Ventura County 2009-2010 - California Grand Jury Reports

June 14, 2010 — Illusion of Safety: Control Self-Assessment

17 pages 31 findings 11 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 31 findings

F01: The A-C IAD is authorized eight positions. The IAD has entered fiscal years (FY) 2008-09 and 2009-10 with five of the authorized positions filled. For FY 2009-10, two individuals remained from the previous year, three had been hired within the year.

F02: As of April 15, 2010, IAD has seven positions filled: four Internal Auditor II, one Internal Auditor III, one newly-hired Fiscal Manager, and the Deputy Director. The five internal auditors have an average of 1.6 years experience with the County and an average of 3.7 years total audit experience.

F03: The position of Fiscal Manager I/II (a supervisory position) was recently filled.

F04: Until the fiscal manager position was filled, the IAD’s junior auditors received formal oversight only by the IAD director.

F05: The A-C budgets 640 hours per year per auditor for “indirect time— training, staff meetings, administrative projects, etc.,” of which 280 hours represent standard vacation, sick and holiday accruals and eight hours represent “in-house training to increase staff knowledge of internal auditing techniques.” Auditors are expected to obtain 80 hours Continuing Professional Education training per year in a combination of qualified at-work training and outside training courses. ________________________________________________________________ 2 Illusion of Safety: Control Self-Assessment

F06: The personnel turnover rate in the IAD ranges from 25% to 50% per year for the prior three years, as compared to the average turnover rate for the County as a whole of about 12%.

F07: HR performs exit interviews of departing employees through the use of a form to be completed after the employee’s last day of work and to be returned by mail.

F08: In reviewing mailed-in exit interviews of former internal auditors, HR has found nothing to indicate a possible problem with working conditions within the County or the A-C organization.

F09: Classification Specifications (similar to job descriptions) and salary ranges for A-C internal auditors were adopted in 2001. The salary ranges have been modified only for general “cost of living” increases negotiated between the County and the Service Employees International Union. [Ref-04] Job Title Rate Range Experience: Annual Salary “Recruiting Standard” Internal Auditor I $41,340 - $52,916 None Internal Auditor II $47,997 - $61,436 18 months Internal Auditor III $52,797 - $67,580 3 years Internal Auditor IV $59,508 - $76,171 5 years Fiscal Manager I $68,288 - $90,206 5 years with 1 year supervisory Fiscal Manager II $73,364 - $96,912 5 years with 2 years supervisory

F10: In April 2010, the County of Santa Barbara advertised in the Ventura County Star for an Audit Supervisor with a rate range of $84,701 - $103,402, requiring a Certified Internal Auditor certificate, three years experience, and one year lead work. [Ref-05]

F11: HR compares salaries with seven Southern California counties (excluding Los Angeles County) for determining competitiveness for County salaries. HR has conducted no comparable survey of private- sector internal auditor salary and experience ranges.

F12: In its report Controls Self-Assessment Restart, the 2007-2008 Ventura County Grand Jury recommended: “R-02 The A-C and the Human Resources Director should jointly conduct a comprehensive study to resolve staffing, recruiting and retention issues in the Audit Department, and provide the results and recommendations to the CEO and the BOS.” The CEO and the BOS combined response stated: ___________________________________________________________________________ Illusion of Safety: Control Self-Assessment 3 “Do not concur: the Auditor-Controller’s Office has six budgeted internal auditor positions . . . The recruitment opened 7/28/08. As of 9/02/08 they have 84 applicants . . . It is our office’s opinion that the current salary and classification status of the internal auditor series is appropriate . . . If they [Auditor-Controller] are unsuccessful in filling their vacancies at the end of this recruitment, we will work with the A-C to determine what other alternatives should be considered.” [Ref-05]

F13: Since the time of the CEO and BOS response to the 2007-2008 Grand Jury Report, the A-C and HR have not undertaken a study to resolve staffing, recruiting, and retention issues in the IAD. Control Self-Assessment Status Reports

F14: In 2009, the CEO added “Internal Control Policy” (Chapter VII(A) – 13) for inclusion into the Administrative Policy Manual, which policy provides: “The Auditor-Controller is also responsible for periodically reporting to the CEO and Board of Supervisors on the status of internal controls based on the results of department annual self-assessments.” (Att-01)

F15: The A-C sent a detailed report on the 2007 CSA Program directly to the BOS on January 29, 2008.

F16: Beginning April 1, 2008, the A-C IAD has been sending a summary report on the status of the CSA Program quarterly to the CEO within 10 days of the end of the quarter. Thereafter, with noted exceptions, the CEO has provided a quarterly CSA report to the BOS, typically 14 weeks following the end of the quarter. [Ref-06] Fiscal Quarter Date of A-C IAD Date of CEO BOS Action Ended Report to CEO Report to BOS Mar 31, 2008 Apr 1, 2008 (none) Jun 30, 2008 Jul 7, 2008 Sep 16, 2008 Receive and File Sep 30, 2008 Oct 7, 2008 (none) Dec 31, 2008 Jan 15, 2009 Mar 10, 2009 Receive and File Mar 31, 2009 Apr 6, 2009 (none) Jun 30, 2009 Jul 9, 2009 Oct 20, 2009 Receive and File Sep 30, 2009 Oct 6, 2009 Jan 12, 2010 Receive and File Dec 31, 2009 Jan 4, 2010 Feb 23, 2010 Receive and File Mar 31, 2010 Apr 5, 2010 May 11, 2010 Receive and File Control Self-Assessment Process

F17: The County Internal Control Policy (Chapter VII(A) - 13) adopted in 2009 broadly outlines the scope of departmental internal control systems and control self-assessment. (Att-01) ________________________________________________________________ 4 Illusion of Safety: Control Self-Assessment

F18: The County is organized into 26 agencies and departments. Larger agencies and departments are subdivided into “Budget Units” for CSA Program purposes; there are a total of 52 CSA budget units for the County. Each such budget unit is responsible for performing a self- assessment of internal controls within the organization. The A-C’s IAD issues instructions and guidance to the agencies and departments in performance of their own self-assessments.

F19: The budget units perform the self-assessments, providing copies to the IAD. The IAD selects self-assessments for a complete agency or department for validation by its internal auditors.

F20: The County has established a three-fiscal-year cycle (triennium) for performance of control self-assessments and validations for all budget units. The first CSA triennium went from July 2004 through June 2007; the current triennium ends June 30, 2010. Control Self-Assessment Performance

F21: Of the 26 budget units, 18 had submitted CSAs by the end of 2007. By March 2010, all budget unit CSAs for the 2007–2010 triennium had been performed (except for two CSAs in one agency which were expected to be completed by June 30, 2010).

F22: IAD began validation of CSAs in 2008. As of the date of this report, IAD has completed validations of four agency or department CSAs, and one more is in process. These five validation reports issued in 2009 and 2010 covered self-assessments initially performed in 2007.

F23: Some budget units report having used the CSA process to test and improve organizational control mechanisms. In many other cases, however, the validation process revealed the CSAs to have been incomplete or superficial.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The BOS and the A-C should add a control mechanisms evaluation task to the scope of the outside fiscal audits and should provide funding therefor. (C-21)

F24: Budget units report concerns regarding the CSA process: • unclear tasks and objectives • having to “train and re-train” new auditors • CSA effort is unbudgeted within the departments, unplanned, and often costly • while budget units are encouraged to tailor the CSA guides to their own organizations, there is little practical direction from IAD in doing so • validations may be performed on comparatively old information, requiring re-doing a self-assessment in order to complete the validation • CSA is uncoordinated with the County’s Lean Six Sigma efficiency program • CSA validations re-visit areas subject to regularly scheduled fiscal audits, such as cash control, receipts, and disbursements ___________________________________________________________________________ Illusion of Safety: Control Self-Assessment 5 • it is difficult to discern a difference between a CSA validation and an audit

F25: CSA validations and reports are conducted at the agency or department level without active participation or review by the office of the CEO.

F26: Through the office of the CEO and senior management, the County sponsors an operational efficiency program entitled Lean Six Sigma1. In this program, all agencies and departments continuously evaluate their activities at all levels for efficiency, effectiveness, and necessity. Lean Six Sigma does not include an equivalent emphasis on the factors of control and risk.

F27: County management depends on the CSA Program to guide agency and department evaluations of risk and control, but they do not see the need to oversee the CSA directly.

F28: The CSA Program and the Lean Six Sigma program are conducted concurrently within County administration, but without reference to one another; one is directed by the A-C, the other, by the CEO.

F29: As of March 2010, modest changes were contemplated by the A-C IAD in the structure or methodology of the CSA for the new 2010-2013 triennium. No requests or suggestions for changes or improvements in the CSA Program had been received from the CEO’s office.

F30: Absent changes to the CSA Program, all budget units will be tasked with completing new control self-assessments for the new 2010-2013 triennium.

F31: In the FY 2009-10 Audit Plan, the A-C allocated 960 direct auditor hours to CSA and validations, out of the planned 9,000 available hours. As of the end of March 2010, IAD had expended 293 direct auditor hours on CSA efforts in FY 2009-10. Conclusions C-01. The A-C audit function has suffered from high turnover and a shortage of staff for several years. (F-01) C-02. The IAD audit staff continues to lack overall audit experience and experience within the County. (F-02 through F-04) C-03. The A-C has established no special training plan or an extra effort for training inexperienced auditors beyond the A-C’s standard training budget. There appears to be no training plan directed specifically toward junior personnel, other than close supervision. (F-04, F-05) C-04. HR is losing the direct and less-structured insight of a face-to-face interview by conducting exit interviews by mail. HR has lost input from 1 Lean Six Sigma is the name of a County initiative to focus on continuous improvements in processes and practices. Lean is a management approach to maximize value while removing wasteful activities and practices. Six Sigma can be defined as a management approach that seeks to systematically apply scientific principles to reduce variation and eliminate defects in service offerings. http://www.ventura.org/rma/service_excell/ci/pse.html ________________________________________________________________ 6 Illusion of Safety: Control Self-Assessment an indeterminate number of former employees, all of which could provide useful insight into high-turnover situations. (F-06 through F-08) C-05. Recruitment and retention of audit staff is suffering because HR and A-C have not updated auditor salary schedules to be competitive with those of other Southern California counties. (F-02 through F-09, F-11) C-06. HR has not conducted a comparison of the County auditor salary structure against that of private firms, which could be likely sources of significant competition (or of recruitment) for capable and experienced internal auditors. (F-11 through F-13) C-07. The County’s Administrative Manual Procedure VII(A) - 13, Internal Control Policy, requires that the CEO and A-C make periodic CSA reports to the BOS, but the A-C’s reports are sent only to the CEO. The CEO’s reports incorporate the substance of the A-C’s report, but the serial process invites CEO filtering, diminishes the perception of auditor independence, and may reduce BOS visibility. (F-14 through F-16) C-08. That the CEO’s office takes eight to 14 weeks to prepare the quarterly CSA report to the BOS reflects a low priority or importance attached to the CSA by County management. (F-16) C-09. All County agencies and departments have participated in the CSA program this triennium to the extent of having performed self- assessments, and have complied with the IAD guidance. (F-17 through F-21) C-10. CSA validations have been scheduled and conducted two or more years after the date of a department self-assessment. The delayed validation can detract from the perceived importance of the program. (F-22) C-11. With little feedback from IAD or County management upon completion of the CSA, individual departments may have filled out the questionnaire forms on schedule, but find out only during a much later validation, if ever, that the self-assessment may have been incomplete or superficial. (F-22, F-23) C-12. The validation process has proven to be laborious and duplicative. With the high turnover in auditors, there is a lack of auditor continuity from performance of the CSA to validation; additional time is also required on the part of the audited organization and the audit staff. (F-24) C-13. With only five of 26 agencies or departments having completed the validation phase during the current triennium, the other 21 agencies or departments will be expected to again perform self-assessments for the 2010-2013 triennium, without necessarily having had independent, knowledgeable evaluation of their prior efforts. (F-24, F-25) C-14. The A-C’s IAD is presently understaffed and insufficiently experienced to lead effective agency/department CSAs and to perform validations in an efficient manner. (F-24) C-15. The CSA Program is not being executed timely or effectively. (F-24, F-25) ___________________________________________________________________________ Illusion of Safety: Control Self-Assessment 7 C-16. Agency and department managers view CSA as a necessary nuisance rather than as a potential tool for assessing and improving organizational management. (F-23, F-24) C-17. The Office of the CEO views the CSA Program with indifference, as an A-C program which may offer insights to the agency and department managers, but which does not require executive oversight or participation. (F-24, F-25) C-18. The A-C is responsible for oversight and direction of the CSA Program with insufficient resources, but the responsibility for performance and execution belongs to County agencies and departments for which the CSA Program is a low priority. Consequently, the CSA Program lacks thoroughness and urgency. As currently conducted by the County, the CSA Program provides the illusion of safety without the substance. (F-23 through F-28) C-19. The County is performing the CSA Program as an afterthought. There is no apparent effort to coordinate or integrate CSA with the County’s Lean Six Sigma management improvement program. (F-26 through F- 28) C-20. Continuation of the CSA into a third triennium with no substantial changes in process, and with no enhancement of supporting audit resources, would be ill-advised. (F-29, F-30) C-21. In the first three quarters of the FY 2009-10, the IAD had expended only 32% of its planned CSA hours for the year, for which understaffing appears to be the major contributor. (F-31) Recommendations

