a large memorial. It will be necessary to have separate memorials for the Catholic and Protestant sections. These memorials would carry the names of all those interred, including all graves that are not now marked. The proposed program has been explained to the Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles and is acceptable to the Church. A deed to their property will be granted to the City, provided the work is done as outlined. A self-addressed postal card was enclosed with the letter for the family member to indicate his or her approval and comments of the cemetery improvement plan. In 1964 the City Manager, in a letter to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles stated: “All of the families that we sent written notice to have returned cards indicating approval of our program. There were no protests filed on any of the interments within St. Mary’s Cemetery.... The tomb stones are being catalogued and stored on City property so that families can take the markers if they wish.” Tombstones and Crypts Removal In 1965 the City reported that the City Cemetery Tombstones and Crypts removal was completed. The City began storing them initially at Hall Canyon City Parks Yard, where they remained for about five years. In 1969 the conversion was completed and what was once three cemeteries became a dual-purpose cemetery and park. In a City report titled Report – San Buenaventura Memorial Park, dated December 6, 1967, a section, titled Public Relations Effort states in part: There is no specific ordinance covering the ownership of headstones. Presumably a headstone belongs to the heir of the deceased. The stones taken from the City Cemetery were arranged in alphabetical order in the Park Department Yard and the heirs who could be located were invited to claim them.... It was decided all unclaimed stones would be kept a Attachment (1) 4 of 5 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 13 minimum of five years and then disposed of by burying or dropping them into the ocean. The footings and bases have been placed on a levee which was built to protect the new Olivas Park and Golf Course. In a memorandum from the Director of Parks, dated July 2, 1970, to the City Manager, it is stated, “Presently there are about five hundred (500) tombstones stored on city property for five years as requested by the City Attorney.” The Director continues with the recommendation that they not be given to the public but rather be hauled to the levee and forgotten so as to not turn up in a backyard patio. In response to the memorandum, the City Attorney recommended they be held for seven years and then disposed of as the Director of Parks sees fit. Some of the tombstones appear to have been moved to a city-owned parcel of land across from the Hall Canyon Yard and others hauled to Olivas Levee. ___________________________________ May 15, 2005 This summary was prepared by the Ventura County 2004-2005 Grand Jury from information provided by the City of San Buenaventura. Attachment (1) 5 of 5 14 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park Attachment 2 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 15 Attachment (3) 1 of 2 16 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park Attachment (3) 2 of 2 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park 17 (This page intentionally left blank) 18 Public Right to Public Records And Cemetery Memorial Park
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
25 hallazgos
F01:
SCAT currently employs 91 bus drivers for a fleet of 70 vehicles, consisting of 49 buses and 21 sedans and vans. The 49 buses include 3 diesel powered and 46 using compressed natural gas (CNG) engines. Vehicle Operators
F02:
Vehicle operators must undergo training (8 hours of classroom or 8 hours behind-the-wheel) every 12 months and maintain a valid medical certificate as required by California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 12804.6 and Educational Code section 40085.5.
F03:
The Motor Carriers Division of the CHP administers a Biennial Inspection of Terminals (BIT) program. The program was created by the California Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1988.
F04:
One part of the BIT program requires SCAT to enroll its bus drivers in the Department of Motor Vehicles program known as the Pull Notice Program.
F05:
Upon receipt of an employee's driving record, the Pull Notice Coordinator will notify the employee's supervisor of any activity that warrants further review or discussion, as defined in section 1808.1 of the CVC.
F06:
Drivers may drive no more than ten hours following eight hours of off duty (California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Division 2).
F07:
All SCAT drivers are randomly tested for drugs (Section 34520 CVC and 49CFR 382).
F08:
All buses are equipped with two-way radios for emergency assistance.
F09:
Road calls include reporting tire damage from road debris, the malfunction of coin boxes and unsafe conditions. Vehicle Maintenance
F10:
There are safety and vehicle maintenance considerations in the use of CNG to fuel buses. A CNG vehicle systems check must be performed on the methane and fire suppression systems. There is a mandatory annual tank inspection.
F11:
SCAT vehicle maintenance is identified by one of three priority levels: (1) intermediate, (2) operator, or (3) preventive. These levels are determined primarily by the nature of the repair.
F12:
Intermediate maintenance is typically required to correct defects reported by operators. These defects would typically be equipment failures or safety concerns that the operators believe would render the vehicles unsafe to operate.
F13:
Operator maintenance includes activities that every bus operator is required to perform. The intent is to maintain the equipment in a safe, clean and serviceable condition and to ensure early detection of defects or malfunctions that might lead to unsafe conditions or costly repairs.
F14:
Preventive maintenance includes activities that are scheduled to avoid unnecessary repairs. All SCAT vehicles are scheduled for inspection every 60 days or 3,000 miles.
F15:
A special category of work is performed by the maintenance operators. This includes replacement of driver seats for maximum comfort, replacing wheel chair and bike rack straps with upgraded strength, and various cosmetic repairs.
F16:
All bus terminals are rated “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory.” SCAT has never received an “unsatisfactory” report (CHP 343 [Rev. 10-00] 0PI 062). Fares and Money Handling
F17:
Each bus is equipped with a fare box.
F18:
On occasion the fare box will become jammed. This usually happens because a passenger has accidentally dropped something along with coins into the fare box.
F19:
When the fare box becomes jammed there is a coin bypass that can be activated. This practice is not always successful.
F20:
SCAT has a road call service. Drivers can call for a fare box replacement.
F21:
The operator has a computer that tallies the fares as the passengers deposit them. This tabulation includes money, tokens and passes. The count is not meant to be 100% accurate.
F22:
SCAT facility operates a small secure money counting room. This room contains a large safe, coin and bill counters and four security cameras. The only door is self-locking and four employees have keys. The safe can be accessed from either inside the room or from an opening on the outside wall.
F23:
When a bus returns to the terminal at the end of the day the fare box is removed by garage personnel. It is then taken to the outside wall of the counting room where it is connected to the safe and the money is funneled inside.
F24:
The money is not touched from the time it enters the fare box until it is being counted.
F25:
The money is collected every day in the same manner. On Monday, Wednesday and Friday the money is removed from the safe in buckets and counted by four employees. It is then bagged, sealed and taken to the bank by security truck. Conclusions C-01. SCAT follows a well-documented plan of maintenance. Passenger safety and employee safety are a direct result of SCAT’s maintenance. (F-11 thru F-14) C-02. Driver certifications are in conformance to specified requirements. (F-02, F-03,
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
68 hallazgos
F01:
California law has established “safe and sane” fireworks standards that allow the sale and use of small fireworks but outlaw the sale and use of larger pyrotechnics by the general public. "Safe and sane" fireworks include cones that shoot showers of sparks up into the air (less than 8 feet), Piccolo Petes and pinwheels. Any fireworks that cause explosions or that rise more than 8 feet into the air are illegal.
F02:
All Ventura County cities ban the sale and use of the larger pyrotechnics except for use by licensed professionals presenting the fireworks shows hosted by the cities. Fillmore
F03:
The City of Fillmore authorizes the sale and use of "safe and sane" fireworks between the hours of noon on June 28th and noon on July 5th.
F04:
A maximum of 25 vendors is allowed. Most are established repeat vendors.
F05:
Training of vendors is mandatory. They must display signs clearly labeled that the use of the fireworks being sold is only legal in the City of Fillmore. A person must be at least 16 years of age to buy fireworks and must be at least 18 years of age to sell them. Vendors cannot hand the purchased fireworks to a child.
F06:
The State Fire Marshal, who regulates the booth inspection and approves fireworks to be sold, licenses the vendors. The booths are also licensed by the City of Fillmore.
F07:
In addition to Fillmore there are 81 other cities in California that have legalized the selling of "safe and sane" fireworks.
F08:
In 2003, fireworks booths in Fillmore generated $1.3 million in gross sales.
F09:
Each vendor pays a $400 concession fee to the city.
F10:
After overhead, consisting of staff time, the cost to process the concession fees and the cost of fire inspections, the remainder of the fee provides a no- entrance-fee community fireworks show.
F11:
The City of Fillmore earns 1% sales tax from fireworks purchases amounting to approximately $13,000 per year.
F12:
The City of Fillmore confiscates illegal fireworks which are then turned over to the Sheriff's bomb team for destruction.
F13:
The Sheriff's Department monitors the highway for sales of illegal fireworks.
F14:
Fillmore experiences two to three brush fires per year, some due to illegal fireworks. The police department receives many nuisance (noise) calls related to fireworks, however, the problems are 100% attributable to illegal fireworks as opposed to the legal ones. Oxnard
F15:
In the City of Oxnard all sales and use of fireworks by the public are illegal.
F16:
There were 311 telephone calls for service received by the Oxnard police department that related to illegal fireworks in 2003 and 379 calls in 2004. The time span of these calls was from July 4th to July 5th.
F17:
The police department arrested 3 people and issued 145 citations for illegal fireworks in 2004.
F18:
The police department spent $40,377 in 2004 enforcing the fireworks ordinances.
F19:
There was one injury and no fires attributable to fireworks in 2004. The fire department spent $1,886 to provide stand-by crews during the "fireworks season."
F20:
Persons from whom illegal fireworks were confiscated reported that they had obtained them from China via Mexico, from Fillmore, San Fernando and the Internet.
F21:
The police department reported that a new city ordinance that will increase the fine for fireworks violations up to a maximum of $1,000 is scheduled for final approval by the city in June 2005. Simi Valley
F22:
Simi Valley Police Department reported that there were 638 calls for service relating to fireworks from July 1st to July 8th in 2004.
F23:
There were no arrests but some citations were given during that period.
F24:
Simi Valley Police Department's Special Operations Unit is responsible for enforcing the fireworks ordinances, but there was no dollar figure available for the cost to the city during this period.
F25:
There were no fireworks related injuries or fires in 2004, but the fire department spent $3,987 for standby crews during fireworks season.
F26:
Confiscated fireworks had been obtained from Fillmore, Culver City, San Fernando and the Internet. Ventura
F27:
Ventura Police Department reported 218 fireworks related calls in 2002 (112 of them on July 4th), 407 calls in 2003 (219 on July 4th), and 501 calls in 2004 (201 on July 4th).
F28:
The fireworks season is from July 2 to July 5.
F29:
No arrests were made and 40 citations were issued during the 2004 season.
F30:
The police department spent $22,808 in overtime in 2004 over the 4th of July weekend.
F31:
There were no fires or injuries attributable to fireworks in Ventura in 2004.
F32:
The amount spent by the Ventura Fire Department for standby crews in 2004 was $12,789.
F33:
Confiscated fireworks had reportedly been purchased from China, Mexico, Nevada and Fillmore. Camarillo
F34:
The Camarillo Police Department reported 28 fireworks related calls for service in 2001, 27 calls in 2002, 59 calls in 2003 and 51 calls in 2004.
F35:
The fireworks season is from July 4 to July 6.
F36:
There were four arrests and no citations given during that time span in 2004.
F37:
The police department spent $2,984 in 2004 for fireworks enforcement.
F38:
There was one fire attributable to fireworks in 2004.
F39:
Cost to the fire department covering the City of Camarillo was not received by the Grand Jury.
F40:
Confiscated fireworks came from friends, the Palms Springs Indian Reservation and Tijuana, Mexico. Moorpark
F41:
During the one and a half-week fireworks season, there were 32 calls for service to the police department in 2001, 38 calls in 2002, 57 calls in 2003 and 69 calls in 2004.
F42:
The police reported no arrests or citations for fireworks during 2004.
F43:
The amount spent by police for enforcement of fireworks codes in 2004 was not received by the Grand Jury.
F44:
The fire department reported an expenditure of $1,886 for standby crews in 2004.
F45:
Confiscated fireworks came from “adjacent states.” Santa Paula
F46:
The police department reported that during the approximate one-week fireworks period there were 101 related calls for service in 2001, 128 calls in 2002, 117 calls in 2003 and 205 calls in 2004.
F47:
There were no arrests or citations for fireworks during 2004.
F48:
The police department was unable to determine additional police costs for this period in 2004.
F49:
Santa Paula Fire Department reported no fireworks related injuries or fires in 2004.
F50:
The extra cost to the fire department during 2004 was not reported to the Grand Jury.
F51:
Confiscated fireworks reportedly came from the Internet, Arkansas and Mexico. Port Hueneme
F52:
The police department reported that during a 2 month fireworks season there were 59 related calls for service in 2001, 11 calls in 2002, 70 calls in 2003 and 50 calls in 2004.
F53:
There were no arrests and 3 citations in 2004.
F54:
The police department spent approximately $500 in fireworks related expenditures in 2004.
F55:
There were no injuries or fires due to fireworks in 2004. The fire department reported no extra costs for standby crews.
F56:
Confiscated fireworks reportedly came from Fillmore, Mexico and out of state. Ojai
F57:
From June 20th to July 18th, the Ojai Police Department received 14 fireworks related calls for service in 2001, 22 calls in 2002, 32 calls in 2003 and 24 calls in 2004.
F58:
There were 2 arrests made and an unknown number of citations issued in 2004.
F59:
The police reported no extra expenditures during the 2004 season.
F60:
Information about the number of injuries and fires due to fireworks in 2004 was not received by the Grand Jury.
F61:
The fire department spent $1,886 for standby crews in 2004.
F62:
The source(s) of confiscated fireworks was not reported. Thousand Oaks
F63:
Thousand Oaks police reported that, during the 15 days before and after July 4th, there were 136 fireworks related calls for service in 2001, 176 calls in 2002, 187 calls in 2003 and 183 calls in 2004.
F64:
The number of arrests in 2004 was reported as five. The number of citations in 2004 due to fireworks was not electronically tracked via the Sheriff’s Records Management System, and the agency was unable to verify the number written.
F65:
There were no extra expenditures by the police department in 2004 for fireworks related issues.
F66:
The fire department’s report of the number of injuries and fires during 2004 due to fireworks was not received by the Grand Jury.
F67:
$1,886 was spent by the fire department in 2004 for standby crews.
F68:
The source(s) of confiscated fireworks is unknown. Conclusions C-01. In 2004 there were 2,100 calls for service during the fireworks season. The majority was reported by the City of Simi Valley, followed by the City of Ventura, the City of Oxnard and the City of Santa Paula. (F-16, F-22, F-27,
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
16 hallazgos
F01:
The VCFPD, headquartered in Camarillo, is a special district with over 500 employees at various locations throughout the county.
F02:
The VCFPD provides proactive identification and education on fire-related threats, emergency response services, and various services that support the mission. Emergency services include fire response, rescue services and emergency medical care.
F03:
There are over 30 locations serving the unincorporated areas of Ventura County as well as the incorporated cities of Camarillo, Port Hueneme, Moorpark, Ojai, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks.
F04:
The VCFPD does not have its own internal written policy. However, it follows the county’s policies for property control as noted in the Ventura County Administrative Policy on Equipment Management.
F05:
Most routine purchases are performed by the Purchasing Technician at the VCFPD administrative offices. Station captains place their orders through a standard form that is e-mailed to the Purchasing Technician. After the orders are filled, the requested items are delivered to the stations.
F06:
Credit cards are provided to station captains to accommodate immediate needs and minor emergencies. VCFPD reports that centralized purchasing is not as efficient or conducive to doing business 24 hours, 7 days a week, especially when the department must respond to emergency situations.
F07:
Open purchase orders at local companies are used by the stations primarily for repairs and maintenance. Items acquired on these purchase orders are taken directly to the station.
F08:
Receiving of the ordered goods is performed at VCFPD’s warehouse located at a leased facility at the Channel Islands State University. A new warehouse is currently under construction in Oxnard. The new warehouse will incorporate an intrusion alarm system and add motion sensors, perimeter security, outside video and fence intrusion detection.
F09:
The VCFPD’s policy is that, with very few exceptions, all goods are sent from the vendor to the warehouse. One employee at the warehouse is designated as the primary receiver of goods. The receipt is entered into VCFPD’s automated inventory system, which was implemented in May of 2004.
F10:
Standard items include fire hoses, foam nozzles, kitchen supplies, chairs, paper, pens, items from the standard supply catalog, and non-narcotic medical supplies. These items go straight into inventory.
F11:
If the item received is not a stocked item (non-standard), it is delivered directly to the requestor of the item. A signature of the requestor is obtained, if possible, on delivery.
F12:
A physical inventory is performed once a year. This inventory is required to establish the quantities and value of goods in the warehouse, or the reserve amount. A bar code feature of the new inventory management software will be implemented.
F13:
Pilferage problems in years past highlighted problems and VCFPD management responded with enhanced controls.
F14:
Staff and management report that the purchase approval and authorization is controlled through proactive management oversight designed to provide flexibility to a 24-hour, 7-days-a-week operation.
F15:
Staff and management state that writing procedures to cover all eventualities in an emergency-response organization would not be as cost effective as promoting management responsibility.
F16:
VCFPD management and staff report that sufficient procedures are in place to allow visibility and traceability of acquisitions and distribution of resources. They also report that improvements in the computer systems and management controls will allow them to control the processes more economically and with less manual effort. Conclusions C-01. Twenty-four hour operations and multiple employee locations in an emergency-response environment dictate the need for flexibility in the material acquisition process. (F-06, F-14) C-02. VCFPD personnel follow the County’s policies for property control as noted in the Ventura County Administrative Policy on Equipment Management, and they have internal controls. (F-04, F-13, F-14, F-16) C-03. Because purchasing flexibility is required, there are unwritten procedures enforced through appropriate management controls. Examples include single points of purchase authorization, individuals responsible and accountable to management for received material, and management being aware of their employees' acquisitions. (F-04, F-14, F-15) C-04. Adding the bar code capability to the physical inventory should make the process more efficient and accurate. (F-12) C-05. Management is proactive in reviewing procedures and implementing new technologies to provide a cost-effective and appropriate level of control. (F-13,
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
34 hallazgos
F01:
Bail is a fundamental right guaranteed by the United States and California Constitutions.1
F02:
In dollar volume, one sixth of the bail in the U.S. is written in California.2
F03:
An arrestee contacted a bail bondsman to arrange for bail, paid a premium, and put up significant collateral. The arrestee was highly motivated to make his court appearances and not skip bail. If the defendant out on bail failed to appear for a court date, the bail bondsman, personally liable on the bond, had every incentive to locate the defendant to ensure his/her court appearances. 2
F04:
The bail bond industry is changing rapidly and appears to be plagued with numerous troubling practices, many of which are directly related to one factor, the recent effort to remove the local bail bondsman’s financial incentives to ensure that defendants make their court appearances.2
F05:
Under current law, the Department of Insurance licenses sureties (insurance companies) and bail agents to conduct business in California. However, there is no existing mechanism for courts to notify the department when problems occur.1
F06:
Existing law provides that if an on-bail defendant fails to appear for arraignment, trial, judgment or any other scheduled court appearance, the bail is forfeited unless the clerk of the court fails to give proper notice to the surety or depositor within 30 days, or the defendant is brought before the court within 180 days.1
F07:
Consistent with the right to bail, Section 28 of Article I of the California Constitution requires that the primary consideration in the setting of bail is public safety.1
F08:
Recent years have shown a rise in private surety bail bonds being issued on some high-risk defendants without adequate collateral and a rise in some surety defaults. This has produced fiscal losses to cities and counties as well as a threat to public safety.1
F09:
According to Department of Justice figures, defendants are more than three times as likely to skip bail if the correct financial incentives do not exist on that bail, including most particularly that the bail bondsman remain personally liable.2
F10:
Generally, a defendant is required to pay 10 percent of his or her bail amount to a bail agent. The bail agent acts on behalf of an insurance company which guarantees payment of the bond if the defendant fails to appear in court.1
F11:
Bail agents and the surety are given six months from the date of the defendant’s non-appearance to locate the defendant. In recent years, the law was amended to allow this period to be extended an additional six months.1
F12:
In most cases, it is at least a year before the surety is required to pay any money on the bail bond.1
F13:
Since an appeal results in an additional extension of the obligation to pay, two or more years can pass without any real financial penalty.1
F14:
Many sureties go bankrupt while the above process unfolds. Eight sureties have gone bankrupt in the last two years in California. This makes those bail bonds essentially worthless and removes any incentive the bail agent may have had to locate the defendant.1
F15:
The IRS reports that in one analysis, one third of the bail agents did not file income tax returns.3
F16:
Some bail agents learn the bail business by on-the-job training working for another bail agent, either a mom-and-pop operation or a large bail bond business. If the employee develops a good relationship with his or her employer and has a good grasp of the business, he or she may graduate to being a subagent of his or her former employer.3
F17:
Collateral, which is held by the bail agent, must be returned upon request of the defendant once the bail is exonerated. However, any collateral returned may be reduced by any uncollected premium or by any other outstanding charges.3
F18:
According to past experience of IRS agents, not returning collateral is an area of abuse by bail agents.3
F19:
It was determined that almost all of the money collected in bail forfeitures goes to the State; only a small amount is received by the County.
F20:
In the Ventura County Main Jail there is posted a list of 76 bail bond agencies doing business in the county.
F21:
According to county counsel, some large high volume bail bond businesses are charging less than the normal fee of 10% and have been granting bonds without sufficient collateral. These companies appear to be prevalent in Los Angeles and other large counties posing a large problem by enabling hundreds of criminal defendants to flee.2
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Continued oversight by County Counsel is necessary as the large bail bond companies take a larger piece of the business. Also, constant vigilance is necessary to keep bail bond losses at a minimum. (C-01). Response Requested Ventura County Counsel Bibliography 1. California Senate Public Safety Committee, SB 1744, Payment of Summary Judgment, April 27, 2004. 2. Southern California District Attorney’s Conference, “A Look at the Bail Bond Industry: Some Troubling Issues,” November 7, 2003. 3. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Bail Bond Industry Report, July 1997. 4. The Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2005, “Bail Bondsman Gets 3 Years in Corruption Case.” 5. The Los Angeles Times, March 25, 2005, “It’s Brutal in the Bail Business.” 6. The Los Angeles Times, February 16, 2005, “Bad Boys Bail Bonds Indicted.” 7. California Department of Insurance web site. 8. Better Business Bureau web site. (This page intentionally left blank)
F22:
Some of the bail bond businesses in Ventura County are mom-and-pop operations and have been operating in the county for years. Most of these businesses follow court procedures and cooperate with the court.
F23:
Ventura County pursues flight of defendants to retrieve funds due the court.
F24:
Ventura County Counsel informed the Grand Jury that Ventura County has not experienced the same problems plaguing the industry that occur in other counties within the state.
F25:
The statistics presented in F-26 thru F-29 were derived from a document titled Bail Bond Report dated March 29, 2005, provided by Ventura County Superior Court Administrative Services. The following definitions apply: • Open Cases - calendared for a future hearing, case is not disposed. • Forfeited - defendant failed to appear on a calendared hearing. • Reinstate - bond was originally forfeited but reinstated when the defendant was present on a calendared hearing. • Summary Judgment - bail bond was forfeited. After 165 days of no motion to reinstate, summary judgment was filed and entered.
F26:
The Open Cases category represents 76% of the overall bail bond total dollars for Ventura County ($19,588,500). Comparing these total dollars to the three largest bail bond companies operating in the county for this category determined these companies represented 44% of the monetary business and 45% of the defendants.
F27:
The Forfeited category represents 11% of the overall bail bond total dollars for Ventura County ($2,971,100). Comparing these total dollars to the three largest bail bond companies operating in the county for this category determined these companies represented 52% of the monetary business and 42% of the defendants.
F28:
The Reinstate category represents 11% of the overall bail bond total dollars for Ventura County ($2,740,000). Comparing these total dollars to the three largest bail bond companies operating in the county for this category determined these companies represented 56% of the monetary business and 53% of the defendants.
F29:
The Summary Judgment category represents 2% of the overall bail bond total dollars for Ventura County ($560,000). Comparing these total dollars to the three largest bail bond companies operating in the county for this category determined these companies represented 43% of the monetary business and 41% of the defendants.
F30:
Review of bail bond companies doing business in Ventura County shows that 45% of them received their licenses in the last 5 years.4
F31:
A review of bail bond ads in the local telephone yellow pages for Oxnard, Camarillo and Ventura for general advertising and fee advertisement was performed. Within the industry the normal service fee paid by defendants is 10% of the bond amount. The total numbers of advertisements were twenty- seven of which three advertised less than the normal 10% fee.
F32:
Better Business Bureau statistics revealed 55 of the 77-bail bond companies on the list provided in the jail were not affiliated with the Better Business Bureau. Fourteen bail bond companies were listed with the bureau and had no complaints.5
F33:
One of the tasks of the Ventura Superior Court is the accounting function for the bail bond program including County Counsel responsibility for bail bond collections.
F34:
The following information was compiled from the California Department of Insurance web site: • From the total number of listed bail bond companies in the Main Jail 55 (73%) were active and insured, 17 (23%) were inactive and 4 (4%) were not found.4 • A $10,000 bond covered 7% of the insurance companies.4 • A $1,000 bond covered 93% of the insurance companies.4 • There are 17 insurance companies representing 44 bail bond companies. Within this group the three largest insurance companies represented 46% of the total.4 Conclusions C-01. County Counsel provides the county with a program of investigating bail bond companies operating in Ventura County to assure they are adhering to established business practices. (F-01, F-02, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-11, F-12, F-13,
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
17 hallazgos
F01:
In November 2002, the OSD entered into an agreement to purchase the property for the proposed elementary school site at Fifth Street and Patterson Road wherein approvals were obtained from: • Department of Toxic Substance Control • Department of Education • Department of Transportation • Aeronautic Division • City of Oxnard Zoning Laws (City Planning Commission and Oxnard City Council) • Airport Land Use Commission (approve or override) • California Environmental Quality Act • Approval of an avigation easement with the County of Ventura Airport Authority. (The word "avigation" means airborne operation and navigation of aircraft.)
F02:
On April 14, 2004, the OSD approved a motion to enter into escrow agreement with Centex Homes for the acquisition of the school site (designated by the OSD as 25A) located at Fifth Street and Patterson Road for the purchase price of $1.2 million.
F03:
On December 14, 2004, the OSD Board determined all conditions as specified in the Purchase and Sale Agreement necessary to close escrow on the proposed school site had been met.
F04:
On January 27, 2005, the California Department of Education approved the acquisition and use for purpose of constructing a school.
F05:
The OSD has certified to the California Department of Education that there is no other district-owned site useable for this project.
F06:
The OSD will work with the Oxnard Airport, the Federal Aviation Administration and local helicopter operators to redirect paths to the Teal Club Road route as recommended in the June 18, 2002, Aircraft Hazard and Land Use Risk Assessment.
F07:
The OSD has certified that this project is either exempt from, or has completed, the California Environmental Quality Act process.
F08:
The School Facilities Planning Division (SFPD) of the State of California Board of Education is charged with the responsibility to establish a procedure for the selection and construction of a school site.
F09:
On November 19, 2002, the Ventura County Transportation Commission addressed a letter to the Oxnard Planning Department making reference to a public hearing held November 5, 2002 pertaining to the proposed school site.
F10:
The Airport Land Use Commission findings of the project as presented and reviewed are consistent with the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Ventura County as stated.
F11:
The OSD complied with the requirements of California Education Code section 17251 and the California Department of Education School Facilities Planning Division by properly filling out the required forms (SFPD 4.0, 4.01).
F12:
The California Constitution Article 9, section 14, states in part “The Legislature may authorize the governing boards of all school districts to initiate and carry on any programs, activities, or to otherwise act in any manner which is not in conflict with the laws and purposes for which school districts are established.”
F13:
The OSD has identified airport runways, airfields and airstrips within two nautical miles (12,152 feet) of the school site, including crop dusting and mosquito abatement airstrips. The California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics has performed an air traffic safety analysis for the school site, which falls within two nautical miles of the site. The result of this analysis shows that all stipulations and requirements were resolved.
F14:
In September 2004, Impact Sciences, Inc. prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Oxnard School District Operations and Facilities.
F15:
The FEIR satisfied the requirements of the Department of Airports, County of Ventura, Ventura County Transportation Commission, Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association and the Federal Aviation Administration U.S. Department of Transportation by responding to all the concerns.
F16:
The City of Oxnard conducted a city-wide workshop called Visioning Process for the General Plan Update during the year 2002.
F17:
The City of Oxnard adopted a General Plan in 1990 which is also known as the 2020 Plan. Conclusions C-01. There has been public awareness since 2002 of plans by the OSD to construct an elementary school adjacent to the Ventura County Airport in the City of Oxnard. (F-01, F-09, F-16) C-02. There has been due process for individual citizens and groups to raise questions, offer objections and voice opinions regarding a school site near the airport. (F-01, F-09, F-16, F-17) C-03. There is evidence that objections, criticisms and recommendations have been resolved or mitigated as shown in the Final Environmental Impact Report. (F-07, F-08, F-09, F-14, F-15) C-04. There is a definite need for both the City of Oxnard and the Oxnard School District to continue to inform the residents of future planning for community growth. (F-16, F-17) C-05. The Grand Jury found no evidence in this investigation of violation of public trust on the part of the City of Oxnard or the Oxnard School District. (F-02,
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R01:
The City of Oxnard’s General Plan known as the 2020 Plan should be updated and made public both in print and by means of the Oxnard City web site. (C-01, C-02, C-04, C-05, C-07)
R02:
The County of Ventura Airport Authority should publish a public informational document that would present future planning for the use of the Ventura County Airport facility. (C-07)
R03:
The OSD should publish a public report that would identify potential school sites and in particular those within two nautical miles from the Oxnard Airport. (C-03, C-04, C-05) Responses Required From: City of Oxnard (R-01) Airport Authority (R-02) Oxnard School District (R-03) (This page intentionally left blank)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
36 hallazgos
F01:
The state and federal laws pertaining to elections are intended to give every eligible citizen the right to vote as well as to enable and encourage those eligible citizens to register and vote. The California Secretary of State is responsible for certifying and declaring the result of elections that are held throughout the State of California.
F02:
For the County of Ventura, the Elections Division of the County Clerk and Recorder’s Office has the primary responsibility for implementing the election laws and for encouraging all eligible citizens to register and vote. The Elections Division has 11 full-time employees, but 3-4 months prior to an election they will hire extra help and temporary workers.
F03:
Basic requirements for eligibility to vote in a federal election are: (1) age of 18 years or older on election day, (2) United States citizenship and (3) must not be in prison or on parole with a felony conviction. Additional residence requirements are imposed with respect to state and local elections.
F04:
For voting purposes, citizenship is certified by a signed affidavit from the registrant. The Elections Division has no responsibility and no legal authority to require proof of citizenship or to challenge the citizenship certification when a person registers to vote. There is neither responsibility nor legal authority for any governmental agency to verify U.S. citizenship with respect to voter registration or voting. Ventura County Registration and Voting 3
F05:
The certification or proof of citizenship is characterized as a “rebuttable presumption.”2 A voter may self-declare that he or she is not a citizen, but citizenship cannot be actively challenged with respect to registration and voting. For voting purposes only, citizenship is presumed based on the affidavit of the registrant unless evidence is introduced proving that the registrant is not a citizen.
F06:
If the Elections Division is notified by an authorized agency (such as Jury Services or the Department of Motor Vehicles) that a person has self-declared to not be a U.S. citizen,3 the Division will cancel that person’s voter registration and mail the person a letter stating that voter registration has been cancelled and informing them of the reason. The person is told they may correct any mistake and re-register.
F07:
Identification is only required at the time of registration. If identification is not provided at the time of registration, it must be shown the first time that person votes. Without this identification, the person may vote with a provisional ballot that is counted only after identification is verified.
F08:
With respect to voter verification, Elections Division efforts are primarily concentrated on making sure that a single registrant does not cast more than one ballot in any election. If an attempt to cast more than one ballot appears willful rather than a matter of mistake, the matter is forwarded to the Ventura County District Attorney for investigation and possible action.
F09:
According to the summary maintained by the California Secretary of State, as of October 18, 2004, Ventura County had 398,652 voters registered of its 506,350 eligible citizens, or 78.7%. Of the registered voters, approximately 79.3% or 316,132 voters cast ballots in the 2004 General Election.4
F10:
Of the 398,652 registered voters in Ventura County, approximately 10,000 checked the box on the registration form requesting elections materials in the Spanish language.
F11:
A Consent Decree was signed by a panel of three judges in September of 2004 in the case United States v. Ventura County, et al. This Consent Decree, which pertained to Spanish-language assistance for voters, imposed election- related mandates on the county. Those mandates included active recruitment of bilingual poll workers, publication and availability of Spanish-language election information and voting materials, and activities to inform and encourage eligible Spanish-speaking citizens to register and vote.
F12:
In compliance with the Consent Decree, Ventura County actively recruited Spanish-speaking poll workers throughout the county. With the stated purpose of meeting the bilingual recruitment goals, on September 14, 2004, the 2 Rebuttable presumption is defined as, “a rule of law which permits a court to assume a fact is true until such time as there is a preponderance (greater weight) of evidence which disproves or outweighs (rebuts) the presumption... A presumption is rebuttable in that it can be refuted by factual evidence.” (http://dictionary.law.com) 3 This self declaration rebuts the presumption. 4 http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ror/county_10_18_04.pdf, “Report of Registration as of October 18, 2002, Registration by County,” California Secretary of State. Ventura County Registration and Voting Board of Supervisors approved a “County Employee Voluntary Poll Worker Program,” whereby county employees could volunteer to work at the polls while earning “Leave with Pay” from their county positions.
F13:
The county recruited 344 Spanish-speaking poll workers, of which 329 actually served during the 2004 General Election. This was more than the 299 workers originally projected. Spanish-speaking poll workers were scheduled to work in 195 precincts, of which 185 precincts were required by the terms of the Consent Decree. Due to six unanticipated absences in the required precincts, there were Spanish-speaking poll workers in 189 precincts.
F14:
For the 2004 General Election, the Elections Division scheduled 22 training classes for election officers, held at locations throughout the county. Election requirements emphasized in the training classes included the prominent display of bilingual election materials, consistently asking voters if they wished an English or Spanish ballot, and liberal use of provisional ballots when questions or discrepancies arose. Other instruction included the assembly and placement of voting booths, verification of eligibility by roster, use of provisional ballots, controls over ballot boxes, placement of signs, and accounting for election materials.
F15:
California Elections Code requires Inspectors to be trained before every election. Clerks are encouraged to take the class, but attendance is not required. The Elections Division highly recommends that everyone working during the election attend training.
F16:
The requirement that a voter should never be turned away from the polls was particularly emphasized during training sessions. Training emphasized that provisional ballots would be offered to voters with the intent that everyone is ensured the opportunity to vote.