Additional Recommendations 9

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: The CEO should task the HR Department to research, develop, and, in consultation with the A-C, implement an effective, long-term auditor retention and compensation program. (C-01, C-02, C-05, C-06)

R02: The CEO should direct HR to conduct face-to-face exit interviews with terminating and retiring County employees, and should direct HR to then provide systematic feedback to agency and department management. (C-03)

R03: The A-C and IAD should plan, budget, and conduct additional auditor training specifically directed to junior auditor staff in order to provide the County with the audit capability to be expected from the budgeted positions. (C-04)

R04: The CEO should direct HR, with advice and consultation with A-C, to initiate a new study of salaries and compensation of internal auditors by California counties and municipalities, as well as by private-sector employers (businesses and audit firms) in Southern California. (C-05, C-06)

R05: HR and the A-C should review and revise the position descriptions and salary structure for internal auditors and the supervising fiscal ________________________________________________________________ 8 Illusion of Safety: Control Self-Assessment managers in order to improve recruitment and retention of trained auditors. (C-05, C-06)

R06: The BOS, the A-C, and the CEO should terminate the CSA Program as six years of experience have shown it to be ineffective. (C-07 through C-20)

R07: The A-C IAD should direct its energy and capability toward performing traditional, direct organizational audits. (C-18)

R08: The BOS should authorize and fund additional senior auditor positions and an additional fiscal manager position for the A-C IAD. (C-02)

R09: Instead of starting a new CSA cycle, the CEO should positively incorporate control assessment objectives for all organizations under the Lean Six Sigma Program. (C-16, C-21)

June 14, 2010 — Ventura County Library System

13 pages 42 findings 1 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 42 findings

F01: On April 9, 1915, the BOS voted unanimously to establish a County Free Library.

F02: The current VCLS is operated based on a 1998 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the County and the seven cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme, San Buenaventura, and Simi Valley. [Ref-01]

F03: The purpose of the MOU was to provide improved library services and establish a Commission. [Ref-01]

F04: The Commission is structured as follows: [Ref-01] • one member from each city council • one member from the BOS* * with a 4/5 vote the BOS can override a vote of the Commission.

F05: The MOU grants the Commission the following recommendation powers: [Ref-01] • to oversee the policy matters of the Library System and make recommendations to the BOS • to participate in the selection of the Director • to review the annual performance evaluation of the Director and forward any recommendations to the BOS

F06: The MOU provides the following: [Ref-01] • all city property taxes are returned to the respective cities • each city also receives property taxes from unincorporated service areas • changes are only made by unanimous vote of the Commission

F07: County libraries are organized under the County Free Library Law, Education Code §19100 et seq. [Ref-02]

F08: City libraries are organized under the Municipal Library Law, Education Code §18900 et seq. or, for charter cities, under the constitutional “municipal affairs doctrine,” California Constitution, Article II, §3 and pursuant to a charter adopted by the city’s voters. [Ref-02]

F09: This County operates as a County Dedicated Property Tax Library, one of 24 California counties which imposed a separate property tax for 2 Ventura County Library System libraries before Proposition 13 (1978). This property tax rate still generates revenues, all of which are dedicated to county library services. [Ref-02]

F10: Since a substantial portion of their revenues are guaranteed and cannot be spent on other county activities, county dedicated property tax libraries enjoy a greater degree of financial independence and certainty. [Ref-02]

F11: Property taxes, governed by California state law, are collected by the County. The County Tax Collector collects taxes on behalf of the following entities: the County, most of the County's 10 incorporated cities, 20 school districts, and all other taxing agencies located in the County including special districts (e.g., flood control districts, sanitation districts). [Ref-02]

F12: Upon collection of these taxes by the County, appropriate distribution is made to the various taxing agencies. [Ref-02]

F13: Property taxes were allocated by Fiscal Years (FY) as follows: FY 92-93 FY 93-94 to 08-09 FY 09-10 Schools 46% 54% 54% County 26% 18% 19% Districts 20% 19% 18% Cities 8% 9% 9%

F14: The three major components of the VCLS's discretionary operating revenues are: • property taxes • General Fund contribution • Public Library Fund (PLF)

F15: Additional revenues are received as follows: • fees for past due materials, library card replacement, and meeting room rentals • various grants • city contributions

F16: The current VCLS consists of 14 libraries, located as follows: [Ref-03] • Unincorporated branches: Meiner's Oaks o Oak View o Saticoy o El Rio o Oak Park o ___________________________________________________________________________ Ventura County Library System 3 Piru o • City Libraries Camarillo o Fillmore o Ojai o Port Hueneme o Simi Valley o Ventura (Avenue and Foster) o

F17: In 2007, the City of Moorpark withdrew the Moorpark City Library from the VCLS. The VCLS Financial Condition

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Ventura County Board of Supervisors and the Library Services Commission should take necessary actions to ensure that adequate library services are provided to the citizens of the Ventura County Library System. Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, Ventura County (R-01) Responses Requested From: Ventura County Library Commission (R-01) References Ref-01. Ventura County Library website, Documents presented at the October 1, 2009 Commission meeting, Agenda Item 10 http://www.vencolibrary.org/commission Ref-02. California Public Library Organization Website http://www.library.ca.gov/lds/docs/CAPubLibOrgRpt.pdf Ref-03. Ventura County Library website 10 Ventura County Library System http://www.vencolibrary.org/locations Ref-04. Ventura County Library website, Documents presented at the October 1, 2009 Commission meeting, Agenda Item 10 http://www.vencolibrary.org/commission Ref-05. Ventura City Council Agenda for Monday, November 23, 2009, Agenda item No. 12 http://www.ci.ventura.ca.us/newsmanager/articlefiles/5554- item%2012.pdf ___________________________________________________________________________ Ventura County Library System 11

F18: The VCLS has been experiencing financial difficulties for some time, as illustrated as follows: • 1978 - on June 6th nearly two-thirds of California’s voters passed Proposition 13, reducing property tax rates on homes, businesses and farms by about 57% • 1992 - the California State Library (CSL) lost $2 million annually when the State shifted half of the Special District Augmentation Fund to balance the State budget • 1993 - the CSL lost almost half of its funding (an additional $3 million annually) • 1995 - as a result of serious budget difficulties, the BOS determined that rather than closing seven small neighborhood libraries, supplementary General Fund monies would be provided to operate them for 75% of the new fiscal year • 2001 - the County adopted and approved a Living Wage Ordinance for County staff which caused major adjustments to staffing budgets in the VCLS • 2002 - funding for utilities throughout the VCLS increased 43% over 2001 • 2003 - problems in the State budget caused a cut of 50% of the PLF from the previous year's allocation • 2005 - The State discontinued using the Vehicle Licensing Fee (VLF) to partially fund libraries. In lieu of the VLF, the County began contributing $600,000 from the General Fund, which was equal to the funding the library had been receiving through VLF at that time. Ventura County Library System

Related Recommendations (1)

F19: In FY 2007-2008, per capita mean1 for library materials expenditures for the State, the various city libraries, and the VCLS is shown below:

Related Recommendations (1)

F20: In 2006, the per capita income for the County was $42,476 and ranked 15th overall in the State.

Related Recommendations (1)

F21: The revenues which the County receives from the State through the PLF have been steadily decreasing over the past 10 years, as shown below: 1 The most common expression for the mean is the mathematical average of all the terms. To calculate the mean, add up the values of all the terms and then divide by the number of terms. This expression is also called the arithmetic mean. ___________________________________________________________________________ Ventura County Library System 5

Related Recommendations (1)

F22: The revenues the VCLS received through property taxes over the past nine years are shown as follows:

Related Recommendations (1)

F23: The total annual expenditures for the VCLS are shown below: 6 Ventura County Library System

Related Recommendations (1)

F24: The Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employee staffing has remained fairly constant over the past nine years:

Related Recommendations (1)

F25: There has been a 9.1% reduction in the average annual operating hours for the last three years in comparison to the previous six years :

Related Recommendations (1)

F26: The current MOU appears to have certain shortcomings: [Ref-04] • there are additional costs to administer the library system • there is no opportunity for "economies of scale" in purchasing materials including books • may create inequities in library service, based on wealth of individual communities • penalizes growth ___________________________________________________________________________ Ventura County Library System 7 • penalizes high circulation, rewards low circulation • rewards deficit libraries

Related Recommendations (1)

F27: A subgroup of the Commission, comprised of the city managers, was formed at the October 1, 2009 meeting for the purpose of exploring an alternative funding formula to alleviate the current drawbacks of the MOU. [Ref-04] The Wright Library

Related Recommendations (1)

F28: The City of Ventura (City) had been operating multiple libraries: • Helen P. Wright • E.P. Foster • Ventura Avenue Library (primarily funded by a $150,000 City contribution from Community Development Block Grant resources)

Related Recommendations (1)

F29: The cities in the MOU operate under a “return-to-source” formula. As a result, there have been insufficient funds to operate multiple City libraries. [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

F30: For the last several years, the need for additional funding to maintain library hours in the City has been an annual budgetary issue for both the VCLS and the City. [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

F31: In the past, when there were critical shortages of funds, some groups have stepped forward to provide one-time, stop-gap funding. Funds have been provided by: [Ref-05] • VCLS • the City • Ventura auto dealers • San Buenaventura Friends of the Library (Friends)

Related Recommendations (1)

F32: In FY 2008-2009, the VCLS provided an additional $280,000 to maintain the City’s library service levels. [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

F33: In early 2009, the Commission concluded that it could no longer continue to subsidize the City's two libraries without cutting hours and services at other libraries in the system. [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

F34: In January 2009, the VCLS staff developed a balanced budget for FY 2009-2010 which did not provide a funding subsidy for the City. [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

F35: At the same time, the City was involved in its second year of budget cuts and determined there was insufficient funding to support multiple libraries. [Ref-05] 8 Ventura County Library System

Related Recommendations (1)

F36: In a January 2009 report from the Director, a recommendation was made to the City Council to keep the Foster Library open while closing the Wright Library, based on the following factors: [Ref-05] • size: Foster is 35,000 square feet; Wright is 12,000 square feet • accessibility: Foster is Americans with Disabilities Act compliant; Wright is not • community space: Foster has a meeting room; Wright does not • computers: Foster has 34 computer terminals; Wright has four • long-term sustainability: the City owns the land on which Foster is sited; the land under Wright is rented under a lease expiring on March 15, 2015

Related Recommendations (1)

F37: There were a number of actions that were undertaken in an attempt to keep the Wright Library open: [Ref-05] • a fund raising campaign was undertaken by the Friends • the City Council appointed a “blue ribbon citizen committee” to make recommendations regarding a sales tax measure • the City Library Advisory Commission (LAC) held a series of meetings to consider alternatives to closing Wright Library

Related Recommendations (1)

F38: On April 27, 2009, staff brought the LAC-recommended alternatives to the City Council. The alternatives were, in order of the staff’s preference: [Ref-05] • alternate days of service between Wright and Foster • alternate hours of service between Wright and Foster • maintain current service levels at both libraries through City funding, either in the form of a loan or a grant • consolidate collections at Foster Library, and explore other sites as an alternative to Wright • follow the County staff recommendation to close Wright and move all collections to Foster • close Wright temporarily, leaving the collections in place and intact until an alternative funding source for libraries is identified

Related Recommendations (1)

F39: The City placed Measure A, a half-cent sales tax increase, on the ballot for the November 3, 2009 election. This measure was, in part, to provide funds to keep the Wright Library open. [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

F40: On November 3, 2009, Measure A was defeated. [Ref-05]

Related Recommendations (1)

F41: In a November 13, 2009 letter, the Director advised the Mayor of Ventura that the Wright Library would be closed effective November 30, 2009, if the City provided no additional funds. [Ref-05] ___________________________________________________________________________ Ventura County Library System 9

Related Recommendations (1)

F42: The Wright Library closed its doors on Monday, November 30, 2009 at 8:00 PM. Conclusions C-01. For almost a century, the VCLS has provided library services to the citizens of the County. (F-01) C-02. In the past, the VCLS has suffered from serious financial problems and those problems persist. (F-17) C-03. For the past five years, the VCLS has operated in a deficit spending mode. (F-20 through F-23) C-04. In spite of the financial problems that have beset the VCLS, the Director and the Commission have been able to maintain a consistent level of service. (F-24, F-25) C-05. The Director and the Commission continue to explore methods to reduce the costs of VCLS operations. (F-26 through F-27) C-06. The City, in conjunction with the VCLS, explored numerous options in an attempt to keep the Wright Library open. (F-29 through F-40) C-07. There is no evidence of improper actions on the part of the City or the VCLS with respect to the closure of the Wright Library. (F-29 through F-40) Recommendations

Related Recommendations (1)