F17:
During visits to 54 polling places during the 2004 General Election, the Grand Jury inspection teams noted various discrepancies between the training provided by the Elections Division and the manner in which poll workers performed their functions. The discrepancy most observed was failure to ask voters if they wished a ballot in English or Spanish. This discrepancy was noted as poll workers conversed with voters in English and presumptively handed the English ballot to the voters.
F18:
Other noted discrepancies between training and practice included (1) poll workers without name tags, (2) American flag not displayed, (3) no posted street index, (4) 100’ sign too close or missing entirely, (5) polling place signs not posted or clearly visible.
F19:
Poll workers at various locations remarked to the Grand Jury that the handicapped booth provided was too high for persons in wheel chairs. Many of the poll workers had removed the legs from the handicapped booth to place the booth on a table.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Research the handicapped booths that were used in the 2004 General Election to determine if they could be assembled with shorter legs that would be more compatible with the voting machines used in Ventura County.
F20:
Poll workers at various locations remarked to the Grand Jury that the long working day, from 15 to 17 hours, was excessive for many retired persons. Several stated that shorter shifts could encourage more retired persons to volunteer. Ventura County Registration and Voting 5
F21:
On the day of the election, the Elections Division had mobile units throughout the county. These mobile units were stocked with additional election materials and supplies so that problems could be resolved as quickly as possible.
F22:
According to the January 2005 letter from the DOJ, one person was reportedly turned away from the polls during the 2004 General Election. Research by the Elections Division verified that a single person had been turned away, and follow-up personal contact determined that the individual was a not a citizen of the United States.
F23:
The DOJ letter to the County Counsel noted some remaining problems observed during the 2004 General Election. These problems included availability and distribution of ballots, posting of documentation, and asking all voters if they wished an English or Spanish ballot.
F24:
All reported problems related to ballots and supplies were either resolved on site by elections officials or by roving Elections Division support staff.
F25:
The DOJ letter to the County Counsel of Ventura cited “profound improvement” achieved by the County of Ventura in meeting the objectives of the Consent Decree.
F26:
The Elections Division reports that, in the 2004 General Election, 10,189 provisional ballots were cast. The Elections Division was able to verify 5,470 of those and the votes were fully counted. Of the remaining provisional ballots, 3,091 were disqualified because the person was not registered to vote in Ventura County at the time of the election; 7 were not counted because the signature on the ballot did not match the signature on file; 27 were not counted because the voter had submitted an absentee vote; and 1,428 were partially counted, but only for contests in which the person was eligible to vote.
F27:
“Residual vote” is a measure of effectiveness of the voting system. The residual vote percentage summarizes votes that do not count based on three general categories: (1) uncounted ballots that are eliminated or disqualified by election officials, (2) “undervote” in which no vote is registered, and (3) “overvote” in which the voter chooses more than one candidate in a particular race, effectively disqualifying the vote in that race.5
F28:
Elections officials work to reduce the residual vote that may be attributable to voting machine error or voter error. Because it can never be certain how many voters abstained from choosing a candidate in a particular race, it is generally accepted that residual vote can never be zero and it can not be used as an absolute measure of voting machine effectiveness and administrative controls.
F29:
The 0.8% residual vote reported by Ventura County Elections Division in the 2004 General Election is well below the national rate of 1.1% and the California statewide average of 1.5%.6 5 Stewart, Charles, III, “Residual Vote in the 2004 Election,” Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, VTP Working Paper, Version 2.3, February 2005. Ibid, p. 18. Ventura County Registration and Voting
F30:
While the California Secretary of State’s office does receive numerous calls for information and clarification from across the state, most callers are referred to the county elections officials for action. There were no 2004 General Election complaints filed with the Secretary of State relating to Ventura County.
F31:
Prior to the Consent Decree, every voter would receive election materials and ballots in English unless they requested the materials or ballots in Spanish. After the Consent Decree, every voter will receive both English and Spanish materials. Although not a statutory requirement, the Consent Decree requires that, after the 2004 General Election, there must be a single ballot with two languages on it (bilingual ballot).
F32:
The current county punch-card voting system could not accommodate a single bilingual ballot for the 2004 General Election. However, new voting system acquisitions will be required to support the bilingual ballot.
F33:
The Election Division reports their publication costs for the 2004 General Election official ballots and sample ballots was $707,102. Presenting the same materials as a single bilingual ballot would have increased the cost by 65% to $1,169,852. Due to the increased size and weight of a bilingual ballot, cost to mail the 400,000 sample ballots in the 2004 election would have been 19 cents instead of the 14 cents it actually cost for the single-language version.
F34:
The Elections Division publishes a number of informational brochures and pamphlets each year to inform the voters of various procedures. The Elections Division gave a recent example of a $1,500 cost to produce 3,000 brochures for election officials.
F35:
The Elections Division did concur with the findings of the 2003 Grand Jury’s final report titled, “Voter Registration Safeguards.” However, the Division cited budgetary considerations in implementing the Grand Jury’s recommendations to publish the voter registration and roll purging procedures.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R02:
Rather than publish a paper pamphlet as recommended by the Ventura County 2003-2004 Grand Jury’s report, “Voting Registration Safeguards,” the Elections Division should either publish the recommended information or place a link to the Grand Jury’s report on their web site. Ventura County Registration and Voting Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Clerk and Recorder (R-01, R-02) Ventura County Registration and Voting 9 (This page intentionally left blank) 10 Ventura County Registration and Voting
F36:
Officials of the Elections Division expressed that the cost of publishing a pamphlet addressing voter registration safeguards is disproportionate to the number of times the roll purging process is questioned. They expressed that, if printed, the pamphlets would likely “gather dust.” Conclusions C-01. Election laws and regulations strike a balance between encouraging all eligible voters to register and vote versus discouraging ineligible voters from casting an illegal vote. With the primary objective of enabling voting, a small number of ineligible voters may go undetected. (F-01 thru F-08, F-14, F-16, F-22, F-26 thru F-29) C-02. Implementation of the provisional voting system in the county effectively allows all questionable ballots an opportunity to be counted by providing follow-up, verification, and traceability. (F-16, F-26) C-03. Training classes are very important, as elections are infrequent and many poll workers are first-time volunteers. The Elections Division does a good job in Ventura County Registration and Voting 7 coordinating the various efforts to produce an effective outcome. (F-12 thru
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R02:
Rather than publish a paper pamphlet as recommended by the Ventura County 2003-2004 Grand Jury’s report, “Voting Registration Safeguards,” the Elections Division should either publish the recommended information or place a link to the Grand Jury’s report on their web site. Ventura County Registration and Voting Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Clerk and Recorder (R-01, R-02) Ventura County Registration and Voting 9 (This page intentionally left blank) 10 Ventura County Registration and Voting
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
17 hallazgos
F01:
The VCTC’s mission is, “To improve mobility within the county and increase funding to meet transportation needs.”
F02:
The VCTC is a public agency whose board consists of all five county supervisors, one representative from each of the incorporated cities (mayor or member of city council), one citizen member appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, one citizen member appointed by the County City Selection Committee, and one non-voting member appointed by the governor (traditionally from CalTrans).1
F03:
The VCTC, created by state legislation in 1988, is charged with establishing transportation policies, setting priorities and coordinating activities between the various transportation operators, agencies, cities and the county.2
F04:
The VCTC controls and/or reviews the allocation of federal, state and local funds for highway, transit, rail, aviation, bicycle and other transportation projects.3
F05:
Meetings are publicly noticed in accordance with the Brown Act and public attendance is welcome. Monthly agendas and archives of past agendas are available on www.goventura.org under the heading “About VCTC.”3
F06:
When California voters passed the gas tax increase in June 1990 (Proposition 111), the requirement for the Congestion Management Program (CMP) also became law.4
F07:
With passage of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, all urban areas in the nation were required to have a Congestion Management System (CMS). The CMS was largely modeled after, and is quite similar to, the California CMP. The Federal Highway System accepts the CMP as the basis for meeting the CMS requirements.4
F08:
In Ventura County, the cities and county have designated the VCTC to be the Congestion Management Agency responsible for preparing and monitoring the CMP.4
F09:
The purpose of the CMP is to help develop a coordinated approach to managing and decreasing traffic congestion by linking the various transportation, land use, and air quality planning programs throughout the county. New development, such as housing tracts or shopping malls, permitted in one city can add traffic congestion and air pollution in other areas of the county. The CMP is one tool to help the county take into account and deal with the overall county-wide impact of local land use decisions.4
F10:
VCTC Roles and Responsibilities:4 • Preparation and Adoption of the CMP • Developing Countywide Traffic Model and Databases • Reviewing and Approving local traffic models • Approving Deficiency Plans • Monitoring CMP Implementation • Determining CMP Conformance o If VCTC finds that a city or the county is not in conformance with the CMP, they are required to notify the State Comptroller to withhold local gas tax revenues.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
The county and cities should provide VCTC with all construction and development plans involving transportation arterial interfaces or potential effects on public transit as early in the planning stages as possible. Follow up dates should be set and met to update data. (C-03) Responses Ventura County Board of Supervisors Ventura County Transportation Commission Attachments 1. Ventura County Transportation Commission Adopted Major Project Priority List 2. Summary of Transit Services Bibliography 1. California Public Utilities Code, Section 130000 – 130455, County Transportation Commissions Act. 2. VCTC Budget Summary July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2005 3. VCTC, Measure B Information letter dated September 23, 2004 4. 2004-05 Ventura County Congestion Management Program (CMP) 5. SCAT letter dated May 11, 1999 6. CUP-5144 dated June 18, 2001 7. General Counsel memo dated May 9, 2005 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 (1 of 2) Attachment 2 (2 of 2) (This page intentionally left blank)
F11:
Summary of Available Funding Sources:4 • State Gas Tax - Motorists in California pay 36.4 cents for each gallon of gas purchased. Of this, 18 cents goes to the State of California with the remaining 18.4 cents going to the federal government (about 90% of that returns to California under different transportation programs). • Approximate Breakdown of the 36.4 cents per gallon – o 15 cents from each gallon goes to CalTrans to maintain and operate the state highway system. o 11.3 cents is returned to local agencies (county and city) to construct, operate and maintain their local streets. o 3 cents is allocated to transit. o 1.5 cents goes to other states through a federal program where more populous states subsidize less populous states. o 5.5 cents goes to construction of new projects within the state (approximately 1/8 of a cent goes to Ventura County).4
F12:
VCTC maintains a major project priority list (Attachment 1)
F13:
VCTC maintains a summary of county transit services (Attachment 2)
F14:
Requirement for public transportation at the JJC was recognized as early as 1999.5
F15:
CUP-5144 required the PWA ensure that sufficient public transportation service is available to meet needs of JJC for a period of three years or until the bus route can be modified.6
F16:
Public transportation is not available at the JJC as of June 2005.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
The county and cities should provide VCTC with all construction and development plans involving transportation arterial interfaces or potential effects on public transit as early in the planning stages as possible. Follow up dates should be set and met to update data. (C-03) Responses Ventura County Board of Supervisors Ventura County Transportation Commission Attachments 1. Ventura County Transportation Commission Adopted Major Project Priority List 2. Summary of Transit Services Bibliography 1. California Public Utilities Code, Section 130000 – 130455, County Transportation Commissions Act. 2. VCTC Budget Summary July 1, 2004 – June 30, 2005 3. VCTC, Measure B Information letter dated September 23, 2004 4. 2004-05 Ventura County Congestion Management Program (CMP) 5. SCAT letter dated May 11, 1999 6. CUP-5144 dated June 18, 2001 7. General Counsel memo dated May 9, 2005 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 (1 of 2) Attachment 2 (2 of 2) (This page intentionally left blank)
F17:
California Attorney General opinion and case law indicate VCTC time and funds used on Measure B were appropriate.7 Conclusions C-01. The VCTC is operating within its legislatively defined limits. (F-02, F-05, F- 17) C-02. The VCTC is fulfilling its mission. (F-01, F-03, F-04, F-06 thru F-12) C-03. There are areas in which the VCTC, the county, and cities could more effectively and efficiently coordinate their interfaces. (F-14, F-15, F-16) Recommendations
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
Ventura County Transportation Commission Adopted Major Project Priority List
R2:
Summary of Transit Services Bibliography
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
34 hallazgos
F01:
In 1996 there were 20 full-time Team members. Teams were available 24 hours a day on 12-hour shifts. The teams would respond to community requests for assistance and they would be called by police when mentally ill persons were encountered.
F02:
Since July 1, 2004, the Team has been funded for 10 staff members. They no longer evaluate people in their homes or respond to the police when assistance is requested.
F2:
2 The Ventura County Behavioral Health Intranet web site address is http://vcweb/hca/vcbh This address is internal to Ventura County government and is not publicly accessible from the Internet. Ibid. Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management 3 Proc. Effective # Policy Name Date CT1 Domestic Violence Screening 04/16/01 CT2 Screening and Treatment Decision Protocol for Patients Presenting to Hillmont Psychiatric Care 09/24/01 Center Crisis CT3 Transportation of Clients 01/16/02 CT4 Crisis Team Admission Concerns 07/31/98 CT5 Referrals – Crisis Team 01/18/93 CT6 Patient Alert Forms 07/31/98 CT7 Crisis Team – Off Site Services and Physician 07/99 Oversight CT8 Crisis Team – Attending Physician 12/01/01 CT9 Crisis Team – Progress Note 07/99 CT10 Crisis Team Assessment 02/18/93 CT11 Crisis Team – Brief Services Assessment 01/18/93 CT12 Crisis Team Records Assembly 01/16/02 CT49 Client Personal Property Inventory and Search 11/19/03 Table 1. Crisis Team Policies and Procedures as of March 26, 2005 Proc. Effective # Policy Name Date CT3 Transportation Arranged by Crisis Team 12/12/03 CT5 Referrals – Crisis Team 12/12/03 CT6 Patient Alert Forms 12/12/03 CT11 Crisis Team – Brief Services Assessment 12/12/03 CT13 VCBH Crisis Team Telephone Triage 12/12/03 CT17 Initiating a Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12/12/03 5150 Application CT23 Crisis Team HIPPA Standards 12/12/03 CT26 Crisis Telephone Management – Staff Shortage 12/12/03 CT27 Crisis Team Procedure for Using Greyhound Bus 12/12/03 Ticket Purchase Authorization CT30 Crisis Team Dispatch Tracking of Mobile Teams 12/12/03 CT32 Crisis Team Charting and Billing 12/12/03 CT33 Log Book Documentation 12/12/03 CT44 Maintenance of Crisis Team Vans 12/12/03 CT48 Medical Necessity Taking Precedence Over W&I Code 5150 Upon Admission to Non-LPS Designated 12/12/03 Facility Table 2. Crisis Team Policies and Procedures as of April 19, 2005 F-19. The documents provided by the Director of BHD did correspond to new Team duties; however, these documents were not on the Intranet and accessible to the employees until April of 2005, nearly 16 months after the recorded effective date of every document. Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management F-20. Neither the Team members nor their supervisors had been informed that procedures were being reviewed or that new P&P documents had been placed on the Intranet in April of 2005. There was no email received by any staff announcing these policy changes. F-21. For instance, the procedure CT1, titled “Domestic Violence Screening,” is a function that Team members believe they are required to perform. However, that function has been removed from the Intranet web site by the Director of BHD without informing the Team staff. F-22. The new P&P documents were back-dated to appear that they had been on the Intranet since at least July 2004, coincident with the downsizing of the Team. F-23. The documents showed inconsistencies and the explanations introduced additional inconsistencies. F-24. Recovered backup files from the Intranet server, provided by ISD, confirmed that the documents now on the Intranet, showing Effective Dates of 12/12/03 and Revision/Review Date of 07/01/04, were actually created by the MA around April 19, 2005. F-25. Multiple backups from ISD were analyzed and there was a consistency in the older version of policies and procedures between December 2003 and April
F03:
The Team has a working supervisor. Three levels of supervision currently exist between the Team and the BHD; however, two of those supervisors have little knowledge of, or involvement with, the Team.
F04:
Crisis Team staff demonstrate a high degree of responsibility to the clients within the community.
F05:
In planning the Team’s downsizing, management had a responsibility to adhere to budgets and cost controls to the detriment of provided services.
F06:
The Code of Conduct for the Ventura County Medical Center states, “Employees and agents deserve clear instructions about what is expected of them.“1 Well-documented and well-maintained procedures help a hospital or health care agency avoid problems such as misidentification of patients, wrong-site surgeries, improper billing, caregiver and medication mix-ups, etc.
F07:
The Code of Conduct further states, “Employees and agents shall promptly report all suspected violations of the Code of Conduct, Compliance Guidelines, operational policies, laws, or regulations to their manager or supervisor, through the Confidential Compliance Line or to the Compliance Officer.”
F08:
The Department requires that all Policies and Procedures (P&P) be maintained on the Intranet so they will be accessible by all employees at all times. Code of Conduct No. 1, “Ventura County Medical Center Code of Conduct & Confidential Disclosure Program” 2 Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management
F09:
Hardcopy (paper) P&Ps have not been distributed to staff in the past two to three years, since at least June of 2002. If staff members require hardcopies of P&P documents, they must print their own from the Intranet website.2
F10:
There was a hardcopy P&P notebook available to the Team at one time, estimates ranging from two to four years ago. There has been no official hardcopy P&P notebook available to Team staff since before March 2004.