June 14, 2010 — Youth in Shadow

35 pages 38 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 38 findings

F01: An estimated 19,000 youths age out of foster care in the U.S. each year, most without a permanent family to support them. [Ref-10]

F02: According to numerous studies, youth emancipating or exiting foster care are unprepared for adult living. [Ref-04, Ref-05, Ref-09]

F03: Extending foster care beyond the age of 18 reduces the risk of teenage pregnancies by 38% and reduces the likelihood of being arrested by 65%. When compared with youth exiting at 18, those in care past the age of 18 are three times more likely to enroll in college. [Ref-11]

F04: Extending foster care until the age of 21 increases estimated lifetime earning potential by $84,000 - with some college, a return of $2.00 for every dollar spent; and by $92,000 - with completion of college, a return of $2.40 for each $1.00. [Ref-12]

F05: PL 106-169, the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) Initiative requires the Administration for Children and Families, under the Department of Health and Human Services, to develop a data collection system to: Youth in Shadow 3 • track the number and characteristics of children receiving independent living services • track the type and quantity of independent living services provided by the states • develop outcome measures to assess states’ performance States are required to begin collecting data by October 1, 2010, with first submission of data by May 15, 2011. [Ref-13] California

F06: Data submitted to the Children’s Bureau indicates that the number of children entering, exiting, and presently in foster care has been decreasing. Data further shows that the State, with 12% of the population, serves 13% to 15% of the foster care population. [Ref-14] Foster Care in California FY 2006 - FY 2008 Entries, Exits, and Number of Children in Care on the Last Day of Each Federal Fiscal Year (FY) Exiting Foster Care during In Foster Care on Last Entering Foster Care the Year Day of FY Year FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Calif. 41,090 41,316 36,162 41,068 42,446 41,479 76,405 73,998 67,323 U.S. 303,236 293,301 273,132 293,434 293,233 285,196 504,855 490.693 463,333 Calif. % 1 3 . 56% 14.09% 13.24% 14.00% 14.48% 14.54% 15.13% 15.08% 14.53%

F07: The Status of child welfare in the State (as reported January 2010): [Ref-15, Ref-16] • number of children/youth (Att-01)  in foster care: 76,129  in child welfare and supervised placements: 75,587  placed in Kin-GAP – 13,734  emancipating from child welfare and supervised care: 5,027 (Att-02) • Child Welfare Spending (Att-01)  FY 2006: $4,399,479,000  Title IV-E Foster Care Expenditures FY 2008: $1,241,459,464

F08: State youth age out of foster care at the age of 18.

F09: Dependency can be extended to the age of 19 if the youth are on track to receive a high school diploma.

F10: In 2008-09, approximately 4,500 foster youths ages 18 and older aged out of foster care in the State. [Ref-17] 4 Youth in Shadow

F11: A significant problem for young women coming out of foster care is early or unwanted pregnancy: [Ref-18] • approximately two-thirds of women emancipating from child welfare had at least one birth within five years of leaving care, nine percent had births while in care, 10 percent in the first year after care, and 11 to 14 percent each succeeding year • the more foster placements for a young woman, the greater the likelihood she will become pregnant before emancipation

F12: Dependency is dismissed by the court when a child returns home, is adopted, guardianship is granted by the court, or the child reaches the age of 18.

F13: The California Department of Social Services, Children and Family Services, Foster Care (CDSS) provides a host of programs, services, assistance, and information to foster youth who emancipate, exit, or age out of foster care and transition to independency. Programs offered include employment, financial, and housing assistance. [Ref-19] (Att-03 for a full list)

F14: The average estimated cost (per youth, per year) to extend foster care in the State to the age of 21 is $37,948, with the federal government expected to pay $13,282, the State $9,866, and the placing county $14,800. [Ref-20]

F15: Existing research on emancipation from foster care relies almost exclusively on interviews of former foster children. [Ref-21]

F16: Youth aging out of foster care face many problems. [Ref-22] • although not unique to foster children, because of the nature of their early upbringing and lack of family connection, former foster children experience ongoing problems with mental health issues, drug and substance abuse, and sexual orientation (Att-04) • few have access to transportation, which results in difficulty getting to medical appointments, job interviews, and school

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: BOS should continue to financially support and provide appropriate programs and assistance for older foster youth. (C-01, C-04, C-10, C-12, C-13)

F17: California is one of only four states (as of 2006) that terminates foster care at the age of 18. Other states and termination ages are: [Ref-23] • 18 years old in California - plus FL, LA, RI • 19 years old in four states - NE, UT, VT, WI • 20 years old in four states - AK, IA, MI, NH • 21 years old in 32 states - AL, AR, AZ, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, ME, MD, MO, MN, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK OR, PA, SC, SD, VA, WA, WV, WY, and DC • 22 years old in two states - MA, TX Youth in Shadow 5 • 23 years old in one state - CT • information not available - HI, MS, TN, and PR County

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: BOS and HSA should support and encourage legislation extending foster care services to the age of 21 or older by vigorously advocating passage of AB 12 by the State Senate. (C-01, C-04, C-10 through C-14)

F18: Status of child welfare in the County as of March 30, 2010: • number in foster care: 632  in family-type settings: 303  in group homes: 62  in Relative or Non-related Extended Family Care: 200  in court-specified or medical facilities: approximately 67 • number placed in Kin-GAP: 106 • number of youth emancipating from child welfare and probation supervised care: 27 • Child Welfare Funding FY 2008-09: $34,467,729; Title IV-E Foster Care Expenditures FY 2008-09: $23,392,547 • Child Welfare Budget FY 2009-10: $35,744,430; Title IV-E Foster Care Budget FY 2009-10: $24,115,384 • there are 211 licensed Foster Homes in the County

F19: The cost for foster care in the County for the six months, July 2009 through December 2009, was approximately $6.2 million.

F20: The County leverages every $1.00 received from local funding into $5.00 from state or federal funding.

F21: Some of the recently introduced programs for Foster Care have been underfunded.

F22: As of March 30, 2010, there were 795 children in foster care dependency in the County. As of December 2009, of the 654 youths in out-of-home foster care or in relative care in the County, 42 were 17 years-old and 14 were 18 years-old.

F23: Between 2007 and 2009, 164 youths over 16 years of age exited County foster care programs. Ventura County Youth Ages 16-19+ Exiting Foster Care Age Perma- Aged- Year 16 17 18 19+ Total nency out 2008-09 21 20 57 2 100 30 58 2007-08 17 14 31 2 64 19 30

F24: In FY 2008-09, 521 County children and youth (all ages) exited foster care, and 505 exited in FY 2007-08 (including exits for emancipation, adoption, guardianship, and family reunification). Youth in Shadow

F25: On the average, 50 youths emancipate in the County each year.

F26: CFS has 97 social workers in 108 full-time positions as of March 30, 2010.

F27: The current HSA caseload is 22 children per social worker, occasionally 25 to 27. To determine its caseload standard, HSA relies on a study performed 10 years ago which determined that a ratio of 22 to one was desirable.

Related Recommendations (2)

R06: HSA-CFS should reduce caseloads utilizing AB 12 funds when available by hiring more caseworkers, reorganizing resources, and/or re- evaluating priorities. (C-11, C-12)

R07: HSA-CFS should acknowledge that a caseload of 22:1 or higher is not necessarily ideal. (C-11, C-12) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-07) References Ref-01. San Pasqual Academy, California Connected, KCET (Public Television), Los Angeles, CA, May 26, 2006. http://www.californiaconnected.org/tv/archives/386 Ref-02. Ellington, Careth. The Shadow Children, Chicago, IL: Topaz Books, 1967. Youth in Shadow 11 Ref-03. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, MA: Merriam Webster, Inc., Publishers, 1984. Ref-04. Lenz-Rashid, Sonja. A BASSC Policy Monograph: Emancipating from Foster Care in the Bay Area, San Francisco, CA. Zellerbach Foundation, 2006, p.10. http://www.calyouthconn.org/files/cyc/PDF/TransitionBASCCFinalRepo rt.pdf Ref-05. Gardner, Deseree, Research Associate. Youth Aging out of Foster Care, Identifying Strategies and Best Practices, National Association of Counties (NACo), Washington, DC, February 2008, p.3. www.naco.org Ref-06. AB 12 Fact Sheet, California Fostering Connections to Success Act, Office of Assembly Member Jim Beall, Jr., March 5, 2009. http://www.caichildlaw.org/Misc/AB12FactSheet-02.13.09.pdf Ref-07. Dworsky, Amy and June Havlicek. Review of State Policies and Programs to Support Young People Transitioning Out of Foster Care, Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 2009, p. 16. www.chapinhall.org Ref-08. Los Angeles Times, “Fixing foster care in California,” March 12, 2009, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-foster12- 2009mar12,0,2914771.story Ref-09. “Improving the Futures of Foster Youth, New Report Finds Benefits Outweigh Costs,” Press Conference, Sacramento, CA, Press Kit March 9, 2009, California Fostering Connections, San Francisco. http://www.cafosteringconnections.org/news.html Ref-10. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, AFCARS report, 2003. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report 10.htm Ref-11. Courtney, Mark E., Amy Dworsky, and Clark M. Peters. California’s Fostering Connections to Success Act and the Costs and Benefits of Extending Foster Care to 21, Seattle, WA: Partners for Our Children, March 2, 2009, p. 8. http://www.cafosteringconnections.org/pdfs/Courtney,%20Dworsky,% 20&%20Peters%20(2009)%20FC%20to%2021.pdf Ref-12. Ibid, p.16. Ref-13. About NYTD (the National Youth in Transition Database), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Family Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W. Washington, DC, February 26, 2008. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/nytd/about_nytd.htm Ref-14. Foster Care FY 2002 – FY 2008 Entries, Exits, and Numbers of Children in Care on the Last Day of Each Federal Fiscal Year, a service of the 12 Youth in Shadow U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Children’s Bureau, Tulsa, OK, 2010. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/statistics/ entryexit2008.htm Ref-15. Children’s Defense Fund: “Child Welfare Financing State Fact Sheets 2010”, United States, Washington, DC, January 19, 2010. http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data- publications/data/state-data-repository/child-welfare-financing-state- factsheets-2010.html Ref-16. “Foster Care Populations and Youth Potentially Impacted by AB 12 County Data Chart,” California Fostering Connections, San Francisco, CA, Press Kit March 19, 2009. http://www.cafosteringconnections.org/news.html Ref-17. Danielson, Caroline. Foster Care in California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA, March 2010, www.ppic.org Ref-18. Needell, Barbara, Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin, Alan Brookhart, William Jackman, and Aron Shlonsky. Youth Emancipating from Foster Care in California: Findings Using Linked Data, Center for Social Services Research, University of California at Berkeley, School of Social Welfare, Berkeley, CA, 2002, pp. 35-40. http://cssr.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/pdfs/youth/ffy_entire.pdf Ref-19. California Department of Social Services, Children and Family Services, Foster Care, http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/PG59.htm Ref-20. Supra, Ref-11, p. 1. Ref-21. Supra, Ref-18, p. 6. Ref-22. Supra, Ref-04, pp. 20-21. Ref-23. State by State (AFCARS 2006 data), National Resource Center for Youth Development, a service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Children’s Bureau, Tulsa, OK, 2010. http://www.nrcyd.ou.edu/state_pages.html Ref-24. Guidelines for Computing Caseload Standards, Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC. http://www.cwla.org/programs/standards/caseloadstandards.htm Ref-25. Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Dawson, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Williams, D., Zimmerman, K., Simon, V., Hamilton, D., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Frerer, K., Lou, C., Peng, C. & Moore, M. (2010). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved 5/16/2010, from University of California at Berkeley Center. http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/C3M1.aspx Attachments Att-01. Child Welfare in California and the United States Youth in Shadow 13 Att-02. Foster Care Populations and Youth Potentially Impacted by AB 12 County Data Chart Att-03. California Department of Social Services Programs, Services, and Information Provided for Foster Youth Transitioning to Independency Att-04. Recent Studies and Findings on Youth Aging Out of Foster Care Acronyms AB – Assembly Bill AFCARS − Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System BOS – Board of Supervisors, Ventura County CDSS – California Department of Social Services CFS – Children and Family Services, Ventura County CSW – Child/Children’s Social Worker CYC – California Youth Connection GED – General Educational Development test HSA – Human Services Agency ILP – Independent Living Program Kin-GAP – Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program LGBTQ – Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning gender NACo – National Association of Counties NREFM – Non-Related Extended Family Member NYTD – National Youth in Transition Database PL – Public Law (as PL 110-351) State – State of California THPP – Transitional Housing Placement Program THP-Plus – Transitional Housing Program Plus Glossary Aging out − a youth ages out of foster care in California when they turn 18 years old Caseload − the number of cases assigned to one caseworker at any one time Dependency − a child is in dependency when he is removed from the home and is placed in foster care Draw-down – to get funding, to reduce levels, to deplete by consumption or heavy spending 14 Youth in Shadow Emancipation − is a legal process that gives a person who is 16 or older legal independence from his or her parents or guardians. It refers to both the emancipation of minors (i.e., youth below the age of majority) and youth who age out of foster care between 18 and 21, depending on State policy. Foster care − 24-hour substitute care for children outside their own homes Independent living − when a youth has emancipated or aged out of the foster care system and is living on his/her own Permanency – when a youth is in a permanent situation with at least one adult who is committed to providing a safe, stable, and secure parenting relationship and lifelong support Youth in Shadow 15 Attachment-01 Child Welfare in California and the United States 16 Youth in Shadow (This page intentionally blank) Youth in Shadow 17 [Ref-15] 18 Youth in Shadow Youth in Shadow 19 20 Youth in Shadow Youth in Shadow 21 [Ref-15] 22 Youth in Shadow Attachment 02 Foster Care Populations and Youth Potentially Impacted by AB 12 County Data Chart Youth in Shadow 23 (This page intentionally blank) 24 Youth in Shadow [Ref-16] Youth in Shadow 25 (This page intentionally blank) 26 Youth in Shadow Attachment-03 California Department of Social Services Programs, Services, and Information Provided for Foster Youth Transitioning to Independency Youth in Shadow 27 (This page intentionally blank) 28 Youth in Shadow California Department of Social Services Programs, Services, and Information Available for Foster Youth Transitioning to Independency http://www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/default.htm California Ombudsman for Foster Care Office, an independent voice for foster children and youth for filing, investigating, and resolving complaints. http://www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/OMBprog.html Foster Youth Rights (including dealing with the courts). www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/rights2.html Ten Facts Every Foster Youth Should Know. http://www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/10facts.html College/education. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/pf/fy/resources.asp Drivers license information. http://www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/drivers.html Employment assistance - includes tutoring, GED help, summer employment, skills training, internships and job shadowing http://www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/Employment.html Financial assistance - includes emancipation stipends for housing, education, and living expenses; and Welfare to Work funding for former foster 18-25. www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/money.html Health and medical assistance - (Medi-Cal coverage until 21, Mental Health Services, Diagnosis and Treatment Services). http://www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/Needs2.html Housing and housing assistance after emancipation. http://www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/Housing.html Important documents assistance and information (birth certificate, social security card, driver’s license, background, and contact information for siblings). http://www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/ImportantDocs.html Job seeking information: • entry-level jobs, www.entry-level.net • job search by California regions, http://jobstar.org/index.php • California Employment Development jobs, www.edd.cahwnet.gov Independency information http://www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/Indep.html Permanency information http://www.fosteryouthhelp.ca.gov/Permanency.html Ventura County Human Services Agency, Children and Family Services website for youth in Independent Living www.vchsa.org/ilp [Ref-19] Youth in Shadow 29 (This page intentionally blank) 30 Youth in Shadow Attachment-04 Recent Studies and Findings on Youth Aging Out of Foster Care (problems encountered) Youth in Shadow 31 (This page intentionally blank) 32 Youth in Shadow Recent Studies and Findings on Youth Aging Out of Foster Care (problems encountered) Area Study Finding Housing/ CDSS (2002) 65% needed affordable housing at the time of Homelessness Courtney et emancipation al. (2004) 25% were homeless at least one night Shelter In Los Angeles County, an estimated 45% of youth Partnership emancipated each year go directly on to the streets or end up on the streets within six weeks of emancipation Employment Barth (1990) 53% reported they had serious money troubles George et al. 23% did not find employment 13 months after (2002) leaving care in California Education Courtney et 36% did not have a high school diploma or GED al. (2005) Financial Self- Courtney et al 36% had received food stamps, 22% were currently Sufficiency (2005) receiving food stamps, and 15% reported being Pecora et al hungry (2003) 33% had incomes at or below poverty level, 17% were receiving cash assistance, and 33% had no health insurance Mental Health AFCARS 80% of foster care youth have received mental (2003) health services Courtney et al 10% had a lifetime diagnosis of Major Depressive (2005) Disorder Substance Courtney et al 15% had a lifetime diagnosis of Substance Abuse, (2005) 5% Abuse Substance Dependence, and 14% Alcohol Abuse Incarceration Courtney et al 34% had been arrested, 17% convicted of a crime, (2005) and 24% had spent at least one night in jail; they are more likely to become involved in crime and victims of crime LGBTQ Youth Courtney et al 15% of former foster youth reported being LBGTQ (2005) (20% female and 10% males) Lenz-Rashid 35% of homeless former foster youth reported being (2005) LBGTQ Other Courtney Are more likely to have children outside of marriage; (April 2005) if married, they are more likely to have marital problems; and they are more socially isolated than their peers [Ref-22] Youth in Shadow 33