F11:
There is an approved P&P, identified as procedure number “A1” (Procedure A1, see Attachment 1) describing the single, integrated master P&P manual. Procedure A1, located on the department Intranet, states that the Behavioral Health Director is “responsible for coordinating development and implementation of policies and procedures.”3 It also explains the function of the Policy and Procedure Committee, the use of an “approvals sheet” to record approvals, and the dissemination of a memo and training information.
F12:
Currently, Procedure A1 is outdated and in need of revision. There is no “approvals sheet” or Policy and Procedure Committee.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R01:
Establish administrative controls to ensure that policies and procedures have integrity and effective dates. Develop controls that would prevent one individual from manipulating the system.
R02:
Provide separation of duties or checks and balances. Separate policy and procedure approval authority from the documentation and execution function. Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-02) County Executive Officer (R-01, R-02) Health Care Agency (R-01, R-02) Attachments 6 Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management Attachment 1. “Scope and Development of Policies and Procedures,” Ventura County Behavioral Health Policies and Procedures, Procedure No. A1, August 11, 2000. Attachment 2. “Crisis Team Dispatch Tracking of Mobile Teams,” Ventura County Behavioral Health Policies and Procedures, Procedure No. C30, December 12, 2003. Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management 7 Attachment 1. Procedure A1: “Scope and Development of Policies and Procedures” 8 Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management Attachment 1. Procedure A1: “Scope and Development of Policies and Procedures” Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management 9 Attachment 2. Procedure CT30: “Crisis Team Dispatch Tracking of Mobile Teams” 10 Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management
F13:
A Management Assistant (MA) is responsible for coordinating changes to P&Ps throughout the department, performing this function since October of 2004 and revising over 50 of the department’s P&Ps to date. A P&P is considered in effect at the moment the MA places it on the Intranet.
F14:
When a new or revised P&P document is placed on the Intranet, an authorized copy is signed by the BHD’s Director and the Medical Director. The signed paper copy is then placed in the master manual (notebooks) stored at the MA’s desk.
F15:
When a new or revised P&P document is placed on the Intranet, it is the MA’s responsibility to send an email to supervisors and staff to inform them that an update has taken place. Crisis Team Policies and Procedures
F16:
Team duties reportedly changed twice in 2004. One change was a result of reorganization in March of 2004. The second change was the result of downsizing the Team in July 2004.
F17:
A review of an ISD web site backup of March 26, 2005, showed that P&P documents on the Intranet on that date did not correspond to the new Team duties as of March or July of 2004. Documents on the web site on and before March 26, 2005, confirmed Team members’ assertions that P&Ps had not been updated. There were 13 P&P documents on the web site prior to March 26, 2005. These documents are listed in Table 1.
F18:
The Director of BHD was asked to provide and did provide to the Grand Jury copies of the 14 current P&P documents, all showing an effective date of 12/12/03 and a last review date of 7/01/04. These documents are listed in Table 2. The Ventura County Behavioral Health Intranet web site address is http://vcweb/hca/vcbh This address is internal to Ventura County government and is not publicly accessible from the Internet. Ibid. Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management 3 Proc. Effective # Policy Name Date CT1 Domestic Violence Screening 04/16/01 CT2 Screening and Treatment Decision Protocol for Patients Presenting to Hillmont Psychiatric Care 09/24/01 Center Crisis CT3 Transportation of Clients 01/16/02 CT4 Crisis Team Admission Concerns 07/31/98 CT5 Referrals – Crisis Team 01/18/93 CT6 Patient Alert Forms 07/31/98 CT7 Crisis Team – Off Site Services and Physician 07/99 Oversight CT8 Crisis Team – Attending Physician 12/01/01 CT9 Crisis Team – Progress Note 07/99 CT10 Crisis Team Assessment 02/18/93 CT11 Crisis Team – Brief Services Assessment 01/18/93 CT12 Crisis Team Records Assembly 01/16/02 CT49 Client Personal Property Inventory and Search 11/19/03 Table 1. Crisis Team Policies and Procedures as of March 26, 2005 Proc. Effective # Policy Name Date CT3 Transportation Arranged by Crisis Team 12/12/03 CT5 Referrals – Crisis Team 12/12/03 CT6 Patient Alert Forms 12/12/03 CT11 Crisis Team – Brief Services Assessment 12/12/03 CT13 VCBH Crisis Team Telephone Triage 12/12/03 CT17 Initiating a Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12/12/03 5150 Application CT23 Crisis Team HIPPA Standards 12/12/03 CT26 Crisis Telephone Management – Staff Shortage 12/12/03 CT27 Crisis Team Procedure for Using Greyhound Bus 12/12/03 Ticket Purchase Authorization CT30 Crisis Team Dispatch Tracking of Mobile Teams 12/12/03 CT32 Crisis Team Charting and Billing 12/12/03 CT33 Log Book Documentation 12/12/03 CT44 Maintenance of Crisis Team Vans 12/12/03 CT48 Medical Necessity Taking Precedence Over W&I Code 5150 Upon Admission to Non-LPS Designated 12/12/03 Facility Table 2. Crisis Team Policies and Procedures as of April 19, 2005
F19:
The documents provided by the Director of BHD did correspond to new Team duties; however, these documents were not on the Intranet and accessible to the employees until April of 2005, nearly 16 months after the recorded effective date of every document. Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management
F20:
Neither the Team members nor their supervisors had been informed that procedures were being reviewed or that new P&P documents had been placed on the Intranet in April of 2005. There was no email received by any staff announcing these policy changes.
F21:
For instance, the procedure CT1, titled “Domestic Violence Screening,” is a function that Team members believe they are required to perform. However, that function has been removed from the Intranet web site by the Director of BHD without informing the Team staff.
F22:
The new P&P documents were back-dated to appear that they had been on the Intranet since at least July 2004, coincident with the downsizing of the Team.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Establish administrative controls to ensure that policies and procedures have integrity and effective dates. Develop controls that would prevent one individual from manipulating the system.
F23:
The documents showed inconsistencies and the explanations introduced additional inconsistencies.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Establish administrative controls to ensure that policies and procedures have integrity and effective dates. Develop controls that would prevent one individual from manipulating the system.
F24:
Recovered backup files from the Intranet server, provided by ISD, confirmed that the documents now on the Intranet, showing Effective Dates of 12/12/03 and Revision/Review Date of 07/01/04, were actually created by the MA around April 19, 2005.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Establish administrative controls to ensure that policies and procedures have integrity and effective dates. Develop controls that would prevent one individual from manipulating the system.
F25:
Multiple backups from ISD were analyzed and there was a consistency in the older version of policies and procedures between December 2003 and April 2005. The explanation of website confusion and duplicate websites was ruled out as a reason for the inconsistent document dates.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Establish administrative controls to ensure that policies and procedures have integrity and effective dates. Develop controls that would prevent one individual from manipulating the system.
F26:
Before March 26, 2005, P&Ps for the Mental Health Crisis Team had not been reviewed, updated, or revised for at least a year.
F27:
Although the Team staff reportedly asked for updates to the information, it was only after the Grand Jury asked for copies of the policies and procedures that the Director of BHD initiated action to update the files.
F28:
The effective dates and review dates of documents are chronologically inconsistent with documents found on backup tapes of Intranet records. The P&P effective dates are also chronologically inconsistent with the events, such as budget cutbacks, that supposedly caused those policy changes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Establish administrative controls to ensure that policies and procedures have integrity and effective dates. Develop controls that would prevent one individual from manipulating the system.
F29:
Of particular significance is a P&P identified as CT30, “Crisis Team Dispatch Tracking of Mobile Teams” (see Attachment 2). This procedure refers to service calls “received by dispatch.” There never was a function known as “Dispatch” within the Team. This procedure was reportedly written by the Director of BHD when it was anticipated that the 24-hour crisis telephone service would be contracted. This documented procedure, as well, was originally effective on 12/12/03, months before the Director reported the effort to contract the Team’s functions.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Establish administrative controls to ensure that policies and procedures have integrity and effective dates. Develop controls that would prevent one individual from manipulating the system.
F30:
While there is indication that some of the new procedures had been communicated verbally to the Team over the past year, there are new procedures since April 2005 that were never communicated. Those new procedures also show an effective date of 12/12/03.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Establish administrative controls to ensure that policies and procedures have integrity and effective dates. Develop controls that would prevent one individual from manipulating the system.
F31:
It was found that all policies and procedures for the Team were not reviewed or revised in the two years prior to April of 2005. Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management 5
F32:
All policies and procedures for the Team were reviewed and revised as of April 19, 2005. In spite of this review and revisions process, none of the Crisis Team P&P documents shows a review or revision date later than 7/1/04.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Establish administrative controls to ensure that policies and procedures have integrity and effective dates. Develop controls that would prevent one individual from manipulating the system.
F33:
All Intranet P&P documents in BHD can be changed at will by BHD management. Documents can be backdated with no verifications or management controls. Conclusions C-01. The Team provides a valuable community service, but funding problems in the County required that it be downsized to perform mandated services only. (F-01, F-02, F-05) C-02. The Director of BHD is more directly involved with the Team policies and procedures than the two mid-level supervisors. (F-03) C-03. BHD does not follow its own procedures for maintaining, reviewing, and updating policies and procedures. (F-08, F-09, F-11 thru F-15, F-20, F-21) C-04. There is no document integrity to the policies and procedures on the Intranet, and there is no reliable verification mechanism to ensure that the procedures being followed have been adequately reviewed and appropriately controlled. (F-17 thru F-19, F-24 thru F-26, F-32, F-33) C-05. Employees do not get clear instructions about what is expected of them. There is no well-documented or well-maintained procedure for providing services to clients. (F-16, F-17, F-20, F-21, F-27, F-29, F-30) C-06. There is an inconsistent and contradictory flow of information from the Director of BHD to the employees in the department. (F-20, F-22, F-23, F-25,
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R01:
Establish administrative controls to ensure that policies and procedures have integrity and effective dates. Develop controls that would prevent one individual from manipulating the system.
R02:
Provide separation of duties or checks and balances. Separate policy and procedure approval authority from the documentation and execution function. Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors (R-01, R-02) County Executive Officer (R-01, R-02) Health Care Agency (R-01, R-02) Attachments 6 Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management Attachment 1. “Scope and Development of Policies and Procedures,” Ventura County Behavioral Health Policies and Procedures, Procedure No. A1, August 11, 2000. Attachment 2. “Crisis Team Dispatch Tracking of Mobile Teams,” Ventura County Behavioral Health Policies and Procedures, Procedure No. C30, December 12, 2003. Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management 7 Attachment 1. Procedure A1: “Scope and Development of Policies and Procedures” 8 Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management Attachment 1. Procedure A1: “Scope and Development of Policies and Procedures” Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management 9 Attachment 2. Procedure CT30: “Crisis Team Dispatch Tracking of Mobile Teams” 10 Mental Health Crisis Team and Behavioral Health Management
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
239 hallazgos
F01:
The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA), also known as Proposition 36 (Prop 36), is solely a drug treatment initiative. There is neither provision nor funding in this initiative to perform drug testing on offenders sentenced to Prop 36 probation. In fact, using SACPA funds for drug testing is prohibited by law.
F02:
Prop 36 was designed to: (1) preserve jail and prison cells for serious and violent offenders, (2) enhance public safety by reducing drug-related crime, and (3) improve public health by reducing drug abuse through proven and effective treatment strategies.4
F03:
A separate bill, the Substance Abuse Treatment and Testing Accountability (SATTA), was passed by the California Senate in 2001. This law provides funding and guidance for drug testing during treatment under Prop 36.
F04:
The fiscal year 2004-2005 funding allocation for Ventura County Prop 36 treatment was $2.86 million. There was an additional $1.08 million carried over from unspent funds in the prior fiscal year. This brought the total available funds to approximately $3.95 million. State of California, Alcohol and Drug Programs, http://www.adp.ca.gov/SACPA/prop36.shtml Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 3
F05:
Ventura County has stayed well within its annual budget each year of Prop 36. The provided funding has been more than adequate. SATTA, however, does not have adequate funding for the level of drug testing required to support treatment.
F06:
Drug Medi-Cal (DMC) can provide reimbursement for drug treatment services through approved treatment providers. DMC cannot supplement Prop 36 funding, but it can be used instead of Prop 36 funds in some cases.
F07:
In Ventura County, the Prop 36 stakeholders are BHD/ADP, the Probation Agency, the Superior Courts, the Sheriff, the District Attorney, County Executive Officer, Public Defender, and drug treatment providers. Lead Agency Designation
F08:
When Prop 36 was signed into law, each of California’s 58 counties was required to designate a Lead Agency to receive the state funds and administer the program. On February 27, 2001, the Board approved BHD/ADP as Lead Agency in Ventura County for Prop 36.
F09:
When Prop 36 was initiated in Ventura County, the Implementation Committee was formed to plan and coordinate the initial activities. Because it was believed that clients would be first-time and second-time non-violent drug offenders, this committee decided to place most of the program’s resources into direct treatment services with lesser emphasis on probation oversight and public safety.
F10:
In response to the 2003 Report, the Director/Chief Probation Officer for Ventura County stated, “Tripling the number of offenders placed on formal probation would require triple the resources to supervise. The Implementation Committee believed, and we agree, that more resources needed to be allocated for treatment rather than probation supervision for all but the highest risk offenders.”5
F11:
The original assumptions regarding the client population were quickly proven incorrect. By the end of the first year, there was a state-wide recognition that, “What we are seeing in SACPA are clients who have severe drug histories, serious physical health problems, and extensive criminal justice backgrounds.”6
F12:
The 2003 Grand Jury found that, “The majority of California counties designate Alcohol and Drug Programs or Behavioral Health as their Lead Agency.”
F13:
The 2003 Grand Jury acknowledged that Ventura County was like other California counties in deciding that BHD/ADP should lead Prop 36, but that 5 Calvin C. Remington, Director/Chief Probation Officer in response to Ventura County 2003-2004 Grand Jury Final Report entitled “Ventura County Proposition 36 Implementation.” Letter to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, dated August 13, 2004. 6 “Making It Work! 2002” Conference in San Diego, March 2002. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined jury went on to describe numerous examples of management deficiencies that were specific to Ventura County’s BHD/ADP.
F14:
Because of the specific Ventura County deficiencies and in spite of other counties’ decisions, the 2003 Grand Jury recommended that a different agency be designated as lead.
F15:
On September 28, 2004, in reviewing its responses to the 2003 Grand Jury recommendations, the Board requested the CEO’s office to prepare a comparative analysis to provide informed guidance regarding the Lead Agency.
F16:
The CEO’s office undertook generally to study and compare counties with respect to Prop 36 and, specifically, to determine whether BHD/ADP should remain as the Lead Agency.
F17:
The analyst did not identify any factors to compare other than the one already provided in the 2003 Report, that is, which agency in other counties is designated as the Prop 36 lead.
F18:
The CEO’s analysis found that, of the 12 largest counties, most designated Behavioral Health as the Lead Agency for Prop 36. Further, of the nine mid- sized counties, most designated Behavioral Health as the Lead Agency for Prop 36. Finally, of the 8 counties considered most similar to Ventura County, most designated Behavioral Health as the Lead Agency for Prop 36.
F19:
Based on counting various groups and categories of counties, the CEO’s analysis confirmed the information reported by the 2003 Grand Jury, that most of the counties in California have designated Behavioral Health as the Lead Agency.
F20:
The CEO’s analysis reported there is no other comparable data to compare counties because all counties implement Prop 36 differently. The analyst reported that counties screen candidates differently, that they have different treatment protocols and that they have different processes in place for implementing the program.
F21:
The CEO’s analysis did not address the differences between the counties and the relative success rates.
F22:
The CEO’s Memorandum dated January 18, 2005, included this statement, “There is a significant relationship between drug offenders and mental illness. The designation of the Behavioral Health Department as the Lead Agency allows the provider of several different related programs to administer treatment.” The analysis did not address this relationship or determine if there was a similar relationship between any other criminal offenses and mental illness. The analysis did not state if there was any other Lead Agency arrangement that would allow the same access to related treatment programs.
F23:
In a memorandum to the CEO, the analyst recommended that BHD/ADP remain as the Lead Agency based on the investigative result that most other counties assign that function to Behavioral Health.
F24:
As of the date of this report, the Board has taken no action to replace BHD/ADP as the Lead Agency in the Prop 36 implementation in Ventura County. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 5 Basis for Comparison
F25:
In September of 2003 UCLA published a report for the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. The “Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2003 Report”7 (the UCLA Report) states, “SACPA represents a major shift in criminal justice policy. Adults convicted of nonviolent drug-related offenses and otherwise eligible for SACPA can now be sentenced to probation with drug treatment instead of either probation without treatment or incarceration.”
F26:
The UCLA Report describes many aspects of Prop 36 that could be considered characteristics of a successful implementation. The UCLA Report states, “About one-third (34.4%) of offenders who entered treatment [emphasis added] in SACPA’s first year completed treatment.” It also reported, “Overall, about one-quarter (23.8%) of offenders who agreed to participate [emphasis added] in SACPA in its first year completed treatment.” There is a big difference between agreeing to treatment and actually entering treatment.
F27:
The UCLA Report describes “show rates” as indicators of how many clients referred into Prop 36 show up at various stages of treatment. It states, “Counties reported use of a variety of offender management strategies intended to raise show rates at assessment and treatment. In at least half of the counties, Probation and assessment staff were co-located, walk-in assessments were allowed, offenders had more than one day to report for assessment, and the assessment protocol required only one visit.”