F28: Recommended caseloads: [Ref-24] • the Child Welfare League of America recommends 12 to 15 children per worker for foster care • the Oregon Project recommends a maximum caseload for foster care of 15 children per worker • a study in Idaho and Washington State suggested that, when caseloads were reduced to no more than 10 children per worker, permanency for children was accomplished in a “timely manner”

Related Recommendations (2)

R06: HSA-CFS should reduce caseloads utilizing AB 12 funds when available by hiring more caseworkers, reorganizing resources, and/or re- evaluating priorities. (C-11, C-12)

F29: Five CFS staff recruit, license, investigate, and perform background checks for all Foster Homes.

F30: Each County-licensed Foster Home is visited at least once per year. (The State requires they be reviewed only once every five years.)

F31: In addition to State programs and services, CFS under HSA oversees or coordinates several programs for foster and transitioning youth: • Independent Living Program (ILP) for youth 16 to 21 which assists with transportation - driver’s licenses, bus passes, bicycles, education, housing, mentoring, basic living skills • After Care Services Program for youth over 18 includes information on obtaining food stamps and MediCal • California Youth Connection (CYC) forum provides leadership, advocacy, support, and empowerment, as well as an opportunity to address foster youth issues at the legislative level • Transitional Housing Placement Plus (THPP) provides housing assistance and support for up to six former foster or probation youth ages 18-24 • Transitional Housing Placement Plus (THP+) provides affordable housing assistance and supportive services to emancipated foster and probation youth. It is a voluntary program for emancipated youth ages 18-24 for up to 24 months. May include a $500 stipend for one year towards housing costs • Transitional Housing Placement Program (also referred to as THPP) assists youth 16-18 years-old with semi-independent living – a service provider external to HSA Youth in Shadow 7 • Aspiranet, a non-profit social services agency provides assistance with family services, adoption, foster care, education, after-school programs and community collaboration • Interface Children Family Services provides classes on life skills training, budgeting, and educational and vocational opportunities • Kin-GAP - Kinship Guardianship Program youth live with relatives in a guardianship relationship - dependency has been dismissed and CFS does not provide ongoing case management • Wraparound Program provides intensive support for children with emotional and behavioral needs, allowing them to remain with their families when otherwise they would be placed in a group home • Foster Family Agencies - Aspiranet and Koinonia for children requiring more intensive care • Small Family Homes are licensed by the State and are typically for children requiring a higher level of care; employment outside the home is prohibited for caregiver • Non-Related Extended Family Member (NREFM) can act as a caregiver, e.g. a neighbor with a pre-existing relationship; however, they must pass same background checks and home inspections as required for a foster home or a relative home • a transition program for youth approaching the age of 18 • a foster care Support Group for youth leaving foster care • a Juvenile Court with one judge • a website for ILP youth - www.vchsa.org/ilp

F32: CFS maintains working relationships with local nonprofit agencies in supporting former foster youth and providing assistance: • Path Point, Catholic Charities, and Salvation Army for assistance with rent • Path Point for assistance with security deposits • Path Point and Salvation Army for assistance with paying for utilities • Catholic Charities, Food Share, and HSA Food Stamp Program for assistance in obtaining food • ACTION and Kiwanis Club for assistance with obtaining furniture

F33: Due to confidentiality and privacy laws, any follow-up contact with former foster care children and youth is voluntary for the youth. They are private citizens and, as such, cannot be required to report back to CFS on their lives. Therefore, HSA cannot collect real data regarding their progress or lack of accomplishments. Youth in Shadow

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: Within the limitations of privacy and confidentiality laws, HSA-CFS should investigate ways to collect, store, and analyze summative data on youth who have exited foster care in the County. (C-07 through C-09)

F34: No statistically significant data is collected on the effectiveness of program(s).

Related Recommendations (1)

F35: There is no regular, systematic method for collecting empirical data for research on the effectiveness of program(s).

Related Recommendations (1)

F36: The following information, when requested by the Grand Jury, was unavailable from HSA/CFS: • What percentage of former County foster youth is living independently? • What percentage of former County foster youth is homeless? • What percentage of former County foster youth is gainfully employed? Unemployed? • What percentage of former County foster youth is currently receiving welfare assistance? • What percentage of former County foster youth is now in college or has graduated from college? • What percentage of former County foster youth is in the military? • What percentage of former County foster youth is now incarcerated or has been incarcerated? • What percentage of former County foster youth is relatively happy with their life and present situation? • What percentage of former County foster youth is married? Has had a child? • What percentage of former County foster youth may be considered to be social isolates?

Related Recommendations (1)

F37: The County’s score on Federal Permanency Measure C-3.1: Exits to Permanency (the percent of children in foster care for two or more years who exited to a permanent home), for July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009 was 28.3%. This is higher than the 23.3% State attainment and slightly less than the 29.1% national score. For the period October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009, the County score increased to 30.1%. [Ref-25]

F38: Because of privacy and confidentiality issues, the Grand Jury was unable to observe an Emancipation Conference, nor to interview youth formerly or presently in foster care. Conclusions C-01. In the long term, AB 12 will save the State dollars by allowing the State to access federal funds to recover up to 50% of the costs for kinship-guardianship programs. Money saved could be used to extend services to older youth and to lower CFS caseloads. (F-01, F-03, F-04, F-14, F-19 through F-21, F-26 through F-28) Youth in Shadow 9 C-02. It is not going to be easy for youth aging out of foster care. (F-02, F-03, F-11, F-16) C-03. History cautions that many youth exiting the out-of-home foster care system as adolescents are likely to need and receive services as adults through welfare, as a resident of a homeless shelter, or through incarceration. (F-02, F-11) C-04. Extending foster care past the age of 18 has long-term benefits for youth: higher standards of living, less homelessness, greater self- sufficiency, improved health, reduced chemical and alcohol dependency, fewer unwanted pregnancies, less involvement with the courts, and better education. (F-03, F-04) C-05. The transition to living independently will be difficult for those with a history of abuse, neglect, and multiple foster care placements. (F-02, F11, F-16) C-06. Foster youth, as a result of being abused, neglected, victimized, and moved from placement to placement (sometimes on very short notice), have learned to be defensive and on guard, wary of offers to help, socially mistrustful, and leery of adult intervention; making it difficult for them to be reached and to reach out. (F-02, F-11, F-16) C-07. Having accurate and current past performance information would improve program planning and delivery of services. Child Welfare agencies, and Social Service and Child Welfare Directors need to know how many youth are in foster care: their ages, how many leave the system each year, and how they are doing. Many counties must rely on old information and rough estimates about the youth they serve in terms of needs, issues, strengths, and experiences. (F-05, F- 15, F-33 through F-36, F-38) C-08. The inability of states to accurately report the number of youth currently in care or who age out each year, and the inability to determine how well they are doing two, three, or four years after leaving care is discouraging and dissuades accountability. NYTD requirements, with which states will soon be forced to comply, are constructive steps to take. (F-05, F-15, F-33 through F-36) C-09. More research data is needed to quantify the efficacy of County services for youth who have exited care. Best practices can be identified and replicated when empirical research shows that programs have been successful. (F-05, F-15, F-33 through F-36, F-38) C-10. Passage of AB 12 should ease the financial burden on the State, resulting in better service for foster children and youth by improved delivery of services, fewer changes in placement, shorter lengths of stay in foster care, and enhanced movement into permanency – the ultimate goal. (F-03 through F-05, F-14, F-19 through F-21, F-37) 10 Youth in Shadow C-11. Hiring more case workers will result in smaller caseloads and will improve foster care with respect to delivery of services, length of stay in foster care, and move to permanency. (F-26 through F-28, F-37) C-12. The State lags behind many states in extending foster care beyond the age of 18. (F-17) C-13. County foster care children and youth are appropriately served through a broad range of programs offered by HSA/CFS – Foster Care, and the State. (F-13, F-20 through F-21, F-29 through F-32, F-36) Recommendations

June 11, 2010 — The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets

24 pages 37 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 37 findings

F01: Two important numbers to be concerned with are: • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years which consists of the ARC and the normal costs for the year • ARC, which represents an amortized payment that would remain the same for 30 years, after which time amortization payments would end

F02: Briggs Elementary School District: (@449 Students – 2 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $3,661,001 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits for active employees are $228,732 • does not currently have a retiree health care benefits plan • does not pay any portion of the retiree’s dependent health care benefits • there are no participants in the District’s retiree health care benefits plan • the health care benefits plan for current employees is pay-as-you- go • does not have any unfunded health care benefits liability