F28:
The UCLA Report states, “Using drug-court procedures to manage offenders might lead to a higher show rate at either the assessment or treatment because the judge, case manager, and probation officer are providing close supervision.”
F29:
The UCLA Report states, “Both assessment and treatment show rates were lower in counties where the proportion of SACPA offenders with felony as opposed to misdemeanor convictions was higher.”
F30:
Ventura County has a higher rate of misdemeanor offenders than felony offenders, so the UCLA findings would imply that Ventura County should have a higher show rate than other California counties.
F31:
Any attendance advantage derived from the higher misdemeanor rate in Ventura County is negated by the fact that those misdemeanor offenders are not on formal probation. Oversight Committee
F32:
County stakeholders (BHD/ADP, Courts, D.A., Public Defender, Probation, Sheriff, CEO, and treatment providers) needed an organized method of making decisions as a group. These group efforts would include making a decision on 7 Longshore, Douglas, Ph.D., et. al., “Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2003 Report,” University of Southern California, Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, September 23, 2004. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined what constitutes successful completion of a drug treatment program in Ventura County.
F33:
The 2003 Grand Jury described the committee that had evolved from the first year’s Implementation Committee. The Implementation Committee had documented that “policy oversight would be vested in a committee.” An Implementation Committee report stated, “the exact composition of the oversight committee was not agreed on.”
F34:
The original Implementation Committee had stated its plan to publish a memorandum of agreement (MOA) or memorandum of understanding (MOU) to document the new committee’s representation and authority as well as the charter or rules of voting and reaching decisions.
F35:
The 2003 Grand Jury found that the county stakeholders, including BHD/ADP personnel, called their committee either the Oversight Committee or the Operations Committee. Both terms were used frequently and interchangeably by the committee members.
F36:
The 2003 Grand Jury attempted to locate meeting agendas and minutes that might refer to the committee name, but those documents were not available.
F37:
Because there was no stakeholder consistency in the name and because of the documented intentions for this evolved committee, the 2003 Grand Jury arbitrarily referred to the existing committee as the “Oversight Committee” or the “Operations and Oversight Committee.”
F38:
Regardless of the committee name, the 2003 Grand Jury reported problems it attributed to a lack of the intended MOA or MOU. The committee published no minutes, the exact composition of the committee was not agreed upon, and decisions were made informally by consensus if they were made at all. Committee members were unsure of the procedure for overcoming a committee deadlock.
F39:
Encompassing both names, the 2003 Grand Jury recommended that the “Operations and Oversight Committee be reconstituted as the representative body for all stakeholders.” The recommendation was specific as to a “charter, guidelines, and by-laws,” plus voting procedures to be approved and documented. The 2003 Grand Jury also recommended considering the “voice of all stakeholders,” as well as carefully recording meeting minutes.
F40:
In the response to the recommendations of the 2003 Grand Jury, BHD/ADP generally concurred with the findings, but noted that the Implementation Committee had evolved into the Operations Committee, not the Oversight Committee. It stated that an “Oversight Committee was never formed.”8
F41:
The BHD/ADP response includes this statement, “BHD/ADP believes that an Oversight Committee – which has never been designated – should be created. The Oversight Committee should then meet and officially create an MOU 8 Shulman, Linda, “2003-2004 Ventura Grand Jury Report Behavioral Health Department Response,” Letter to Honorable Bruce A. Clark, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, August 16, 2004. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 7 which will provide clarity to the Operations Cabinet on implementation of this law.”9
F42:
The recommendation of the Oversight Committee was made by BHD/ADP. The 2003 Grand Jury did not make a recommendation that two committees were necessary for Prop 36 oversight and operations.
F43:
The 2003 Grand Jury did recommend that the single formed committee should establish a documented charter, guidelines, and by-laws “providing membership requirements, stakeholder authority, quorum, and voting procedures.” The recommendation stated, “Minutes should clearly document all decisions, action items, and discussions.”
F44:
The Board decided to continue the Operations Committee and add an Oversight Committee. In the Board’s response to the 2003 Grand Jury, it was stated, “Once the Oversight Committee is officially designated, an MOU should be created that defines the various roles of each agency in the operation of Prop 36.”
F45:
On July 28, 2004, the ongoing Operations Committee published a draft “Operational Procedures” that described the committee composition, the responsibilities and roles of the committee, and the meeting schedule and rules of governance. The rules included procedures for voting and taking minutes.
F46:
As there were no published minutes from this July 28 meeting or the four subsequent meetings, there is no public indication or clear stakeholder recollection that these recommended rules were decided or even fully discussed.
F47:
The newly formed Oversight Committee directed the Operations Committee to continue making decisions on consensus.
F48:
The “County of Ventura FY 2005-2006 County Plan” states, “In October 2004, an Oversight Committee consisting of the department heads of the CEO’s office, BH/ADP, Judge, Sheriff, District Attorney, Public Defender, and Probation Agency was formed to help establish protocols and give direction to the Operations Committee, along with strengthening collaboration.”
F49:
As of June 1, 2005, there have been three meetings of the Oversight Committee. There was no committee until after the Board reviewed the agency responses to the 2003 Grand Jury. The two October meetings were immediately after the September 28, 2004, Board meeting where the 2003 Grand Jury criticisms were discussed. The April 2005 meeting was scheduled within days of the Grand Jury asking the Director of BHD how many Oversight Committee meetings have taken place during the year.
F50:
In public comments before the Board on March 17, 2005, the Director of BHD suggested that frequent or regular meetings of the Oversight Committee had been unnecessary as business was being conducted by email or private conversations. Ibid. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined
F51:
The MOU requested by the Board could not be created by the Oversight Committee because the Public Defender and the District Attorney would not sign a document that might create a conflict of interest with representation of their respective clients.
F52:
Ventura County now has a Prop 36 Operations Committee and a Prop 36 Oversight Committee, both chaired by BHD and run by consensus. If the Operations Committee cannot reach a decision, it will be referred to the Oversight Committee. If no Oversight consensus is reached, the individual members may or may not negotiate by email or private dialogues and decide to go forward without committee approval. These things might or might not be known because the minutes may or may not be published.
F53:
There is not yet an agreement or consensus as to what constitutes successful completion of a drug treatment program in Ventura County. Completion Standard – Mischaracterized Statistics and Sliding Benchmarks
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
F54:
It is the responsibility of BHD/ADP, as the designated Lead Agency, to “coordinate evaluation of the services and treatment provided.”10
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
F55:
The 2003 Grand Jury recommended the “immediate establishment of a meaningful treatment completion standard in accordance with the spirit and intent of Prop 36.” The 2003 Grand Jury criticized BHD/ADP for attempting “to weave success from failure by mischaracterizing statistics, sliding benchmarks for successful drug treatment, and portraying program liabilities as assets.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
R12:
In the interest of cost, efficiency, and treatment delivery, BHD/ADP should not be encouraged or even allowed to participate in leadership of any future court- ordered treatment programs. Responses Responses Required (R-1 thru R-12): Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer District Attorney Health Care Agency Probation Agency Public Defender Ventura County Sheriff Commendations The successes in treatment seen by Prop 36 clients are directly attributable to the dedication and selflessness of all treatment providers. The treatment providers and counselors have such dedication to drug treatment that they refuse to allow poor management and bureaucratic ineffectiveness to interfere with the treatment of their clients. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined Attachments Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” from “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: Analysis of FY 2003/04 Plans from the 58 Counties” Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 33 Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” 34 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined
F56:
The law provides a definition of successful treatment completion in Penal Code section 1210(c): The term “successful completion of treatment” means that a defendant who has had drug treatment imposed as a condition of probation has completed the prescribed course of drug treatment and, as a result, there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant will not abuse controlled substances in the future.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
F57:
On September 28, 2004, Ms. Linda Shulman, Director of BHD, spoke before the Board regarding the success of Prop 36 clients, UCLA put out a second-year report that compared ten counties, so it’s not comprehensive, but in that report, they said that a third of the people referred into Prop 36 were succeeding in treatment, and that’s the same number that we have here in Ventura County. Ms. Shulman further explained, We have about 2500 clients referred into the program annually. Only 800 of them are in treatment. The other 1700 we have non- complied and sent back to the courts, and said, they’re not participating in the program, they’re having dirty drug tests, 10 Ventura County Implementation Committee, “Report of the Implementation Committee,” June 5, 2001. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 9 whatever the reasons for the noncompliance are, so we’re turning back two-thirds to the court system – we’re only actively treating a third.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
F58:
Rather than gauge success on the number of clients in treatment as suggested by Ms. Shulman, the UCLA Report actually states, “About one-third (34.4%) of offenders who entered treatment in SACPA's first year completed treatment. SACPA requires completion of treatment.” It goes on to clarify, Satisfactory progress and sustained participation in treatment are good signs, but SACPA requires completion of treatment. Clients who complete treatment may fail to comply with additional requirements, and clients who fail to complete treatment may or may not commit new crimes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
F59:
“One-third success” and “comparable to other counties” is often heard in relation to Prop 36.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
F60:
The D.A. has frequently documented the lack of statistical reporting on Prop 36 treatment outcomes. Requests have been made in writing that Prop 36 develop or compile statistics or measure the success of various treatment protocols that have been implemented.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
F61:
The 2003 Grand Jury recommended that Prop 36 should fund basic information systems and risk management systems to meet information objectives of the stakeholders.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
F62:
There is no indication that requests for statistics and metrics have ever been addressed or that any Ventura County Prop 36 funds have ever been allocated for the purpose of quantifying treatment results.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
R12:
In the interest of cost, efficiency, and treatment delivery, BHD/ADP should not be encouraged or even allowed to participate in leadership of any future court- ordered treatment programs. Responses Responses Required (R-1 thru R-12): Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer District Attorney Health Care Agency Probation Agency Public Defender Ventura County Sheriff Commendations The successes in treatment seen by Prop 36 clients are directly attributable to the dedication and selflessness of all treatment providers. The treatment providers and counselors have such dedication to drug treatment that they refuse to allow poor management and bureaucratic ineffectiveness to interfere with the treatment of their clients. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined Attachments Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” from “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: Analysis of FY 2003/04 Plans from the 58 Counties” Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 33 Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” 34 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined
F63:
There is no commonly understood meaning of “successful completion” in Ventura County. Prop 36 Services Pipeline
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10:
Encourage the Operations Committee to abandon the pursuit of the perfect protocol and leave treatment decisions to treatment providers with Lead Agency oversight. Instead, focus Operations Committee efforts on obtaining actionable metrics so that recommendations can be made based on reality instead of perception and spin.
F64:
The process whereby a drug offender is referred to treatment after sentencing was originally designed by the Prop 36 Implementation Committee. This process has not changed substantially over the past four years of Prop 36 implementation.
F65:
After sentencing in the courts, felony and high-risk misdemeanor Prop 36 offenders are referred to a Probation Officer for formal probation terms. The Probation Officer will maintain a case file for tracking and reporting purposes.
F66:
All Prop 36 clients, felony and misdemeanor, are referred to the BHD/ADP CAS for assessment and placement in treatment. The court currently allows the client up to five days to contact the CAS for an appointment.
F67:
After receiving an assessment appointment, the client is also told by CAS to attend an orientation meeting. Orientation is separate from assessment and is held at the CAC in groups of three clients, up to three times a day.
F68:
The client’s transition from court to treatment is accomplished through the assessment process. The purpose of the assessment is to make a decision 10 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined about the client’s treatment placement. According to the County Plan, “The County BH/ADP is the single entity responsible for determining a client’s level of need for, placement in, and referral to drug treatment and other services.”
F69:
The assessment process currently takes place at the CAS with an Alcohol and Drug Treatment Specialist (ADTS) assigned to perform initial and exit assessments.
F70:
There are generally two considerations in treatment placement: the severity of the addiction and proximity to the treatment provider.
F71:
There are three levels of treatment determined by addiction severity: Level 1 is for slight to problematic substance abuse Level 2 is for problematic to moderate substance abuse/dependence Level 3 is for serious to acute substance dependence
F72:
In the current fiscal year, approximately 3% of the assessed clients were referred to Level 1 treatment, 74% were referred to Level 2, and 6% were referred to Level 3. The remaining 17% of assessed clients were pending or transferring out of county, on leave of absence or refused treatment.
F73:
Level 1 treatment consists of 28 total outpatient program hours over a 6-month period. Fewer than 30 clients have been placed in Level 1 treatment during the first 11 months of the current fiscal year.
F74:
Level 2 treatment consists of 66 total outpatient program hours over a 12- month period. Approximately 600 clients were placed in Level 2 treatment during the first 11 months of the current fiscal year.
F75:
Level 3 treatment consists of residential care, for either 45 or 90 days, followed by outpatient care for the remainder of the program. Level 3 treatment consists of a total of 108 program hours over an 18-month period. Fewer than 50 clients have been placed in Level 3 treatment during the first 11 months of the current fiscal year.
F76:
Treatment depends on regular attendance at classes, and proximity is of primary concern during treatment placement as most clients do not have reliable transportation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F77:
Clients have been known to specifically request treatment providers where they know drug testing is not observed, but this practice has recently been discouraged by CAS supervision.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F78:
There are two major outpatient treatment providers in Ventura County. One is in Oxnard and the other is in Thousand Oaks. The three smaller county-run facilities are in Ventura, Oxnard, and Simi Valley. As a practical matter, most clients are placed in the appropriate treatment facility closest to their home.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F79:
Prop 36 beds in residential treatment centers are frequently filled, and the decision of which residential treatment center is generally made based on gender and bed availability.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F80:
CAS assessment personnel will perform a clinical assessment and make Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 11 referrals to a treatment provider plus any ancillary services they believe will benefit the client.11
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F81:
Assessment personnel will then transfer the file to a CAS case manager for the duration of the client’s treatment. The case manager will maintain a case file for tracking and reporting purposes.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F82:
Treatment begins when the client reports to the referred treatment provider. There is no substance abuse treatment at the CAS.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F83:
When the client reports to the designated treatment provider, the first step in the intake process can be described as a clinical assessment and treatment orientation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F84:
CAS staff and supervision as well as treatment providers agree that a clinical assessment by the treatment provider is required in order to provide the appropriate treatment for the client.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F85:
Once the orientations and assessments are completed, the treatment counseling sessions begin.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F86:
Based on their own clinical assessments and frequent contacts with the client, treatment providers may recommend treatment level adjustments and other referrals to the CAS case manager. The County Plan states, “Once placed in outpatient treatment, it is the responsibility of the treatment provider to report the need for residential services and a treatment adjustment to the Assessment Center case manager.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F87:
Once in treatment, communication between the treatment providers and the courts is coordinated through the CAS case managers. Communication includes reporting of drug test results, session attendance, and levels of participation. Criminal Justice (Probation) Services
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11:
Evaluate the contracts of the treatment providers to ensure that the county is not taking advantage of treatment partners. Consider using hoarded BHD/ADP Prop 36 funds to reimburse the accounts receivable that these providers have accrued by being from ordered to treat Prop 36 clients on a pro- bono basis.
F88:
Based primarily on the goal of keeping the majority of funding in treatment, Ventura County made a decision to place felons on formal probation under Probation supervision. Misdemeanants are placed on conditional release with no probation oversight or supervision.
F89:
When Prop 36 was initiated into this county, BHD/ADP assumed responsibility for treatment monitoring and reporting for all Prop 36 offenders. It was considered practical to allow Probation to supervise felony offenders with information provided by BHD/ADP.
F90:
The BHD/ADP CAS function would provide general oversight to misdemeanor offenders not on formal probation. The case managers were responsible for filing charges of non-compliance for misdemeanor clients. This function was considered practical because CAS has immediate access to compliance information for these clients. See findings F-123 thru F-148 12 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined
F91:
In regard to this complementary oversight function of Probation and BHD/ADP, the Implementation Committee Report stated, It was recognized that the treatment sessions and drug testing performed as part of treatment will provide significant levels of monitoring, and therefore the overall supervision and monitoring of drug offenders will increase through the combined efforts of Probation and ADP under the plan.
F92:
Probation has no legal jurisdiction or authority over the Prop 36 misdemeanor offenders placed on conditional release. As the system is now implemented, if there is any court supervision of these particular clients, it must take place through the treatment process.
F93:
The division between felons and misdemeanants was chosen as a convenient way to manage the large number of clients. In retrospect, Probation acknowledges that many misdemeanor offenders require as much or more supervision than felony offenders. The arbitrary division between felons and misdemeanants does not appropriately address the criminality or actual need for probation supervision.