F03: Conejo Valley Unified School District: (@21,655 Students - 29 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $170,595,282 ___________________________________________________________________________ The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets 3 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits for fiscal year (FY) 2009-10 are $18,837,425: $18,412,882 for 1,695 active employees and $424,543 for 124 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are estimated to be $18,239,251 • ARC for FY 2007-08 was $1,245,188 • the retiree health care benefits plan remains open • the retiree health care benefits program is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability (the liability over the assets deposited into an irrevocably trust fund committed to provide retiree health care benefits) as of June 30, 2008 was $9,688,289: $7,556,534 for active employees and $2,131,755 for retirees

F04: Fillmore Unified School District: (@3,860 Students - 7 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $30,444,000 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are $4,180,000: $3,009,537 for 368 active employees and an estimated $1,170,463 for 71 retirees, as of July 1, 2008 • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are expected to be $125,400,000 • does not provide health care benefits for future retirees • ARC for FY 2008-09 is $379,637 • the unfunded health care benefits liability is $2,993,293: $1,822,830 for active employees and $1,170,463 for retirees

F05: Hueneme Elementary School District: (@7,983 Students - 11 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $65,477,258 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are $6,123,426: $5,573,172 for 89 active employees and $550,254 for 69 retirees • there are 540 employees not yet fully eligible for health care benefits • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are expected to be $29,107,900 • does not currently provide lifetime health care benefits, however, there are two past superintendents receiving lifetime health care benefits pursuant to their employment contracts • the retiree health care benefits plan remains open • ARC is $1,964,700 ________________________________________________________________ 4 The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets • the health care benefits plan is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability is $19,002,100

F06: Mesa Union Elementary School District (@1,150 Students – 2 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $4,456,351 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits as of October 31, 2009 are $347,085: $340,692 for 16 active employees and $6,393 for one retiree • the projected total health care benefits costs for retirees over the next 30 years are expected to be $112,286 • the retiree health care benefits plan is closed to all employees hired after January 1, 1999 • there are no retiree dependents participating in a District retiree health care benefits plan • ARC has not been calculated as of January 25, 2010 • the retiree health care benefits plan is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability is $112,286

F07: Moorpark Unified School District (@7,324 Students - 11 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $53,593,367 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are $7,394,338: $4,783,164 for an estimated 571 active employees and $2,611,174 for 51 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are estimated to be $332,000,000 • the retiree health care benefits plan remains open • ARC is $1,215,947 • the health care benefits plan is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability is $10,237,363

F08: Mupu Elementary School District (@127 Students – 1 School) • the budget for the current school year is $986,271 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are $57,209 as of October 31, 2009 • there are no participants in a District retiree health care benefits plan • does not have any unfunded health care benefits liability

F09: Oak Park Unified School District (@3,627 Students – 7 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $28,776,270 ___________________________________________________________________________ The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets 5 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits for active employees is $3,474,322 • does not provide health care, dental, or vision benefits plans to its retirees • employees who retire from the District with a minimum of 15 years of service and are at least 55 years old may purchase health care benefits from the District at the retiree’s expense. Employees eligible for health care benefits coverage must work a 50% contract or greater. Full time employees are required to enroll in a health care, dental, and vision plan • at the retirees option they may enroll their eligible dependents • does not provide retiree health care benefits coverage to retirees or retiree dependents • does not have any unfunded liability

F10: Ocean View Elementary School District (@2,508 Students – 4 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $20,485,501 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are $2,894,120: $2,613,088 for 259 active employees and $281,032 for 21 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are estimated to be $8,909,363 • the District’s retiree health care benefits plan remains open • ARC is estimated to be $596,164 • the health care benefits plan is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability is $5,299,520

F11: Ojai Unified School District (@3,152 Students – 9 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $22,700,000 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are $2,789,564: $2,450,719 for 59 active employees and $338,845 for 38 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are expected to be $60,000,000 • the retiree health care benefits plan remains open • ARC as of June 30, 2009 was $1,149,918 • the health care benefits plan is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability is $7,560,968

F12: Oxnard Elementary School District (@15,400 Students – 20 Schools) ________________________________________________________________ 6 The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets • the budget for the current school year is $188,862,281 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are, $14,248,000: $11,591,000 for 1,088 active employees and $2,657,000 for 257 retirees • the projected total retiree health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are estimated to be $55,496,476 • the retiree health care benefits plan is currently closed • ARC as of June 30, 2009 was $4,072,081 • the retiree health care benefits plan is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability is estimated to be $55,496,476

F13: Oxnard Union High School District (@16,885 Students – 9 Schools) • the proposed budget for FY 2009-10 is $140,417,862 • the anticipated FY 2009-10 costs associated with health care benefits are $18,089,344: $12,831,441 for 1,016 active employees and $5,257,903 for 564 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs on a cash payout basis for retirees only (does not include active employees) over the next 30 years are estimated to be $568,154,000 • provides continued health care benefits for employees hired prior to July 1, 2004 • the pre-1991 retiree health care benefits plan is closed. No additional retirees will be added to this plan • health care benefits coverage is available to active employees, retirees, and retiree’s dependents • ARC as of June 30, 2009 was $18,509,000. $12,114,000 of the amortization payment to fund the $176,754,000 unfunded actuarial liability would remain the same for 30 years, after which time amortization payments would end. $5,523,000 of the ARC is the “Normal Cost” attributed to employee’s service (present value of future benefits) during the fiscal year by active employees. ARC includes $872,000 in interest to the end of the report year • the retiree health care benefits plan is not fully funded • has a trust fund with an actuarial value in assets of $32,621,000, as of July 1, 2008, in investment accounts to draw upon for retiree health care benefits obligations. This leaves an unfunded actuarial accrued liability of $176,754,000

F14: Pleasant Valley Elementary School District (@7,290 Students – 12 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $48,065,962 ___________________________________________________________________________ The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets 7 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are, $4,496,951: $3,304,079 for 438 active employees and $1,192,872 for 276 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are estimated to be $12,986,325 for retirees only • provides lifetime health care benefits to staff in accordance with the following criteria: employees hired prior to June 30, 1984, with 12 years of o service and are 55 years of age at retirement receive a $3,900 lifetime contribution towards health care benefits employees hired after June 30, 1984, but before June 30, o 1986, with 15 years of service and are 60 years of age at retirement, receive a $2,400 lifetime contribution towards health care benefits • ARC is estimated to be $1,239,155 • the health care benefits plan is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability is $11,793,453

F15: Rio Elementary School District (@4,297 Students – 8 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $34,000,000 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits for FY 2009- 10 are $4,343,444: $3,764,855 for 295 active employees and $578,589 for 58 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs for retirees only over the next 30 years are estimated to be $15,130,616 • provides lifetime health care benefits to certificated employees hired prior to September 1991, classified employees hired prior to July 1992, and management employees who retired by June 1995 • the retiree health care benefits plan remains open • ARC is $1,005,491 • the health care benefits plan for retirees is not fully funded • an annual audit performed in June 2008 for the District disclosed $15,130,616 in unfunded health care benefits liability • the District has an Employee Retiree Fund in the amount of $4,979,231, leaving an unfunded liability balance of $14,888,769

F16: Santa Clara Elementary School District (@55 Students – 1 School) • the budget for the current school year is $472,643 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are $28,812 for active employees as of October 31, 2009 ________________________________________________________________ 8 The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets • the retiree health care benefits plan is currently closed does not provide retiree health care benefits coverage to retiree dependents • there are no participants in the District’s retiree health care benefit plan • the health care benefits plan is not fully funded; it is on a pay-as- you-go basis • the District does not have an unfunded health care benefits liability

F17: Santa Paula Elementary School District (@3,712 Students – 7 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $33,007,651 • the annual cost associated with health care benefits is $3,152,406: $2,955,552 for 348 active employees, and $196,854 for 26 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are estimated to be $94,572,180 • the retiree health care benefits plan remains open • ARC is estimated to be $624,180 • the health care benefit plan is not fully funded • the January 2010 financial statement shows an unfunded accrued liability of $4,478,872

F18: Santa Paula Union High School District (@1,713 Students – 2 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $13,076,780 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are $1,468,116: $1,286,062 for 102 active employees and $182,054 for 16 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are expected to be $3,048,700 • the retiree health care benefits plan remains open • ARC is estimated to be $255,828 • the health care benefits plan is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability is $2,065,137

F19: Simi Valley Unified School District (@20,855 Students – 29 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $153,381,560 • the estimated annual costs associated with health care benefits are $1,423,003: $787,771 for 1,579 active employees and an estimated $635,232 for 90 retirees ___________________________________________________________________________ The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets 9 • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are estimated to be $9,121,325 • the estimated ARC as of June 30, 2008 was $787,771; the actual contribution made by the District during the year was $635,232, which resulted in a net OPEB obligation of $152,539 • the health care benefits plan is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability amount is $9,121,325 as of June 30, 2008

F20: Somis Union School District (@485 Students – 2 Schools) • the budget for the current school year is $2,642,763 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are $199,806 • the projected total health care health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are expected to be $27,690 • the retiree health care benefits plan is closed for all employees hired after October 19, 1988 • there is one current employee who was hired prior to October 19, 1988 who may be eligible to retire with postemployment health care benefits • there are no participants in the retiree health care benefits plan • does not have an ARC established at this time • the retiree health care benefits plan is fully funded • has $27,690 set aside to fund the retiree health care benefits liability • has set aside a Special Reserve Fund for Postemployment Benefits to pay for the liability. The Fund had an ending fund balance of $64,178 as of June 30, 2009

F21: Ventura Unified School District (@17,371 Students – 30 Schools) • Ventura Unified School District failed to provide the information as requested by the Grand Jury. However, with the information in the actuarial report provided by the Ventura Unified School District, the Grand Jury calculated the estimated amounts for projected total health care costs over the next thirty years and the ARC • the budget for the current school year is $163,386,445 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are $16,619,294: $14,161,869 for 443 active employees and $2,457,425 for 263 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are estimated to be $34,320,948* • does not offer a paid retirement health care benefits plan for current employees ________________________________________________________________ 10 The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets • the retiree health care benefits plan has been closed since June 30, 1993 • the District provides health care benefits to employees who retired prior to July 1, 1993 and to their spouses • ARC is estimated to be $1,744,161* • the retiree health care benefit plan that ended in 1993 is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability reported in the 2009- 2010 budgets is $34,320,948. This total is comprised of $26,812,023 representing the retiree portion of the unfunded health care benefits liability and $7,508,925 for an employee deferred compensation program for all staff employed by the District as of June 30, 1993 • has a reserve fund with a current balance of $34,246 leaving an unfunded liability balance of $34,286,702 * Grand Jury calculated amounts

F22: Ventura County Community College District (@37,383 Students – 3 Campuses) • the budget for the current school year is $263,218,700 • the annual costs associated with health care benefits are, $20,512,257: $13,426,519 for 797 current active employees and $7,085,738 for 524 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years is estimated at $173,733,730 • the District provides lifetime health care, dental, and vision benefits to staff who meet the age and years of service required in accordance with the established criteria • eligibility for the District’s retiree health care benefits plan is closed to all but faculty as of July 1, 2005. Faculty who meet eligibility requirements for District benefits are covered to age 65 • ARC as of December 31, 2008 is $9,616,272 • the health care benefits plan is not fully funded • the unfunded health care benefits liability is $173,733,730: $86,049,728 for active employees who meet the requirements for future retiree benefits and $87,684,002 for current retirees • has funded the health care benefits liability in the amount of $8,568,626 leaving an unfunded health care liability balance of $165,165,104

F23: Ventura County Office of Education (@1,570 Students – 5 Schools) • the budget for the current fiscal year is $177,351,237 ___________________________________________________________________________ The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets 11 • the annual cost for health care benefits is $7,744,685: $7,198,751 for 392 current active employees and $545,934 for 51 retirees • the projected total health care benefits costs over the next 30 years are estimated to be $5,276,231 • provides lifetime health care benefits to a closed pool of retirees and their spouses, which does not include dental and vision. At this time, there are 49 retirees and 24 spouses covered • lifetime health care benefits are not provided to current employees • the health care benefits plan is currently closed • health care benefits were offered to VCOE employees who were hired prior to October 1, 1988, and who worked for the VCOE for at least 10 consecutive years and retired prior to July 1, 1995, and whose attained age and service at retirement was equal to or greater than 75 • the ARC is estimated to be $238,565 • the health care benefits plan is not fully funded • has set aside money in a “Special Reserve Fund for Other Than Capital Outlay Projects” (Fund 170). The current balance in the fund is $4,366,616, leaving an unfunded liability of $909,615

F24: The combined totals for the County School Districts are as follow: COMBINED DISTRICTS TOTALS Total 2009-2010 Budget $1,619,059,185 Est. Total Annual Health Care Benefits Cost $ 138,652,339 Est. Total Annual Retiree Health Care Benefits $ 26,172,305 Cost Est. Total Annual Required Contribution $ 44,644,058 Est. Unfunded Health Care Benefits Liability $ 529,853,272 Est. Total Projected Health Care Benefits Cost $1,545,637,021

F25: The County School Districts provide continued health care health care benefits to approximately 2,500 retirees and 1,006 retiree dependents.

F26: The retiree health care benefits plans have been closed for 12 of the 22 school districts.

F27: Five school districts are fully funded: • Briggs Elementary School District • Mupu Elementary School District • Oak Park Unified School District • Santa Clara Elementary School District • Somis Union School District ________________________________________________________________ 12 The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets

F28: There are 17 school districts that do not have a fully-funded health care benefits plan.

Related Recommendations (5)

R01: That County School Districts adopt a policy of prefunding their retiree health care benefits plans by establishing an irrevocable trust fund for employees’ health care benefits. (C-01 through C-03, C-06 through C-07, C-09)

R02: That County School Districts identify effective cost reductions that will allow the District to achieve their respective calculated ARC. (C-02 through C-03, C-06 through C-07, C-09)

R06: That County School Districts schedule sessions to communicate and educate employees, retirees, and parents of students regarding the OPEB issue and how this is being addressed by the district. (C-01, C-02, C-05 through C-09)

R07: That the VCOE and the elected officials of the individual districts take a pro-active role in seeking solutions to the unfunded liability crisis and present these solutions to their districts. (C-01through C-09)

R08: That the VCOE and the elected officials of the individual districts consider alternatives to resolve this serious financial situation, such as: (C-01through C-09) • require greater benefit or premium cost sharing from retirees • implement a new defined contribution type retiree health care program for new employees • freeze the employer-provided portion of the retiree health plan at present levels for currently covered active employees ___________________________________________________________________________ The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets 15 Responses Responses Required From: Board of Trustees Briggs Elementary School District (R-03 through R-08) Board of Education Conejo Valley Unified school District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Education Fillmore Unified School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Trustees Hueneme Elementary School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Trustees Mesa Union Elementary School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Education Moorpark Unified School District (R-01 through R-08) School Board Mupu Elementary School District (R-03 through R-08) Board of Education Oak Park Unified School District (R-03 through R-08) Governing Board Ocean View Elementary School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Education Ojai Unified School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Trustees Oxnard Elementary School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Trustees Oxnard Union High School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Trustees Pleasant Valley Elementary School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Trustees Rio Elementary School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Trustees Santa Clara Elementary School District (R-03 through R-08) Board of Trustees Santa Paula Elementary School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Trustees Santa Paula Union High School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Education Simi Valley Unified School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Trustees Somis Union School District (R-03 through R-08) Board of Education Ventura Unified School District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Trustees Ventura County Community College District (R-01 through R-08) Board of Education Ventura County Office of Education (R-01 through R-08) References Ref-01. GASB Web Site: The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the independent organization that establishes and improves standards of accounting and financial reporting for U.S. state and local governments. Established in 1984 by agreement of the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) and 10 national associations of state and local government officials, the GASB is recognized by governments, the accounting industry, and the capital markets as the official source of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for state and local governments. http://gasb.org Ref-02. Government Accounting Standards Board, Other Postemployment Benefits: A Plain-Language Summary of GASB Statement No. 43 and No.45. http://www.gasb.org/project_pages/opeb_summary.pdf Ref-03. GASB Fact Sheet. http://www.csba.org/Services/Services/DistrictServices/GASB45.aspx Ref-04. OPEB & GASB 45. http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdiac/publications/gasb45.pdf Ref-05. GASB 45, Health Care and Public Schools and colleges. ________________________________________________________________ 16 The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets http://www.cft.org/councils/ccc/pdfs/aboutgasb2.pdf Ref-06. GASB 45 Solutions fact sheet. http://www.bing.com/search?q=GASB45+Solutions+fact+sheet&form =QBLH&qs=n Ref-07. Government Accounting Standards Board, Summaries/Status, Summary of Statement 45. http://www.gasb.org/st/summary/gstsm45.html Ref-08. FASB Web Site: Since 1973, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has been the designated organization in the private sector for establishing standards of financial accounting. Those standards govern the preparation of financial statements. They are officially recognized as authoritative by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).Such standards are important to the efficient functioning of the economy because investors, creditors, auditors, and others rely on credible, transparent, and comparable financial information. http://www.fasb.org/home Ref-09. Local Government and School Accountability; New York State Office of the Comptroller. http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/opeb45faqs.htm Ref-10. The PEW center On The States. http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_detail.aspx?id=56695 Ref-11. The Trillion Dollar Gap. http://downloads.pewcenteronthestates.org/The_Trillion_Dollar_Gap_fi nal.pdf Ref-12. California Community Colleges Systems Office, Accounting Advisory GASB 45. http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/CFFP/Fiscal/Standards/acc_advisories /FS_08-02_GASB_45_Accounting_Advisory.pdf Ref-13. NEW FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS OTHER THAN PENSIONS – www.cde.ca.gov/fg/ac/co/documents/gasb45opeb.doc - Ref-14. Citi Institutional Consulting, GASB 45 and Other Postemployment Benefits: Understanding the Government Landscape. http://www.wiopeb.com/cms_files/resources/gasb45_opeb_white_pap er.pdf Ref-15. LAO Retiree Health Care: A growing Cost For Government. http://www.lao.ca.gov/2006/ret_hlthcare/retiree_healthcare_021706. pdf Ref-16. SANTA MARIA JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES http://www.smjuhsd.k12.ca.us/support_services/bb/agendas/combine d%20agenda%202-14-07.pdf Ref-17. Source for student enrollment and number of schools information: Ventura County Public Schools Directory 2009-2010. ___________________________________________________________________________ The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets 17 (http://schooldirectory.vcss.k12.ca.us/directory.pdf) Ref-18. Focus On Education, Ventura County Office of Education – winter 2010 http://www.vcoe.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ZuxAnzm1ytU%3d&tabi d=314&mid=1785 Ref-19. Oak Park Unified School District accepts student transfers April,25, 2001. http://articles.latimes.com/2001/apr/25/local/me-55308 DATE?? http://www.theacorn.com/news/2010-02- 18/Front_Page/Outoftown_students_enroll.html Ref-20. Oak Park council concerned over growing school traffic April, 24, 2010. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/mar/24/oak-park-council- concerned-about-increasing/ Ref-21. Los Angeles Unified School District plans to stop transfers March, 15, 2010. http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_14666887?source=rss Ref-22. Los Angeles Unified School District to stop most student transfers March, 15, 2010. http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_14666887 Ref-23. Santa Paula Elementary makes list of financially ailing districts April, 22, 2010. http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/mar/22/santa-paula-elementary- makes-list-of-financially/ Ref-24. USA Today, Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5%, September 15, 2009. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15- insurance-costs_N.htm Ref-25. Health Populi-Health Care Costs Will Increase At Double-Digest Rates. In 2010 http://www.healthpopuli.com/2009/06/health-care-costs-will- increase-at Ref-26. Health Care Finance News June, 18, 2009. http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/employers-should- expect-healthcare-costs-increase-9-percent-2010 Ref-27. Braun, Carl F. Objective Accounting: A Problem of Communication – 1953, Alhambra, California C. F. Braun & Company. Glossary Accrual Accounting - A method of accounting whereby income and expense items are recognized and recorded when income is earned and expense is incurred, regardless of when cash is actually received or paid. Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) - The portion of the actuarially determined present value of benefits allocated to the prior service already performed by the covered employees. ________________________________________________________________ 18 The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets Annual OPEB Expense - The amount recognized by an employer in each accounting period for contributions to a defined benefit OPEB plan on the modified accrual basis of accounting. Annual Required Contribution (ARC) – GASB 45 requires that the actuarially determined amount of retiree healthcare expense be recorded as a current year expense. It is comprised of the amount that should be set aside to fund retiree health benefits earned during the current year plus the amount necessary to amortize the unfunded AAL over not more than 30 years. Normal Cost – The amount of the benefit earned in the current year in exchange for current services for active employees who are eligible or will be eligible for post-employment benefits. Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) – Generally take the form of health care insurance and dental, vision, prescription, or other health care benefits provided to eligible retirees, including, in some cases, their beneficiaries. It may also include some types of life insurance, legal services, and other benefits. Projected Total Health Care Benefit Costs Over the Next Thirty Years – The required contribution for the year is calculated in accordance with certain parameters, and includes the normal costs for the year and a component for the amortization of the total unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities. Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) – The amount of projected future benefits for the past service of current employees and retirees that has not been funded. Attachments Att-01 County Schools Selected Financial Information and Medical Benefits Obligations 2009-2010 ___________________________________________________________________________ The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets 19 (This page intentionally blank) ________________________________________________________________ 20 The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets Attachment-01 County Schools Selected Financial Information and Medical Benefits Obligations 2009-2010 ___________________________________________________________________________ The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets 21 ` County Schools Selected Financial Information and Medical Benefits Obligations 2009-2010 11 Is the Is The 3 5 10 Number Retiree Retiree 1 2 A R C Are 6 7 N u mber 9 E s t i mated Projected Health 4 Of Health Medical The Estimated Unfunded Estimated Annual % Health Are Are Retiree Of 8 Health Estimated Retiree Health Care Benefit Costs For Districts Total Budget Retirees Care Benefits Accrued Health Care Required of The care Retirees Dependents Retires Care Benefit Cost for 2009 Care Benefits Costs for Currently Active Employees 2009 / 2010 Dependents Benefits Plan Fully Benefits Liability Contribution (ARC) Total Benefits Covered Covered Covered 2009 & Retirees Over The Next Covered Option Funded Budget Provided Thirty Years Open or Closed 1 Briggs Elementary School District Yes $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $3,661,001.00 Yes No No 0 0 ** $228,732.00 $0.00 $0.00 Closed 2 Conejo Valley Unified School District No $9,688,289.00 $1,245,188.00 0.73% $170,595,282.00 Yes Yes No 124 0 $18,837,425.00 $424,543.00 $18,239,251.00 Open 3 Fillmore Unified School District No $2,993,293.00 $379,637.00 1.25% $30,444,000.00 Yes Yes No 71 0 $4,180,000.00 * $1,170,463.00 $125,400,000.00 Closed 4 Hueneme Elementary School District No $19,002,100.00 $1,964,700.00 3.00% $65,477,258.00 Yes Yes Yes 69 53 $6,123,426.00 $550,254.00 $29,107,900.00 Open 5 Mesa Union Elementary School District No $112,286.00 $0.00 0.00% $4,456,351.00 Yes Yes Yes 1 0 $347,085.00 $6,393.00 *** $112,286.00 Closed 6 Moorpark Unified School District No $10,237,363.00 $1,215,947.00 2.27% $53,593,367.00 Yes Yes Yes 51 37 $7,394,338.00 * $2,611,174.00 $332,000,000.00 Open 7 Mupu Elementary School District Yes $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $986,271.00 Yes No No 0 0 $57,209.00 $0.00 $0.00 Closed 8 Oak Park Unified School District Yes $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $28,776,270.00 Yes No No 0 0 ** $3,474,322.00 $0.00 $0.00 Closed 9 Ocean View Elementary School District No $5,299,520.00 $596,164.00 2.91% $20,485,501.00 Yes Yes Yes 21 21 $2,894,120.00 $281,032.00 $8,909,363.00 Open 10 Ojai Unified School District No $7,560,968.00 $1,149,918.00 5.07% $22,700,000.00 Yes Yes Yes 38 34 $2,789,564.00 $338,845.00 $60,000,000.00 Open 11 Oxnard Elementary School District No * $55,496,476.00 $4,072,081.00 2.16% $188,862,281.00 Yes Yes Yes 257 171 $14,248,000.00 $2,657,000.00 *** $55,496,476.00 Closed 12 Oxnard Union High School District No $176,754,000.00 $18,509,000.00 13.18% $140,417,862.00 Yes Yes Yes 564 not available $18,089,344.00 $5,257,903.00 *** $568,154,000.00 Closed 13 Pleasant Valley Elementary School District No $11,793,453.00 $1,239,155.00 2.58% $48,065,962.00 Yes Yes Yes 276 56 $4,496,951.00 $1,192,872.00 *** $12,986,325.00 Open 14 Rio Elementary School District No $14,888,769.00 $1,005,491.00 2.96% $34,000,000.00 Yes Yes Yes 58 50 $4,343,444.00 $578,589.00 *** $15,130,616.00 Open 15 Santa Clara Elementary School District Yes $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $472,643.00 Yes No No 0 0 ** $28,812.00 $0.00 $0.00 Closed 16 Santa Paula Elementary School District No $4,478,872.00 $624,180.00 1.89% $33,007,651.00 Yes Yes Yes 26 25 $3,152,406.00 $196,854.00 $94,572,180.00 Open 17 Santa Paula Union High School District No $2,065,137.00 $255,828.00 1.96% $13,076,780.00 Yes Yes Yes 16 12 $1,468,116.00 $182,054.00 $3,048,700.00 Open 18 Simi Valley Unified School District No $9,121,325.00 $787,771.00 0.51% $153,381,560.00 Yes Yes No 90 0 * $1,423,003.000 * $635,232.00 $9,121,325.00 Open 19 Somis Union Elementary School District Yes $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $2,642,763.00 Yes No No 0 0 $199,806.00 $0.00 $27,690.00 Closed 20 Ventura County Community College District No $165,165,104.00 $9,616,272.00 3.65% $263,218,700.00 Yes Yes Yes 524 374 $20,512,257.00 $7,085,738.00 $173,733,730.00 Closed 21 Ventura County Office of Education No $909,615.00 $238,565.00 0.13% $177,351,237.00 Yes Yes Yes 51 26 $7,744,685.00 $545,934.00 $5,276,231.00 Closed 22 Ventura Unified School District No $34,286,702.00 * $1,744,161.00 1.07% $163,386,445.00 Yes Yes Yes 263 147 $16,619,294.00 $2,457,425.00 * $34,320,948.00 Closed Total 17/5 $529,853,272.00 $44,644,058.00 2.76% $1,619,059,185.00 2,500 1,006 $138,652,339.00 $26,172,305.00 $1,545,637,021.00 10 / 12 * Source: Estimates derived from the actuarial reports provided by the school district. ** Currently active employees only. *** Retirees only. The Unfunded Accrued Health Care Benefits Liability - the unfunded liability is based on a “snapshot” in time of the value of projected future benefits for the past service of current employees and retirees that has not been funded 2 Annual Required Contribution (ARC) - the employer's required contribution for the year, includes the normal cost for the year and a component for amortization of the total unfunded accrued health care benefits liabilities of the plan over a period not to exceed thirty years. ARC % of the Total Budget - this represents the portion of the VCPSD, the VCCCD, and the VCOE budget that should be allocated to the ARC each year. Total Budget 2009/ 2010 - this represents the total number of dollars committed to the 2009 / 2010 school years for the VCPSD, the VCCCD, and the VCOE. Are Health Care Benefits Provided - does the VCPSD, the VCCCD, and the VCOE currently provide health care benefits to active employees. Are Retirees Covered - does the VCPSD, the VCCCD, and the VCOE proved health care benefits to retirees. Are Retiree Dependents Covered - does the VCPSD, the VCCCD, and the VCOE proved health care benefits to retirees dependents. Health Care Benefits Costs for 2009 / 2010 - the anticipated the total number of dollars for the health care benefits during the 2009 / 2010 school years for the VCPSD, the VCCCD, and the VCOE. Retiree Health Care Benefits Cost for 2009 / 2010 - the anticipated the total number of dollars for the health care benefits for retirees during the 2009 / 2010 school 10 Projected Health Care Benefits Costs for Currently Active & Retirees Over the Next Thirty Years - the anticipated the total number of dollars for the health care benefits for currently active employees & retirees during the next thirty years. 6/14/2010 1 of 1