F94:
As described in the UCLA Report, the intention of Prop 36 is to provide “probation with drug treatment instead of either probation without treatment or incarceration.” For misdemeanor offenders, Ventura County created an additional alternative: drug treatment without probation. Drug Treatment without Probation
F95:
For a variety of reasons, BHD/ADP CAS did not fulfill the Implementation Committee’s expectation of client supervision.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12:
In the interest of cost, efficiency, and treatment delivery, BHD/ADP should not be encouraged or even allowed to participate in leadership of any future court- ordered treatment programs. Responses Responses Required (R-1 thru R-12): Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer District Attorney Health Care Agency Probation Agency Public Defender Ventura County Sheriff Commendations The successes in treatment seen by Prop 36 clients are directly attributable to the dedication and selflessness of all treatment providers. The treatment providers and counselors have such dedication to drug treatment that they refuse to allow poor management and bureaucratic ineffectiveness to interfere with the treatment of their clients. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined Attachments Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” from “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: Analysis of FY 2003/04 Plans from the 58 Counties” Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 33 Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” 34 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined
F96:
The transfer of information between treatment providers and CAS and between CAS and the courts has been slower than desired. There has been some loss of or miscommunication of information at different levels of the process.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12:
In the interest of cost, efficiency, and treatment delivery, BHD/ADP should not be encouraged or even allowed to participate in leadership of any future court- ordered treatment programs. Responses Responses Required (R-1 thru R-12): Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer District Attorney Health Care Agency Probation Agency Public Defender Ventura County Sheriff Commendations The successes in treatment seen by Prop 36 clients are directly attributable to the dedication and selflessness of all treatment providers. The treatment providers and counselors have such dedication to drug treatment that they refuse to allow poor management and bureaucratic ineffectiveness to interfere with the treatment of their clients. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined Attachments Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” from “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: Analysis of FY 2003/04 Plans from the 58 Counties” Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 33 Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” 34 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined
F97:
Initially there was a “firewall” that prohibited the treatment providers from communicating directly with Probation. This firewall further increased the times for communication to flow from treatment through BHD/ADP and on to criminal justice.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12:
In the interest of cost, efficiency, and treatment delivery, BHD/ADP should not be encouraged or even allowed to participate in leadership of any future court- ordered treatment programs. Responses Responses Required (R-1 thru R-12): Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer District Attorney Health Care Agency Probation Agency Public Defender Ventura County Sheriff Commendations The successes in treatment seen by Prop 36 clients are directly attributable to the dedication and selflessness of all treatment providers. The treatment providers and counselors have such dedication to drug treatment that they refuse to allow poor management and bureaucratic ineffectiveness to interfere with the treatment of their clients. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined Attachments Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” from “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: Analysis of FY 2003/04 Plans from the 58 Counties” Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 33 Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” 34 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined
F98:
Delays in obtaining assessments, delays in non-compliance communications, and delays in processing violations created large gaps in time where clients who were again using drugs were free in the communities.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12:
In the interest of cost, efficiency, and treatment delivery, BHD/ADP should not be encouraged or even allowed to participate in leadership of any future court- ordered treatment programs. Responses Responses Required (R-1 thru R-12): Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer District Attorney Health Care Agency Probation Agency Public Defender Ventura County Sheriff Commendations The successes in treatment seen by Prop 36 clients are directly attributable to the dedication and selflessness of all treatment providers. The treatment providers and counselors have such dedication to drug treatment that they refuse to allow poor management and bureaucratic ineffectiveness to interfere with the treatment of their clients. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined Attachments Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” from “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: Analysis of FY 2003/04 Plans from the 58 Counties” Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 33 Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” 34 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined
F99:
Although statistics are unavailable, increases in crime rates coupled with many of the offenders’ criminal histories suggested to law enforcement that some of the unsupervised and unemployed drug users were committing property crimes to sustain their drug habits.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12:
In the interest of cost, efficiency, and treatment delivery, BHD/ADP should not be encouraged or even allowed to participate in leadership of any future court- ordered treatment programs. Responses Responses Required (R-1 thru R-12): Board of Supervisors County Executive Officer District Attorney Health Care Agency Probation Agency Public Defender Ventura County Sheriff Commendations The successes in treatment seen by Prop 36 clients are directly attributable to the dedication and selflessness of all treatment providers. The treatment providers and counselors have such dedication to drug treatment that they refuse to allow poor management and bureaucratic ineffectiveness to interfere with the treatment of their clients. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined Attachments Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” from “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: Analysis of FY 2003/04 Plans from the 58 Counties” Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 33 Attachment 1. “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” 34 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined
F100:
Prior to the 2003 Grand Jury report, BHD/CAS was solely responsible for reviewing treatment information, including attendance and drug testing results, and determining non-compliance of clients.
F101:
Faced with the 2003 Grand Jury’s criticism of client supervision, the BHD Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 13 response to the findings stated, “Probation and Parole are responsible for supervision. BHD/ADP and the treatment providers are responsible for case management.”12
F102:
In the cover letter to the BHD response, Ms. Shulman stated, At this time, BHD/ADP and the contracted treatment providers [emphasis added] are responsible for determining non- compliance of clients. BHD/ADP would propose that non compliance be determined by the courts. BHD/ADP would report all activities of clients in treatment – including attendance and drug testing results. The courts would then be responsible for determining if these activities are violation and strikes or a normal part of treatment recovery. Recommendations from treatment, along with Probation and representation of the Public Defender and the D.A. would be included in this process. Details of implementation of this procedure could be determined in the MOU by the Operations Committee.
F103:
Although contract treatment providers pass treatment and compliance information to BHD/ADP case managers, contractors never had responsibility for making client non-compliance determinations. That responsibility, for misdemeanor offenders on conditional release, rests entirely with BHD/ADP.
F104:
Because BHD/ADP either failed to perform or determined that it was never required to perform supervision functions on clients of Prop 36, the Oversight Committee determined that the D.A.’s office could perform this Probation function.
F105:
With Board approval, for fiscal year 2005-2006, the D.A. has established positions funded by $150 thousand in Prop 36 money to review client treatment information in order to file non-compliances.
F106:
This function was originally planned by the Implementation Committee to be a treatment function. Because the funding provided to Probation (25% of the total) was only adequate for felony supervision, the misdemeanor supervision and non-compliance filings were originally to be paid by the 75% directed toward treatment.
F107:
Despite the fact that the D.A. is taking on a function that was originally established with treatment funds at BHD/ADP, the Oversight Committee determined that the funding to replace that capability will be taken from Probation.
F108:
It is considered unusual for the D.A. to assume Probation functions.
F109:
In juvenile and adult court-ordered treatment programs other than Prop 36, Probation has maintained their own lists of approved treatment and service providers. In those programs, Probation provides assessments and referrals to treatment services for drug and alcohol abuse as well as domestic violence and 12 Shulman, Linda, “2003-2004 Ventura Grand Jury Report Behavioral Health Department Response,” August 16, 2004. Response to finding F-35. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined anger management. Probation provides supervision and case management and they assume responsibility to document and process probation violations and non-compliances for the courts.
F110:
With adequate funding, Probation could provide assessments, referrals, case management, supervision and violation processing for Prop 36 clients.
F111:
The 2003 Grand Jury recommended that an effective risk management system would assist Probation in supervising all Prop 36 clients, not just felony convictions.
F112:
Probation already assesses risk with their internal risk management system, but the process requires time and cannot be done continuously for such a large population of clients.
F113:
A probation officer will typically see a client once a month. Treatment providers have significantly more contact, as often as several times a week. Those providers are frequently evaluating the client’s progress and risk to society.
F114:
The 2003 Grand Jury recommended that all Prop 36 offenders be placed on formal probation under the supervision of the Probation Agency and that an information system be developed to provide a regularly updated risk assessment. This recommendation was based on findings that a misdemeanor drug offender could often have serious and repetitive criminal behaviors.
F115:
The recommended risk management system would not have replaced existing systems, but could have been an additional source of information to Probation Officers. It could collect and prioritize Prop 36 client information from treatment providers without the added burden of data entry by Probation staff.
F116:
The Board declined the 2003 Grand Jury’s recommendation due to budgetary considerations. The Board replied that it would “consider this recommendation when funding becomes available, but it must be considered along with other county priorities.” This response suggests that Prop 36 funds would not be available for this type of oversight function. BHD seems to agree with the Board when it replies that it “has made this same Recommendation in prior Annual Reports to the Board.”
F117:
The Board did not research this proposal or the funding source before citing the cost prohibition.
F118:
As a cost of providing supervision to Prop 36 offenders, this expenditure would be appropriate and justified for use of Prop 36 funds.
F119:
The Grand Jury queried treatment providers, and they all collect information that is useful in evaluating the risk to society presented by their clients. The data collected are basic risk assessment indicators such as employment status, family relationships, education involvement, adherence to program attendance and sobriety goals, etc.
F120:
The Grand Jury obtained a representative questionnaire, know as “Passport,” from a local treatment provider and asked the ISD to provide a cost estimate for a two-part project: (1) develop an on-line, web-based form for treatment providers to fill in with risk information and (2) develop a screen at the Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 15 Probation office to display a scored, sorted listing so that any probation officer could review their cases for risk factors on a daily or weekly basis.
F121:
The cost to develop the system described to ISD was approximately $3,900.
F122:
Based on the plan prepared by BHD/ADP, approved by the Board, and submitted to the State of California last year, Prop 36 had $1 million of unspent funding to carry over into fiscal year 2005-2006. Prop 36 earned over $33,000 in interest on carry over funds during the last fiscal year. Central Assessment Services (CAS)
F123:
BHD/ADP maintains an office of Prop 36 CAS to provide orientation, assessment, referral, and case management for all Prop 36 clients.
F124:
Clients are not treated for addiction in the CAS. Clients are placed into treatment subsequent to assessment. The CAS does not provide drug treatment sessions.
F125:
A secondary purpose of the CAS is to refer clients to ancillary services that might enhance their recovery. Ancillary services include vocational services, educational services, medical treatment, psychiatric treatment, and family counseling. The DADP Analysis provides a table that compares “Planned Services by Type Using SACPA Funds in the 12 Large Counties in FY 2003/04” (see Attachment 1).
F126:
Prop 36 funds may be used to pay for these ancillary treatment services; however, BHD/ADP proposed and the Board approved through the annual plans to the state, that the existing public health system will be used to provide those services to Prop 36 clients in this county. In the most recent FY 2005-2006 County Plan, these ancillary services are referred to as, “currently leveraged with existing County-operated programs.”
F127:
The FY 2005-2006 County Plan states that, with regard to the county-financed ancillary services, “So far there has not been a capacity problem.”
F128:
Despite the statement to the contrary, the Grand Jury finds that budget cuts in county programs this fiscal year have forced CAS counselors to curtail many of their ancillary referral services.
F129:
Those free services that are still widely available, such as employment and vocational assistance, are still referred but are rarely followed up by Prop 36 clients. There is no requirement for the clients to follow up on any of the referrals other than substance abuse treatment.
F130:
One service considered vital by the CAS staff is the psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Over a year ago, a single psychiatrist was dedicated to Prop 36 treatment of clients with psychiatric needs. This psychiatrist would coordinate a client’s treatment as well as provide client feedback to the case managers. On his retirement, he was not replaced due to budget cuts.
F131:
CAS continued to refer clients to mental health services for a while after the dedicated psychiatrist left. Unfortunately, without a single dedicated psychiatrist who understood addiction medicine, those referred clients would 16 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined be assigned to various psychiatrists in the public system. Those clients were often not forthcoming about their addiction, and they were sometimes prescribed medications such as psychotropic drugs that would conflict with their substance abuse treatment.
F132:
In addition to prescription problems, the clients would be provided counseling that was in conflict with their court-ordered drug treatment. There was no coordination with the case managers, and the resulting chaos undermined the treatment providers and was detrimental to the client’s overall treatment progress.
F133:
Since CAS management did not make arrangements for a dedicated psychiatrist, access to psychiatric services has been purposely limited to avoid future problems.
F134:
The County Plan characterizes this curtailment of services as, “The funding for mental health services (psychiatric evaluations and medications) is being decreased, since the need for these services has been decreasing.”
F135:
In direct contradiction of the County Plan, the first stated priority for all counselors and court-team personnel is the requirement for mental health services. This need was communicated by members of the same organizations that signed the County Plan stating there was decreasing need for those services.
F136:
The CAS has overstated its workload. It claims to book about 50 client appointments per day. After deductions for “no shows” for assessments and orientation, the actual show rate is claimed to be about 35 clients per day. The Grand Jury’s review of CAS scheduling calendars for a one-month period in May-June 2005 shows there were 286 total appointments, averaging about 12 appointments per day. Of those, about 55, or 18%, were no-shows.
F137:
The calendars also revealed that over half of the appointments, 163 of the 286, were not assessments but group orientation sessions. Based on the appointments and no-shows clients, the CAS is performing about four or five assessments a day.
F138:
CAS provides “telephone assessment” to clients who need to be re-assessed before returning to treatment after being non-complied. Staff members at the CAS describe telephone assessments with the admonition that, counselors have to listen really well if assessing by telephone.
F139:
Many of the staff may not feel qualified to use all of the assessment instruments appropriately. These instruments include the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), and the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) criteria. The use of these instruments will produce numerical scores that describe, among other things, the need for treatment.
F140:
The CAS staff knows what range of assessment scores their supervisor will approve, and they frequently put those scores on the assessment to assure their supervisors’ approval. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 17
F141:
Contract treatment providers notice that most of the assessments from the CAS are very similar (like boilerplate) even for dissimilar clients.
F142:
The assessment result from CAS is a combination of the staff’s interview with the client and the known expectations of the supervisor.
F143:
Drug addicted clients have a hard time dealing with many layers of government bureaucracy. CAS staff members and contract treatment providers all report that dealing with as few different people as possible is best for the clients.
F144:
In spite of client confusion caused by layers of bureaucracy, the CAS has further divided their duties so that staff members have specialties of assessment and case management. The client may see one counselor to be assessed and then might be assigned to a different counselor for case management. This is all before they go to a different facility and meet yet another counselor for substance abuse treatment.
F145:
There is a specific treatment bottleneck. The flow of information seems to stop at CAS. CAS has told the criminal justice side of the process that bottlenecks are caused by the treatment providers. CAS had told treatment providers the problem is caused by the criminal justice side.
F146:
The Grand Jury has found the consistent bottleneck is at the BHD/ADP CAS operation. Assessment Timeliness
F147:
The 2003 Grand Jury was critical of the length of time that would elapse before a client would be required to report to the CAS for assessment. Prior to the 2003 Grand Jury report, it was not unusual to have a client wait two weeks or more to obtain an assessment.
F148:
With regard to assessment, the 2003 Grand Jury recommended, and all responding parties concurred, that a “goal of early and positive supervision experience should be pursued to initially set the tone for Prop 36 treatment.” The recommendation was specifically to establish an office in the Hall of Justice or Probation for use in immediate assessments subsequent to sentencing.
F149:
The Probation Agency expressed in their response to the 2003 Grand Jury that their experience shows, “proximity and timeliness are key elements to success. For this population, allowing five days for a telephone contact and up to three weeks for an initial assessment will result in higher no-show rates.”
F150:
In public response at the September 28, 2004 meeting of the Board, Ms. Shulman stated, We agree as far as being able to move assessment into the Courthouse. We think that would be great. Although now we have looked at the assessment process and I think that a client can get into an assessment within 24 hours of calling now. So that, at least now, the timeframe from which they’re referred from the Courts and are able to get assessed, the turnaround 18 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined times are much quicker. So, you know, you’ll see in our response to the Grand Jury, we pretty much agreed with most of what they had to say, a little taken aback by the tone of the report and do think there are some basic philosophical realities that we’re all going to struggle with around whether this is the right way to be dealing with people with drug problems and certainly that’ll continue to be an issue.
F151:
In the nearly nine months since Ms. Shulman’s statement, there appears to be no documented improvement in the time between sentencing and assessment.
F152:
The Courts allow a client to take up to five days before calling CAS for an assessment. When a client does call CAS, the appointment could be two weeks or more in the future.
F153:
The Grand Jury randomly selected groups of client records (redacted for personally-identifiable client information) to calculate the number of days between sentencing and assessment. As late as May of 2005, dozens of client records show an average of 12 calendar days between sentencing and assessment. One client sampled was seen in two days, four clients were seen within three days, and dozens took nearly two weeks. A few of the sampled clients took more than 30 days to reach the assessment.
F154:
Ms. Shulman’s statement (see F-152) is technically correct. With a staff of ten full-time addiction and drug treatment specialists, and an average of fewer than five actual assessments a day, it would be possible that a client walking in off the street could be assessed immediately, if the CAS operated in that manner.
F155:
In reality there is little or no likelihood of clients actually being assessed that quickly. The CAS appointment calendar, with initial assessments booked days and weeks into the future, contradicts the 24-hour suggestion of Ms. Shulman.
F156:
The County Plan approved on May 17, 2005, by the Board and submitted to the State of California states, Not all clients who are eligible and referred to Prop. 36 make it to the CAS; however, 90% of the clients assessed do enter treatment. In order to address this issue, for 2005-2006 we plan to have an assessment office in the Hall of Justice, and clients will be required to schedule an appointment or complete an assessment before reporting to Probation if so ordered.
F157:
At the Board meeting of May 17, 2005, Ms. Shulman reported that space had been identified to open an assessment center location in the courthouse, stating that she was working on a pilot program with the courts to begin assessments for Prop 36, but looking to use the assessment center for Domestic Violence (DV) Court. She stated that the goal was ultimately to do assessments in the courthouse for all the courtrooms that need referrals.
F158:
DV Court does not currently use BHD for assessment services. The current assessments and DV case management is through the Probation Agency. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 19
F159:
The assessment process performed by CAS staff, sometimes taking two to two and a half hours, is too lengthy and unpredictable to perform routinely in the Hall of Justice.
F160:
After the assessment office is opened in the Hall of Justice, BHD/ADP plans to provide staff to greet new clients as well as schedule their assessment appointments at the CAS. There is a plan to conduct a few assessments to meet the requirements of the 2003 Grand Jury’s recommendations, but the majority of the assessments will be conducted in the CAS.
F161:
It would be feasible for CAS staff to use this time in the court, after sentencing, to find out where the client lives and send him or her to the nearest treatment facility for assessment and to get started on a treatment program.
F162:
Funding for Prop 36 and CAS will be uncertain in the future after the sunset of Prop 36 next year. In addition, the Grand Jury has focused attention on the questionable necessity of BHD/ADP and the CAS assessment and case management functions. Treatment Providers
F163:
It is the responsibility of BHD/ADP, as the designated Lead Agency, to “provide or contract for drug treatment programs.”13
F164:
CAS sends Prop 36 clients to treatment providers to undergo their actual drug treatment services.
F165:
All treatment providers, even those operated by the county, reported that they must do their own assessment in order to properly treat a client. Both of the largest outpatient facilities reported that they also conduct an orientation for new clients.
F166:
Treatment providers do not rely on the assessments provided by the CAS. Treatment providers frequently disagree with the assessments of the CAS.
F167:
Treatment providers also make referrals to ancillary services in the interest of their clients.
F168:
The County Plan states, “Once placed in outpatient treatment, it is the responsibility of the treatment provider to report the need for residential services and a treatment adjustment to the CAS case manager.”
F169:
Treatment providers have been presented with clients who have severe mental illness who have not been referred to mental health treatment by the CAS
F170:
The CAS staff members maintain the client files and provide case management functions. The majority of information in the client files is duplicated from files created and maintained at the treatment provider.
F171:
Probation and contract treatment providers are capable of providing case management functions. In fact, as the primary contact with the clients, the 13 Ventura County Implementation Committee, “Report of the Implementation Committee,” June 5, 2001. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined treatment providers are required to complete a great deal of duplicative paperwork intended to keep the CAS staff informed of the clients’ progress.
F172:
When the CAS refers clients to treatment in the county-run facilities in Ventura, Oxnard, and Simi Valley, treatment for those clients can be provided with Drug Medi-Cal (DMC) funds versus Prop 36 funds. Since treatment cannot be billed to Prop 36 for services where DMC is billed, Prop 36 funds are saved when a client is funded by DMC, and county-treated clients do not generally expend Prop 36 funds.
F173:
BHD/ADP and the CAS staff do not make recommendations as to treatment methods. Each treatment provider determines its own methods, even within the county-operated facilities.
F174:
When the Prop 36 law was placed in effect, the county contracted with treatment providers for substance abuse treatment services. These services can be compared to the services already being provided to drug courts and other court-ordered treatment scenarios.
F175:
Treatment providers signed contracts whereby the client is required to pay directly to the treatment provider a co-payment for the major portion of their treatment services. This is an expected part of treatment so that the client has an investment in recovery.
F176:
For outpatient services, the county has written contracts that refer to “units of service” that can be billed to the county for Prop 36 treatment. The treatment contracts reimburse the providers only for group and individual counseling hours. There is no reimbursement for assessment, case management, special ancillary treatment services, compliance tracking and reports required by the county. The treatment providers conduct interim assessments throughout the treatment process and those are not compensated either.
F177:
In addition to the compensated units of service, the contract treatment providers are required to perform specific case management functions for BHD/ADP CAS such as progress reports, non-compliance reports, termination and discharge reports, attendance summary tracking, drug testing compliance tracking, records preparation for subpoena, job search verifications, and certificates of completion. None of these activities are compensated under the terms of the contracts.
F178:
In addition to paperwork required by CAS case managers, treatment providers have daily telephone conferences with CAS personnel answering requests for information such as client whereabouts, non-compliance issues and treatment adjustments. None of these activities are compensated under the contracts.
F179:
Written into the formal Probation terms, as well as the treatment provider contracts, is the requirement for clients to make a co-payment for treatment. A client should not be allowed to complete treatment without paying his or her fees. Also, the protocols describe the procedure to non-comply clients who are able to pay but refuse to pay a co-payment.
F180:
Treatment providers see the clients more frequently than Probation, the courts, and the CAS case managers. They come to know the clients well Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 21 during the course of treatment. The treatment providers can tell when a client is serious about recovery and whether the client shows signs of being unable to pay.
F181:
Treatment providers provide services to clients at reduced rates or for free when the client is dedicated to recovery. Treatment providers will report a client to the courts when they appear to have the ability to pay but refuse to do so.
F182:
There are times when the treatment providers determine a client can pay, but the courts determine that the client cannot pay. When the courts determine the client cannot pay, the treatment provider may be ordered to perform pro- bono (free) services.
F183:
The contract treatment providers are the only Prop 36 stakeholders required to donate services or pay out of pocket to treat Prop 36 clients.
F184:
The BHD/ADP requires the contract treatment providers to provide services unrelated to treatment each month. Each month the treatment providers are required to submit a supplemental report of the number of children the clients have, whether they are on DMC, and whether the client left treatment within 30 days or before treatment was completed.
F185:
Contract treatment providers are inundated with requirements to provide numerous budget reports to the CAS. The providers are required to submit quarterly reports showing units of service. The county required many quarterly budget and cost reports. Monthly, the providers are called to the county to explain their supplemental reports.
F186:
The treatment providers are not compensated for any administrative activities that are associated with drug treatment. The treatment providers have been told by BHD/ADP that administrative activities are not allowable charges under Prop 36.
F187:
Although the treatment providers are not allowed to be compensated for the administrative costs under Prop 36, the CAS staff duplicates many of the same functions and CAS staff is fully compensated by Prop 36 funds. It is not clear whether the treatment providers cannot be compensated because those activities are being paid for at the CAS or whether the CAS is using different criteria for their own billing than they use for their contract providers.
F188:
The Prop 36 Court has not ordered government employees to work for free: • When the Probation Agency did not have adequate funding, they were allowed to forego supervision services for misdemeanor defendants. • When the county-operated treatment facilities provide substance abuse services for a client who cannot pay, their staff salaries are still paid by the county. • When Mental Health experienced financial cutbacks, they eliminated the psychiatric position that was previously dedicated to Prop 36 clients. There was no Court-ordered pro-bono work for psychiatrists. • When BHD lacks funds for any service, they quit providing that service. • The D.A.’s office can limit its services to those services for which it has funding. The county continues to pay the salaries of the D.A.’s attorneys. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined • The Public Defender’s office can limit its services for which it has funding. The county continues to pay the salaries of the Public Defender’s attorneys.
F189:
When the Court orders a client to receive free treatment services, the county and Prop 36 do not provide the client’s co-payment fees. The contract treatment providers, who are private companies, are required to comply with the Courts, even though the money comes out of their private accounts.
F190:
The County of Ventura compensates outpatient treatment providers at the rate of about $9-10 per hour for group sessions and $18-25 per hour for private sessions. These fees are for direct treatment session hours. There is no compensation for other services such as coordinating paperwork or providing documents to the CAS.
F191:
Even though their contracts allow treatment providers to collect a co-payment for treatment services, the county restricts this ability by giving the clients a reduced fee. Approximately 80% of the Prop 36 clients at the contract treatment providers have a reduced fee or refuse to pay. The treatment provider is not allowed to provide sanctions to clients who refuse to pay. The BHD/ADP does not compensate the treatment providers’ losses from Prop 36 funds.
F192:
Capacity continues to be a problem with Prop 36 treatment providers. The County Plan states, “Funding decreases from other sources has caused some treatment providers to lay off staff and reduce the number of slots and beds available.”
F193:
Whether the county is exercising good business or sharp practices, the contract treatment provider appears to bear the entire risk for clients who might be inappropriate risks and who cannot be forced to pay treatment fees.
F194:
BHD/ADP certainly knows the terms of the contracts, and the contractors have made BHD/ADP aware of their concerns.
F195:
Other than BHD/ADP, the stakeholders share the opinion that treatment providers have a competing profit motive that prevents them for being objective about compliance and non-compliance. This perception of the treatment providers has not been discouraged by BHD/ADP. Treatment Examined
F196:
BHD/ADP management and CAS treatment specialists provide no added value to the treatment process for Prop 36.
F197:
Even without the bureaucratic creations of BDH/ADP, there are some paperwork and bookkeeping functions required by Prop 36. There is a requirement for bookkeeping or clerical employees.
F198:
Assessment must be redone by the treatment provider before treatment begins, but the treatment provider cannot bill the county for assessment services.
F199:
Referrals to ancillary services can be performed by the treatment providers or Probation with the same or more effectiveness than CAS. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 23
F200:
CAS has insinuated itself into the communication channels and has effectively lengthened the time required to pass information from the treatment providers to the Courts.
F201:
As a central delivery point for drug test results, CAS is a bottleneck when disseminating the test results to treatment providers for treatment adjustments. Wrestling with Protocols
F202:
Treatment providers are the experts in addiction. In any other court-ordered treatment programs, the treatment providers establish the protocols and work closely with Probation to ensure those protocols are followed.
F203:
Since the inception of Prop 36, the stakeholders have been wrestling with treatment and compliance protocols. This struggle over the protocols is unprecedented.
F204:
From the first year of implementation, there was a mandated communication firewall between the treatment providers and the Probation Agency and the courts. Partially as a result of this firewall, treatment information was bottlenecked in the BHD/ADP CAS facility.
F205:
Information on non-compliances was of particular concern. Treatment providers were sending non-compliance information to CAS to be passed to the Courts, and CAS was making a local determination that those offenses were not to be a violation.
F206:
When criminal justice stakeholders noticed that many known offenders were still at large, BHD/AP blamed the contract treatment providers.
F207:
The Grand Jury finds that the continual adjustments to treatment protocols and non-compliance reporting requirements are likely a direct result of communications problems mostly attributable to BHD/ADP.
F208:
Changes to the protocols are of concern when there is no effort to collect and report data on the success of any given protocol.
F209:
Constantly changing treatment, testing, and attendance protocols is confusing to providers and clients alike.
F210:
All Ventura County stakeholders are trying to define the parameters of successful drug treatment services. These agencies are not deferring to the treatment providers with regard to treatment decisions.
F211:
The treatment decisions are now being made by the Operations Committee. Treatment is no longer based on the reasoned treatment experience of treatment providers. Treatment is now based on the need for public safety official to close the gate on the problems created by BHD/ADP.
F212:
Removing BHD/ADP from the process can promote a return to a more logical and natural process with improved information flow.
F213:
Probation is very good at coordinating with treatment providers for delivery of services in a court-ordered drug treatment program. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined Funding
F214:
It is the responsibility of BHD/ADP, as the designated Lead Agency, to “administer Prop. 36 funds” and “coordinate the county plan.”14
F215:
Each fiscal year, the Prop 36 County Plan is prepared for submission to the State. The County Plan describes, among other things, the funding distribution. The plan usually states that it was compiled by BHD/ADP with input from the Operations Committee, community-based treatment providers, and others. The Board approves the plan and then it is submitted to the state.
F216:
Operations Committee members (other than BHD/ADP) and community-based treatment providers do not actively participate in the financial aspects of the County Plan.
F217:
Other than BHD/ADP, members of the newly-formed Oversight Committee do not participate in the financial aspects of the County Plan. Oversight members refer to the high levels of trust required when working with inter- agency collaborations.
F218:
There are two categories of funding in Prop 36. The “criminal justice” category in Prop 36 includes probation, supervision, monitoring, and other related activities. “Treatment services” refers to drug treatment and related services such as literacy training, vocational training, family counseling, and psychiatric services.
F219:
Ventura County has chosen to allocate approximately 75 percent of the budget to direct treatment services and 25 percent to criminal justice.15
F220:
A funding limitation is cited as the sole reason that Probation cannot provide oversight to the entire Prop 36 client community.
F221:
Since inception of Prop 36, Ventura County has shown an excess of more than a million dollars at the end of each fiscal year. In fiscal year 2003-2004, BHD/ADP earned over $33,000 in interest on unspent Prop 36 funds.
F222:
The California Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs (DDAP), administrators of Prop 36, have published memos stating that counties that have excess Prop 36 funds may be required to return them to the state for redistribution to under-funded counties.
F223:
In the annual reporting to the State of California, Ventura County BHD/ADP reports that, over the first three years of implementation, approximately 75% of Prop 36 funding is allocated to direct treatment services.16
F224:
The Board Letter to submit the FY 2004-2005 Ventura County Plan was signed by Linda Shulman, M.F.T., Director of Behavioral Health and Dr. Ventura County Implementation Committee, “Report of the Implementation Committee,” June 5, 2001. Proposition 36 Analysis of Plans from the 58 Counties, http://www.adp.cahwnet.gov/SACPA/ coplanindex.shtml 16 Health Systems Research, Inc., “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: Analysis of FY 2003/04 Plans from the 58 Counties,” http://www.adp.cahwnet.gov/SACPA/pdf/SACPA-AnalysisOf58County Plans_2003-04.pdf, September 30, 2004. Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 25 Pierre Durand, Director of the Health Care Agency on June 8, 2004.17 This Board Letter states, In FY2004/05, State funding for Prop 36 services has been allocated at $2,865,608, an increase of $102,941 over FY2003/04. An additional estimated $1,080,044 in rollover funding from prior years will bring the total available funding to $3,945,652. Under agreement, 75% of these funds will be used to fund direct substance abuse treatment services. The remaining 25% of the allocation will be used by the Probation Agency to fund services for the supervision and monitoring of offenders. $614,311 will be held back to be rolled over to FY 2005-06 to assist with maintaining the current level of service over two-year period.
F225:
As described in this Board Letter, the intentions of BHD/ADP for FY 2004-05 are shown in Table 1. The table differs from the text in that the carryover funding of $614 thousand is reserved before the total available funding is distributed. Description from June 8, 2004 Board Letter Amount Purpose FY 04-05 State “Allocated” $2,865,608 Prior Year “rollover funding” $1,080,044 “held back and rolled over to FY $ 614,311 “to assist with maintaining the 2005-06” current level of service over two-year period” “total available funding” $3,331,341 “75% of these funds” $2,498,506 “direct substance abuse treatment services” “remaining 25% of the allocation” $ 832,835 “Probation Agency to fund services for supervision and monitoring of offenders” Table 1. Funding description from June 8, 2004 Board Letter
F226:
The Board Letter states, “The FY2004/05 Plan specifies core treatment services as follows: 52% of the funds will be provided for residential treatment services, 38% will go towards outpatient services, 3% will go towards medical detoxification services, and another 7% will be utilized for sober living.
F227:
The 75% of the funds allocated to “direct substance abuse treatment” are seen in Table 2. Behavioral Health Department, “Approval of FY 2004/05 Behavioral Health Department Alcohol and Drug Program (BHD/ADP) County Plan for Proposition 36 Services ,“ Letter to Board of Supervisors. June 8, 2004. http://gsa-docushare.countyofventura.org/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-11396/20040602165739.PDF 26 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined Description from June FY 04-05 FY 03-04 Current FY 8, 2004 Board Letter Allocated Actual Expenditures Current FY Amount Expenditures (Thru May 2005) Budget ($) ($) ($) ($) “75% of FY 2004- 2,498,506 Direct substance abuse treatment services 2005 Prop 36 funds” 52% for residential 1,299,223 572,035 466,811 7% sober living 174,895 38% for outpatient 949,432 365,306 $ 324,665 1,293,632 3% medical detox 74,955 --- 16,800 Other services 77,660 0 60,000 CAS/CAC - Salaries and ----- 996,111 1,258,995 Benefits CAS/CAC - Everything ----- 173,100 286,780 Else Table 2. Funding narrative from FY 2004-05 County Plan
F228:
Although the County Plans and other documents do not highlight the cost of the CAS assessment center, this facility and its staff consume more than half of the allocated treatment dollars.
F229:
In Table 2, as of May 2005 a total of $808,276 of Prop 36 funds was paid to treatment providers for residential services, sober living, detox and outpatient services. A total of $1,169,211 has been paid for the CAS assessments and case management as well as program administrative costs.
F230:
As a general reference, CAS performs a two-hour assessment for a Level 2 client who receives an average of 66 program hours in a year. Including case management and assuming the services were not redundant, the CAS provides no more than 5% of the services and receives over 60% of the treatment funding.
F231:
The Board Letter to submit the FY 2005-2006 Ventura County Plan was signed by all members of the Oversight Committee: John F. Johnston, Chief Executive Officer; Bob Brooks, Sheriff; Gregory D. Totten, District Attorney; Honorable John E. Dobroth, County of Ventura Superior Court; Dr. Pierre Durand, Health Care Agency Director; Linda Shulman, M.F.T., Director, Behavioral Health Department, Calvin C. Remington, Director/Chief Probation Officer; and Kenneth Clayman, Public Defender. It states, In FY2005/06, State funding for Prop. 36 services has been allocated at $2,856,660. A projected $1,000,000 in rollover monies from FY 2004-2005 will bring total available for the proposed Plan to $3,856,660: approximately 75% will be used for direct substance treatment services, 23% will be used for criminal justice expenditures (courts, probation, etc.), and the remaining 2% will be used for supplemental services for treatment. The Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 27 funds that are designated for treatment services will be distributed as follows: 34% residential treatment services, 64% outpatient services, and 2% are medical detoxification services.
F232:
The 75% of the funds allocated to “direct substance abuse treatment” are seen in Table 3. There are no actual costs for FY 2005-2006 to compare, but there is nothing in the County Plan or proposed budget to indicate that CAS costs will be any different from those seen today. Description from May 17, 2005 Treatment Board Letter Amount funds Purpose FY 05-06 State “Allocated” $2,856,660 Prior Year “rollover funding” $1,000,000 “total available funding” $3,856,660 “75% of these funds” $2,892,495 “Direct substance abuse treatment services” 34% Residential Treatment $ 983,448 64% Outpatient Treatment $ 1,735,497 FY 04-05 Combined outpatient contracts approximately $370,000 2% Medical Detox $ 57,850 “23% criminal justice” $ 887,032 “2% medical detox” $ 77,133 Table 3. Funding description from May 17, 2005 Board Letter
F233:
The two largest Prop 36 treatment providers have a combined 5,500 square feet of space dedicated to treating Prop 36 offenders. The CAC is roughly 5,900 square feet. The CAC treats no clients.