F29: Credit rating agencies have stated that they will consider OPEB funding status in their evaluations of government financial condition. [Ref-09, Ref-12 through Ref-14, Ref-16]

F30: Included in the required GASB 45 actuarial reports provided by the consultants were the following recommendations: • that it is necessary or even desirable for an agency to establish a policy of funding exactly the ARC on a cash basis each year • the agencies adopt a policy of pre-funding their retiree health care plan as soon as possible • establish an irrevocable trust fund for employee’s health care benefits

Related Recommendations (1)

F31: Student enrollment in the County as determined by the State through a complicated formula called Average Daily Attendance (ADA) has declined a total of 3,775 students over the past five years: [Ref-17, Ref-18] Average Daily Attendance VCSPD 137,000 135,956 136,000 134,670 135,000 133,841 134,000 132,958 133,000 132,181 132,000 131,000 130,000 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

F32: Several school districts are accepting out-of-district student transfers in an effort to increase ADA. [Ref-19 through Ref-22]

F33: On March 22, 2010, the California Department of Education placed 126 school districts on a fiscal early warning list, an increase of 17% over last year. [Ref-23]

F34: According to the State, the Santa Paula Elementary School District might not be able to meet its financial obligations over the next few years because of the ongoing budget crises and cuts to education funding. Santa Paula Elementary School District informed the VCOE that is was in fiscal trouble after realizing it was facing a $3.2 million ___________________________________________________________________________ The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets 13 shortfall this fiscal year. The District has increased class sizes, trimmed management, and eliminated 31 teaching and 46 classified positions. [Ref-23]

F35: The VCOE anticipates the next fiscal warning list will be even longer, possibly adding Hueneme Elementary School District and Rio Elementary School District to future lists. [Ref-23]

F36: The continued increase in the cost of health care and health care insurance can only be expected to contribute to the increase in the size of the County School Districts unfunded liability. Since 1999, health insurance premiums for families rose 131%, far more than the general rate of inflation, which increased 28% over the same period. Health care costs will increase 9% in 2010 according to Health Care Finance News. [Ref-15, Ref-24 through Ref-26]

Related Recommendations (5)

R02: That County School Districts identify effective cost reductions that will allow the District to achieve their respective calculated ARC. (C-02 through C-03, C-06 through C-07, C-09)

R03: That County School Districts leverage off of the economies of scale by acting as one bargaining unit and selecting a health care plan for all employees. (C-05, C-07)

F37: C. F. Braun states that sole reason for a financial report is to serve the user. Accounting reports are a measuring report of performance. They must be easy to read and understand. [Ref-27] Conclusions C-01. County School Districts have a substantial unfunded health care benefits obligation of $529,853,272. (F-02 through F-24) C-02. County School Districts have a substantial ARC of $44,644,058. (F-02 through F-24) C-03. Failure on the part of the County School Districts to take steps to address these liabilities may result in downgrades to their credit rating, thereby increasing future borrowing costs resulting in increased costs to the taxpayers. (F-29) C-04. The County School Districts have been paying for retiree health care benefits in the year the benefits were used by the retirees. This is called the pay-as-you-go approach, which differs from the prefunding model where costs are funded in advance during employees’ working years and invested until paid to retirees. The pay-as-you-go approach has led to the accumulation of the financial liabilities to pay for future retiree health care benefits. (F-02 through F-30) C-05. The County School Districts offer varying levels of health care benefits to employees and retirees. They have not joined together to form a single large bargaining unit. (F-02 through F-24, F-34) C-06. The County School District’s half billion dollar unfunded liability should no longer be ignored; it will not decrease on its own. (F-30, F-33 through F-36) C-07. Based on historical data, the cost of health care and health care insurance will continue to outpace typical annual inflation. (F-36) C-08. The County School Districts have not been proactive in planning for or dealing with challenging financial conditions. (F-02 through F-24, F-33 through F-36) ________________________________________________________________ 14 The Half Billion Dollar Elephant in Our Schools’ Closets C-09. There may be unintended consequences as a result of the choices and decisions made by the County School Districts to address the half billion dollars in unfunded health care liabilities. (F-02 through F-36) C-10. The time for the County School Districts to make difficult choices is now. Regardless of the choices, the financial burden rests squarely on the shoulders of the taxpayer. (F-02 through F-36) Recommendations

Related Recommendations (2)

R04: That County School Districts use language in their financial reports so that the average County taxpayer, employee, and retiree can understand how tax dollars are being spent and recognize the extent of the district’s financial indebtedness. (C-06, C-08)

R05: That County School Districts place the entire district budget on the district website. (C-06, C-08)

June 09, 2010 — Getting Better on the Way to Excellence

28 pages 20 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 20 findings

F01: The GTE Plan is structured as an “Action Plan” according to the County’s Lean Six Sigma Program, in which 23 specific action projects are identified, each with a priority, a schedule, and one or more identified leaders. In May 2009, some nine projects were described as “Complete.” In the past year, an additional five projects were completed, leaving nine yet to finish.

F02: Both public and County Stakeholders report satisfaction with the most visible and early implemented GTE Plan element: the “one stop” application coordinator located in the Planning Department of the RMA.

F03: The County has adopted a single land-use permit application form, accessible and downloadable at the County RMA website. [Ref-02 ]

F04: RMA provides website access to a list of active discretionary permit applications (backlog) and to a list of applications approved during the last six months. [Ref-03] 1 Land use permits are generally one of two types: ministerial or discretionary, as described in the RMA Planning Department web page: A ministerial permit is a permit or permit modification that is granted based upon determinations that the proposed project complies with established standards set forth in either the Coastal or Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinances. The determinations are arrived at objectively, involve little or no personal judgment, and are issued by the Planning Director or his/her designee. This type of permit is commonly referred to as an “over the counter” approval. A discretionary permit is a permit or permit modification granted following determinations that require the exercise of judgment and deliberation, as opposed to merely determining that the permit request complies with a set of standards. Examples of discretionary permits include: Conditional Use Permits, Zone Changes, Variances, Subdivisions, and General Plan Amendments. Most discretionary permit applications require an analysis by the Planning Division and various County Departments and Agencies, as well as a public hearing prior to any decision being made. A decision to approve or deny a permit application is based on the findings of fact contained in either the Ventura County Coastal or Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinances. ________________________________________________________________ 2 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence

F05: The County has established a Development Review Committee, composed of senior land-use planning staff and related County department and agency representatives, to provide preliminary interagency feedback to potential applicants prior to filing a formal discretionary land-use permit application.

F06: RMA has led several Stakeholder meetings for the purposes of reporting progress on the GTE Plan and for receiving feedback from the public regarding the discretionary land-use permitting process.

F07: The County formed a Management (Inter-Agency) Oversight Committee, which includes the Assistant CEO and Chief of Staff, the Fire Chief, the Director of the RMA, the Director of the Public Works Agency, and the Agricultural Commissioner. There are no public (non-County employee) members. The committee is charged with meeting “regularly” to track the GTE Plan progress and to monitor the discretionary permitting process. [Ref-04]

F08: The Management Oversight Committee is not currently meeting on a regular basis.

F09: On April 6, 2010, the RMA provided an interim GTE Plan progress report to the BOS. The status report showed improvement in time to process permit applications, while cautioning that a one-year period is too short for measurement of sustained results. (Att-02)

F10: The recent progress report showed results (metrics) comparing processing times for completed projects. There were no reports of application backlog.

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: As the agency collecting and reporting GTE Plan progress statistics, the RMA should also collect and report aged backlog metrics at the level of the responsible agency, or lower. (C-06)

F11: The single most important driver of time and cost to process a discretionary land-use permit application is the decision whether, under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the applicant’s project may be subject to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration.

F12: The County maintains Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (ISAG) to assist each reviewing agency in making its input to the EIR decision. The ISAG is a document in excess of 120 pages which contains advice and criteria applicable to each reviewing agency and department. The ISAG also serves as a reference for users in preparing applications for discretionary land-use permits.

F13: The County’s current ISAG is outdated and inconsistent. Update of the ISAG by all departments and agencies is currently the most difficult step in the GTE Plan. It requires participation by a multitude of organizations with widely varying laws, rules, objectives, and standards to apply to potential land-use permits.

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The CEO should re-organize the internal Management Oversight Committee to include at least one County employee from a department external to the permitting process. The CEO should insist on regular meetings, as often as semi-monthly, until the ISAG is updated and approved. (C-04)

F14: The RMA’s April 6, 2010 progress report to the BOS estimated completion of the updated ISAG project in May 2010. (Att-01) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 3

F15: The County now estimates completion of the GTE Plan in Fall 2010, a year later than reported to the 2008-2009 Ventura County Grand Jury. [Ref-01]

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: Both the BOS and the CEO should conduct regular, in-depth reviews of the Land-Use Permitting GTE Plan progress, and should strongly support the Plan to its completion. (C-01 through C-08)

F16: The GTE Plan update submitted to the BOS showed four of the nine remaining GTE projects dependent upon the ISAG update. (Att-01)

F17: Six of the nine active GTE projects reported no activity since December 2009, including three of the ISAG-dependent projects. (Att-01)

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: Both the BOS and the CEO should conduct regular, in-depth reviews of the Land-Use Permitting GTE Plan progress, and should strongly support the Plan to its completion. (C-01 through C-08)

F18: On January 12, 2010, with the support of the Management Oversight Committee (MOC), four County agencies presented a proposal to the BOS for acquisition of an upgraded computer software system to manage and track land-use permit applications. The BOS deferred action, recommending that the $4.3 million acquisition be folded into the County 2010-2011 budget proposal, together with the estimated $635,000 annual maintenance cost and the one added staff position. Among the purported advantages of the upgraded system are: [Ref-05] • citizen and applicant access to application status • on-line scheduling of inspections and appointments • common database for all agencies • wireless access by field inspectors • progress and activity data • on-line visibility of status and metrics by management

Related Recommendations (1)

R05: The BOS and the CEO should ensure that a suitable automated permits data and status system is approved for acquisition and implementation in the County’s 2010-2011 budget. (C-09)

F19: Stakeholders continue to express emphatic concerns regarding two issues only indirectly addressed by the GTE Plan: • the inability of the County to reasonably estimate in advance the cost to the applicant for processing discretionary land- use permit applications • the perception of inconsistency regarding treatment of applications by County agencies