F234:
DMC will pay for many of the same drug treatment services that Prop 36 provides. BHD/ADP encourages contractors to qualify for DMC reimbursement.
F235:
When a client is referred to a county drug treatment provider, DMC is billed for the treatment if possible. BHD/ADP is not required to expend Prop 36 funds for clients paid through DMC.
F236:
As defined by Prop 36, “direct treatment services” includes the CAS building and staff. Direct treatment includes the indirect salaries of CAS support staff and management personnel.
F237:
When the Operations Committee and BHD/ADP limit the Prop 36 funds allowed for Probation, that agency must pay for some Prop 36 supervision from their county-funded budget (general fund dollars).
F238:
General fund dollars, as well as reimbursable public health referrals, are 28 Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined currently being used to pay some ancillary services for Prop 36 clients based on agreements between the Board and BHD/ADP.18
F239:
Prop 36 funds cannot be used for drug testing. However, County general fund dollars can be used for drug testing. Conclusions C-01. If drug abuse and the associated criminal behaviors are truly reduced, public safety will likely be enhanced. Jail and prison cells would be preserved for serious offenders. (F-01, F-02) C-02. BHD/ADP has not demonstrated true leadership. There is an obvious knowledge of funding – how to acquire it and how to keep it – but there is no indication that the leadership can make effective policy and see it through implementation. (F-119 thru F-122, F-230) C-03. BHD/ADP manages reactively, driven to deflect criticism. Rather than real policy changes, the change often witnessed is verbal: the situation may be redefined verbally so that action is not necessary. In the absence of critical thinking, this technique of redefining the problem and fashioning words to appear successful appears to work very well in Ventura County. (F-13, F-49,
Recomendaciones adicionales
9
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R01:
Immediate remove BHD/ADP as Lead Agency of Prop 36. Contact the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to coordinate an emergency halt to the submitted County Plan.
R02:
Immediately designate Probation as the Lead Agency for Prop 36.
R03:
Immediately disband the Prop 36 Oversight Committee and establish guidelines for the Operations Committee to operate in an organized fashion and make decisions, with provisions to obtain approvals from department heads when necessary.
R04:
Immediately initiate action to close the BHD/ADP Prop 36 CAC and free the funding and other resources for more direct treatment use.
R05:
Formally request through the courts that all Prop 36 offenders be placed on Ventura County Proposition 36: Administrative Reforms Examined 31 formal probation.
R06:
Allow Probation, as Lead Agency, to make arrangement for assessment and treatment referral at a location of their choosing, immediately after Court sentencing.
R07:
As the Lead Agency, allow Probation and treatment providers to determine, with input from the Operations Committee, the best delivery model for treatment services and required communications.
R08:
Move the addiction specialists from the CAC to the county-operated treatment centers and establish additional DMC reimbursed treatment capacity.
R09:
Under Probation leadership, provide financial accountability and oversight of all Prop 36 funds. Bring funding allocation decisions back to the Operations Committee.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
36 hallazgos
F01:
The City constructed the River Ridge Golf Club, a hotel and a NFL football training facility on the site of the former Santa Clara Landfill in the northwestern edge of the City.
F02:
There are typically two methods by which municipal golf courses are managed. One method is a turnkey operation where the contractor is paid a fee to run the golf course on behalf of a city, without a great deal of city oversight. The other is a city-run option where staff is hired and the city manages all operations with city employees.
F03:
By 1993, the City had experienced several years of unsuccessful operations with a turnkey contractor. River Ridge was losing money and the facilities had begun to fall into disrepair. The City acted to develop a more effective and profitable method of managing River Ridge.
F04:
Even though the City recognized the disadvantages of contracting out the management in a turnkey operation, they did not wish to take on the administrative burden of managing the day-to-day operation of a golf course.
F05:
The City contracted with HTGG to manage the River Ridge operations based on a unique agreement crafted from the specific requirements of the City. Under their agreement, the City still exercises a measure of control and oversight over the contractor. The contractor shares in the profits of a well- run operation. The City refers to their arrangement as a public-private partnership.
F06:
The City’s stated primary purpose in contracting with HTGG is to have a first class golf course and to maintain an excellent product at an excellent price. There are incentives for HTGG designed into the contract with the effect that, when the golf course is well-maintained and well-operated revenues are greater, thereby increasing profits.
F07:
The City states that their arrangement with High Tide and Green Grass, Inc. fully meets the City’s objectives. The City receives tangible financial benefits City of Oxnard Golf Course Management 3 from the golf course and there are intangible benefits to the surrounding community. Funds and Terms of the Agreement
F08:
The original contract between the City and HTGG was approved by the City Council and effective on December 1, 1993. Modifications to the agreement were approved as follows: The Second Agreement approved 12/15/98 The First Amendment to the Second Agreement approved 12/9/03 The “Different Agreement” approved 1/6/04 The Second Amendment to the Second Agreement approved 10/19/04 The most recent agreement of 10/19/04 is the subject of the remaining findings.
F09:
Exhibit C-1 of the agreement provides for the City’s payment to HTGG of a minimum amount provided for in the Business Plan, plus a percentage of Base Revenue achieved in excess of the Minimum Base Revenue for each period, using a declining sliding scale of 50% to 25%. In fact, this is not done during each period but annually, and the payment is made from HTGG to the City instead of from the City to HTGG.
F10:
Payments to HTGG are not made in accordance with the agreement. The agreement states that the City is making the payments to HTGG, when in fact HTGG reimburses itself from the funds still under its control.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R01:
Thoroughly review the written agreement to reconcile differences in policy (the contract) and practice with the ultimate objective of modifying the contract to match the practices in effect. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C- 15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22)
R02:
The contract should reflect the nature of the relationship between the City and HTGG as a public-private partnership, specifically delineating the process by which the City has monthly oversight over HTGG revenue, income, and budget. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C-15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22)
F11:
Financial Statements submitted to the City by High Tide are not prepared in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (3)
R01:
Thoroughly review the written agreement to reconcile differences in policy (the contract) and practice with the ultimate objective of modifying the contract to match the practices in effect. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C- 15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22)
R02:
The contract should reflect the nature of the relationship between the City and HTGG as a public-private partnership, specifically delineating the process by which the City has monthly oversight over HTGG revenue, income, and budget. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C-15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22)
R03:
The contract should reflect the addition of a revenue and expense audit of HTGG on behalf of the City. (C-10, C-11, C-20)
F12:
Financial statements submitted to the City mayor may or may not be subject to an independent audit.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R03:
The contract should reflect the addition of a revenue and expense audit of HTGG on behalf of the City. (C-10, C-11, C-20)
F13:
The City described to the Grand Jury a method of doing business that evolved over time as a practical refinement of the contract. The Grand Jury asked if there would be a different result if the City followed the exact terms of the contract. The City replied that it would not be good business to follow the contract as written and it would “probably be worse” if they did.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R01:
Thoroughly review the written agreement to reconcile differences in policy (the contract) and practice with the ultimate objective of modifying the contract to match the practices in effect. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C- 15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22)
R02:
The contract should reflect the nature of the relationship between the City and HTGG as a public-private partnership, specifically delineating the process by which the City has monthly oversight over HTGG revenue, income, and budget. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C-15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22)
F14:
Prior Grand Jury reports identify the golf course monies collected by HTGG to be City money. The City and HTGG reported to the Grand Jury that these funds are private, not city money. There is a “city interest in the money,” but the funds remain private until turned over to the City.
F15:
The agreement also specifies that in any fiscal year, if the sum of the budgeted operating expenses and cost of goods sold identified in the Business Plan exceeds the Minimum Base Revenue, the Operator and the City, in determining the amounts to be paid to each other, shall subtract from the amount otherwise allocable under the agreement, a sum equal to 50% of the amount by which such budgeted operating expenses and cost of goods sold exceed Minimum Base Revenue for each year. City of Oxnard Golf Course Management
F16:
In 1998 and 1999, HTGG revised the treatment of cost of goods sold by including it both in revenue and expenses and for the calculation of the City’s profit share and net cash. It is not clear if the City ever specifically approved this change or focused on the impact to the profit-sharing calculation, which may reduce the City’s share.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R01:
Thoroughly review the written agreement to reconcile differences in policy (the contract) and practice with the ultimate objective of modifying the contract to match the practices in effect. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C- 15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22)
R28:
C-20. As to the sufficiency of the City’s portion of HTGG revenues, that is a matter for the City Council to determine. If the City Council has been provided complete and accurate information and determines that the amount received from golf course operations is satisfactory, it is not a matter for the Grand Jury to comment. However, if the City Council is making decisions on erroneous or incomplete information, or if the administrative controls are not adequate to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreement, those are more serious matters at the basis of the Grand Jury’s concerns. (F-05, F-06, F-07, F-09, F- 13 thru F-16) C-21. The City of Oxnard is satisfied with the amount of income derived from the golf course operation. (F-07, F-13, F-20, F-26) C-22. The City’s frustration with repeated explanations to the Grand Jury is based on a misconception of continuity of the Grand Jury. Unfortunately, as long as the City Council approves one agreement and the City staff executes another, there is the possibility that a newly impaneled Grand Jury or concerned citizens will be asking the same questions. (F-26 thru F-33) Recommendations R-01. Thoroughly review the written agreement to reconcile differences in policy (the contract) and practice with the ultimate objective of modifying the contract to match the practices in effect. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C- 15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22) R-02. The contract should reflect the nature of the relationship between the City and HTGG as a public-private partnership, specifically delineating the process by which the City has monthly oversight over HTGG revenue, income, and budget. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C-15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22) R-03. The contract should reflect the addition of a revenue and expense audit of HTGG on behalf of the City. (C-10, C-11, C-20) R-04. Supplement the existing Project Manager with contract oversight skills, either through intensive training or by adding additional personnel. (C-06, C-10, C-
F17:
The City publishes the number of rounds of golf played and projected as well as the current fees per round of golf. The simple math of rounds multiplied by fees gives the impression that HTGG has more revenue than it reports.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R01:
Thoroughly review the written agreement to reconcile differences in policy (the contract) and practice with the ultimate objective of modifying the contract to match the practices in effect. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C- 15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22)
F18:
The City offers many financial incentives to enable community residents to use the facilities. There are discounts for children, families, seniors and special groups. A significant number of rounds are played at discounted rates. Project Management
F19:
The prior Grand Jury recommended that the City Manager assign a highly qualified and experienced contract administrator as Project Manager to oversee the administration of the River Ridge agreement and any successor agreement.
F20:
The City responded to that Grand Jury that the current Project Manager is highly qualified in golf course management and they are satisfied with his performance.
F21:
Prior Grand Jury reports refer to misstatements by the Project Manager as one source for the appearance of impropriety. The Project Manager has made the following statements to the current Grand Jury: On the subject of financial oversight, he stated, “I have no clue” on what it all means. On the subject of the contract, he stated, “Nobody can read and understand a contract,” and finally, “If we followed the contract as it is written on paper, we would probably be worse.”
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R04:
Supplement the existing Project Manager with contract oversight skills, either through intensive training or by adding additional personnel. (C-06, C-10, C- 11) Responses City of Oxnard (R-01 thru R-04)) City of Oxnard Golf Course Management 9 Commendations The City of Oxnard has expended a great deal of time and effort to answer the inquiries of the Grand Jury. This inquiry has required extensive historical analysis and comparative study. Throughout this process, the City staff has remained courteous and responsive to all requests for meetings and information. They have patiently explained their operations and the reasons behind all activities. In addition, the efforts of the City in regard to River Ridge have resulted in substantial improvements to the community. This report is in no way critical of the work that has been done to create a beautiful amenity from a landfill. The City should be commended on its efforts on behalf of the public. Attachments 1. City of Oxnard, Director of Public Works, letter dated March 30, 2005 2. City of Oxnard, City Manager, letter dated January 23, 2004 10 City of Oxnard Golf Course Management Attachment 1 ( ) City of Oxnard Golf Course Management 11 Attachment 1 ( ) 12 City of Oxnard Golf Course Management Attachment 2 ( ) City of Oxnard Golf Course Management 13 Attachment 2 ( ) 14 City of Oxnard Golf Course Management
F22:
There has been much made of the term “account created jointly” and its confusion with the term, “joint account.” The term "joint account" implies private access to public funds and a significant lack of control.
F23:
The term "account created jointly" represents public access to private financial records. This provision is a significant addition to the overall control environment and oversight function on behalf of the City.
F24:
As recently as this year, the Project Manager still used the term "joint account" to the Grand Jury to refer to the banking arrangement.
F25:
The Project Manager pointed out to the Grand Jury the fact that the City has not been required to increase the budget over the past few years as evidence that they are not over-budgeting the golf course operation. Grand Jury Oversight
F26:
The City, in a letter dated March 30, 2005, from the Director of Public Works, states, “the City’s agreement with High Tide conforms to State law.” He further states, “There is more than one legitimate approach to structuring an agreement for public golf course management and operation. Our approach City of Oxnard Golf Course Management 5 not only meets the City’s needs, but also the needs of our many satisfied River Ridge Golf Club patrons.”
F27:
The Director of Public Works went on to state in his letter, “because government oversight is a critical Grand Jury function, the public has the right to expect that inquiries will be carried out in a responsible and even-handed manner. If this oversight is less than objective, the Grand Jury should recognize that public confidence in its ability to perform this critical role may diminish over time.”
F28:
In meetings with the City, the Grand Jury learned more of their frustration that one or two citizens will complain repeatedly about the River Ridge operations, and they believe that the Grand Jury should not initiate an investigation on a small number of complaining citizens. In addition, the City expressed that meeting with the Grand Jury and explaining why events have to be the way they are and how the City benefits from the arrangement should be sufficient to resolve the issue once and for all.
F29:
Each year on July 1, a new Grand Jury is impaneled. Although it may have a limited number of carry-over jurors from the prior year (jurors cannot serve more than two consecutive years), the body is new and cannot carry over conclusions from the prior year. Even if a prior Grand Jury investigated the same complaint, each new Grand Jury must conduct its own independent investigation.
F30:
In accepting or rejecting a citizen complaint, the Grand Jury considers many factors. It looks at the facts presented in the complaint to determine if they are fairly represented. If there has been a previous Grand Jury report on the same topic, the Grand Jury will read that report and review the responses provided by the affected agencies. Additionally, the Grand Jury will review its priorities and determine if the inquiry can be conducted in the available time.
F31:
In the case of River Ridge, the new complaints repeated the concerns of prior complaints to earlier Grand Juries. In addition, the responses from the City of Oxnard to those past reports did not indicate to the Grand Jury that those issues had been adequately resolved.
F32:
Once a complaint is accepted for investigation, the Grand Jury is required to remain independent and objective. In carrying out an investigation or inquiry, each Grand Jury reviews all the available evidence and reaches its own conclusions. In the interest of a completely objective evaluation, the Grand Jury cannot adopt as its own the opinions of either the complainant or the agency without its own independent verification.
F33:
Penal Code Section 939.9 states, A grand jury shall make no report, declaration, or recommendation on any matter except on the basis of its own investigation of the matter made by such grand jury. A grand jury shall not adopt as its own the recommendation of another grand jury unless the grand jury adopting such recommendation does so after its own investigation of the matter as to which the recommendation is made, as required by this section. City of Oxnard Golf Course Management
F34:
As acknowledged by the City and HTGG, there are substantial differences in the contract as written and in the actual practice of the parties to the contract. Those differences might lead reasonable people to conclude there is something questionable about the arrangement.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R01:
Thoroughly review the written agreement to reconcile differences in policy (the contract) and practice with the ultimate objective of modifying the contract to match the practices in effect. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C- 15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22)
R02:
The contract should reflect the nature of the relationship between the City and HTGG as a public-private partnership, specifically delineating the process by which the City has monthly oversight over HTGG revenue, income, and budget. (C-01, C-02, C-04 thru C-07, C-09, C-12 thru C-15, C-17, C-18, C-19, C-22)
F35:
Overcoming the first impression of wrongdoing is a long exercise of document reviews and interviews with all parties to the contract. The Grand Jury has expended considerable time to unravel and understand the information presented by the City.
F36:
There have been improvements in the River Ridge oversight over the past two years. The Project Manager has been provided a financial analyst and the City has included a full annual audit as part of their oversight function, increasing the flow of daily operational and in depth financial information. Conclusions C-01. The City does not enforce all the terms of the written contract between the City and HTGG. (F-09, F-10, F-11, F-13, F-21, F-34) C-02. After a great deal of document review and verbal explanations, the Grand Jury concluded that the City and the contractor appear to honor the spirit, if not the letter, of the agreement. (F-05, F-06, F-07, F-13, F-16, F-18, F-26) C-03. As long as the current personnel on both sides of this verbal arrangement remain of the same mind, this non-verbal agreement could remain productive indefinitely. The risk is, if they don’t. (F-05, F-06, F-07, F-09 thru F-16, F-21,
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R11:
Responses City of Oxnard (R-01 thru R-04)) City of Oxnard Golf Course Management 9
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.