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: The CEO should perform an in-depth review of the methods for charging planning and permitting fees to users, with the objective of achieving a system which supports defined estimates of cost to applicants. (C-10) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 5 Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-06) Responses Requested From: County Executive Officer, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-06) References Ref-01. 2008-2009 Ventura County Grand Jury Land Use Permitting Process Get to Excellence Plan http://portal.countyofventura.org/portal/page/portal/Grand_Jury/Repo rts/TAB4579372/14LandUsePermittingProcess.pdf Ref-02. RMA Web Page-Discretionary Permit Application Form: http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/permits/Disc_Application_P acket.pdf Ref-03. RMA Planning Division Web Page-Recently Approved and Pending Projects http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/Permits/projects.html Ref-04. Letter—CEO-BOS Response to 2008-2009 Report http://portal.countyofventura.org/portal/page/portal/Grand_Jury/Repo rts/TAB4579372/20091216081533.pdf Ref-05. County of Ventura Resource Management Agency Letter January 12, 2010, Subject: Award of Contract to Accela Corporation for Upgrade of the Current Land Records Management & Permit Processing/ Tracking System http://bosagenda.countyofventura.org/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype= agenda&itemid=28422 Attachments Att-01. County of Ventura Resource Management Agency Letter, April 6, 2010, to Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura, Subject: Status Report on the Discretionary Land Use Permitting Process Improvement Program and Related Metrics/Performance Att-02. Get to Excellence Plan Action Plan , update 04-Mar-10 ________________________________________________________________ 6 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence (This page intentionally blank) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 7 ATT-01 County of Ventura Resource Management Agency Letter, April 6, 2010, to Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura, Subject: Status Report on the Discretionary Land Use Permitting Process Improvement Program and Related Metrics/Performance ________________________________________________________________ 8 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence (This page intentionally blank) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 9 ________________________________________________________________ 10 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 11 ________________________________________________________________ 12 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 13 ________________________________________________________________ 14 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 15 ________________________________________________________________ 16 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 17 ________________________________________________________________ 18 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence (This page intentionally blank) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 19 Att-2 Get to Excellence Plan Action Plan, update 04-Mar-10 ________________________________________________________________ 20 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence (This page intentionally blank) _________________________________________________________________________ Getting Better on the Way to Excellence 21

F20: Several County departments, including the RMA Planning Division, are partially supported by “enterprise funds,” whereby a user of County services pays for the cost of services performed. Conclusions C-01. Implementation of the GTE Plan is showing beneficial effects both upon the County land-use permitting process and, to a lesser extent, upon the perceptions of the Stakeholders. (F-01 through F-06) C-02. GTE Plan projects susceptible to being implemented by a single department have proven the quickest to implement. Multi-agency activities are taking longer. (F-01) ________________________________________________________________ 4 Getting Better on the Way to Excellence C-03. The RMA lists of “in process” and “approved” applications provide basic workload visibility information. (F-04) C-04. Members of the MOC are closely involved with their own organizations’ implementation of the GTE Plan, which may inhibit objective committee oversight. (F-07, F-08) C-05. With substantial contribution from the GTE actions, the time for RMA to process approved permits shows improvements in all categories. (F-09) C-06. Lack of reported backlog metrics makes assessment of overall progress more difficult. (F-09, F-10) C-07. The ISAG update is proving slow and difficult, a reflection of the multitude of organizations and requirements to be integrated. (F-11) C-08. Implementation of the GTE Plan is losing momentum while the ISAG project is being resolved. (F-11 through F-17) C-09. The need for an upgraded permits data and status system, such as that proposed to the BOS, is well-supported. The Grand Jury is not able to independently judge whether the proposed system will achieve its objectives, or whether the price is reasonable. (F-18) C-10. When costs billed to applicants are based on the time spent on their projects, and when those billed costs represent a substantial part of a departmental budget, there is potential for a perceived conflict of interest on the part of the performing organization. (F-19, F-20) Recommendations

May 20, 2010 — Personal Data is to be completed

10 pages 23 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 23 findings

F01: The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of a defendant to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. [Ref-01]

F02: In July 2008, the PD issued Policy Number B-2 titled “Guidelines and Financial Standards for Representation by the Ventura County Public Defender.” In reference to defendants seeking representation by reason of indigence, this document states in part: [Ref-02] • “Prior to undertaking representation of a client (applicant), a determination must be made as to whether that person is financially eligible for Public Defender services.” • “The determination should be made at the time of first contact with the client.” • “Wherever feasible, and without exception as to defendants on bail, the office green form entitled PERSONAL DATA is to be completed. Each attorney shall review all information contained in that form with the client, and shall add or cause to be added such supplemental information as is necessary to insure that the form depicts a complete and accurate representation of the client’s current financial status. The green form must be signed by the applicant.” • “The principal test of legal indigency is that of whether an experienced private attorney, competent to handle the complexities of this particular case, would undertake representation for all purposes of defendant in his or her present economic circumstances. (Still v. Justice Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 815, 818).” ________________________________________________________________ 2 Indigent Representation • “The standard itself is a flexible one and contemplates such factors as employment, income, bank account, ownership of a home, car or other personal property, whether tangible or intangible, the number of dependents and the cost of necessary food, clothing, shelter for defendant and his or her dependents.” • “If, upon review of the Personal Data financial form, or based upon allegations in the complaint or indictment (e.g. theft of a large amount), an attorney questions an applicant’s qualification for Public Defender services and it appears a deeper inquiry is needed, the attorney should request the applicant be referred to the Court Financial Officer (in Collections) for a determination on whether the applicant qualifies for appointed counsel.” • “A defendant in custody who states that he or she cannot make bail or employ counsel is presumptively eligible for public defender services.” • “Application of the test requires careful inquiry regarding an applicant’s financial situation, including his or her assets, debts and reasonable subsistence requirements. Issues such as seriousness of the charges and attorney competency and fee arrangements must be considered. Assets include any cash or income, or any real or personal property which might reasonably provide a source of payment of attorneys’ fees.” • “Home ownership alone does not make an applicant financially ineligible. In applying this test, if an applicant has a full paid-for house, or substantial equity, and a small income, he or she may be eligible depending upon other available assets. When a substantial home equity exists and could be encumbered without significant risk to the ownership interred, in order to hire a private attorney, such factor should be considered in determining eligibility.” • “The Public Defender is authorized to request that the Court put a lien on real property or other assets subject to attachment (Penal § 987.8). This procedure is used only in cases for which substantial Public Defender resources will be expended.” • “All legally enforceable obligations existing against the defendant must be considered in appraising the ability to employ counsel.” • “The court has delegated the determination of financial eligibility for appointed counsel in the first instance, to the Public Defender.”

F03: The PD has the authority to determine indigence in accordance with the law. [Ref-02]

F04: The PD stated that, considering overall economic conditions and resulting budget constraints, the office is able to maintain its responsibilities to the required professional and ethical standards. Indigent Representation 3

F05: While PD Policy B-2 shows guidelines, it is flexible to allow consideration of the severity of the charges in estimating the potential defense costs and a defendant’s ability to pay. [Ref-02]

F06: At the conclusion of a trial, the PD may submit to the court a statement of costs generated in the defense for recovery from the defendant. The court may consider this submission and may direct the defendant to pay all or some portion of the costs. The Superior Courts are State of California (State) bodies and do not report to the respective counties. [Ref-03]

F07: The PD maintains a record of costs of indigent representation for each case, but must rely upon the courts request in order to submit them for recovery.

F08: The PD stated that a representative sampling of requests for indigent representation indicated that the costs of a formal accounting procedure for this purpose probably would not be justified by the potential for recovery.

F09: Less than one percent of the indigents filing for representation would be ineligible, according to the PD.

F10: Judicial Council of California in its Guidelines and Standards for Cost Recovery states, “Penal Code section 1463.07 provides the standards by which a court or county may recover the costs of operating a comprehensive collection program. Costs may be recovered from the collection of delinquent court-ordered fees, fines, forfeitures, penalties, and assessments before revenues are distributed to another government entity.” [Ref-04]

F11: The 2006-2007 Grand Jury of the County of San Bernardino (SB) reported: “The San Bernardino Superior Court is no longer a County department. This Grand Jury does not have jurisdiction to make recommendations to the Court or the judges who are State employees. The Superior Court, however, still sets the requirements for contract attorneys and awards contracts for all adult indigent defense attorneys. These contracts are paid with County funds.” “A state agency is awarding county contracts and spending County funds.” “A possible conflict exists when defense attorneys appear before judges who award the indigent fee contracts.” [Ref-06]

F12: The 2006-2007 SB Grand Jury Report further stated, “The Treasurer/Tax Collector, in their response (#06-41), indicated that ‘The County lost $2 million of possible reimbursement for public defender fees due to Courts not ordering fees as recommended’.” [Ref-06]

F13: In response to the 2005-2006 SB Grand Jury’s recommendation which said, “Direct the Treasurer-Tax Collector to proceed with the Indigent ________________________________________________________________ 4 Indigent Representation Defense Fees Collection Program,” the SB Treasurer-Tax Collector replied: “The Treasurer-Tax Collector (TTC) with the approval of Courts developed a unique program to determine ability to pay. Realizing the extremely large caseload confronting the Court and the number of man hours it would take to individually review each defendant’s financial statement to determine ability to pay, the TTC developed a system based on a review of a defendant’s credit score and real property ownership and applied a sliding scale. “Initially it was estimated that the implementation of this program would result in $3.5 million in fees ordered annually. The program was approved by the Courts and implemented in October 2004. Implementation of the questionnaires at Courts, Collection review of credit reports, real property searches, and recommendation back to the courts was implemented smoothly. However, as data was tracked comparing amounts recommended by Central Collections vs. Amounts ordered by Courts, it became evident that the Judges were not acting on the recommendations of Collections. Thus, in January 2006, the program was temporarily suspended. “During the life of the program Collections reviewed 15,776 cases. • Collections recommended that the defendant had the ability to pay in 10,870 representing $3 million. That would mean that in 68% of the cases, the defendant was determined to have some ability to pay. • Collections found the defendants had no ability to pay in approximately 32% of the cases. • A total of 14,418 cases had been concluded (disp’d) by the court at the time of our review. • Collections sampled 6,790 cases between March 2005 and November 2005 and found that the Court ordered public defender fees ‘as recommended’ 634 times or 9% of the time. • During the life of the program, $2.7 million were recommended to be ordered for payment of public defender fees. The Court only ordered $623,976. These figures are for concluded cases only as there is no resulting order for cases that aren’t concluded. • The county lost $2 million of possible reimbursement for public defender fees due to courts not ordering fees as recommended.”

F14: All of the public defenders interviewed contended that the costs of detailed record-keeping and cost analyses of representation expenses would not significantly increase recovery of the expenses and, therefore, would not warrant the additional effort.

F15: California State Assemblyman Brian Nestande (R-Riverside, 64th Assembly District) introduced a bill, AB 447, in February 2009. This bill would amend § 987 et seq of the State Penal Code which would require Indigent Representation 5 the courts to determine the ability of an individual requesting counsel to pay. Present law authorizes, but does not require, the courts to make such determination.

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: Should legislation requiring judicial determination of the ability to pay by individuals requesting counsel be introduced, the County of Ventura Board of Supervisors should make an independent determination in conjunction with the PD as to whether to offer support for such legislation. (C-03 and C-05) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-02) Responses Accepted From: Public Defender, County of Ventura (R-01) References Ref-01. Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/ Ref-02. “Guidelines and Financial Standards for Representation by the Ventura County Public Defender”, Law Offices Ventura County Public Defender Policies and Practices. July 2008. Policy B-2. http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/reports/prosecutorial/official/OFFICIA L%20REPORT%20ON%20DEFENSE%20SERVICES.pdf Ref-03. County of San Bernardino Grand Jury Report 2005-2006 and Response. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/ Ref-04. Guidelines and Standards for Cost Recovery, Judicial Council of California. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/ Ref-05. County of San Bernardino Grand Jury Report 2006-2007 and Response. http://www.co.san- bernardino.ca.us/grandjury/pdf/report0607/20070702_grand_jury_fin al_report.pdf http://www.co.san- bernardino.ca.us/grandjury/pdf/20070927_gj_response.pdf Ref-06. Ventura County Star article “Public Defender’s Office Close to Edge” July 19, 2009. Indigent Representation 7 http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jul/19/public-defenders-office- close-to-edge/ Ref-07. “Guidelines on Independent Defense Services Delivery Systems, (2006)”, the State Bar of California. http://calbar.ca.gov/calbar/pdfs/comcom/Indigent-Services- Guidelines.pdf Ref-08. United States Department of Justice National Advisory Commission (2006) guidelines for caseload for defense counsels. http://searchjustice.usdoj.gov/search?q=guidelines+for+caseload+for +defense+counsels&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dt d&ie=iso-8859-1&oe=UTF- 8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&site=de fault_collection&btnG.x=22&btnG.y=6 ________________________________________________________________ 8 Indigent Representation

F16: According to the legislative director for Assemblyman Nestande, AB 447 was withdrawn from committee in 2009 due to opposition.

F17: Assemblyman Nestande intends to introduce similar legislation in the next session of the California Assembly, according to his legislative director.

F18: The District Attorney of the County of Riverside stated that he intends to encourage and support the proposed legislation.

F19: The Public Defender of the County of Riverside opposed AB 447 when it was in committee and would not support the introduction of a similar bill.

F20: The Public Defender of the County of San Bernardino stated that she is not interested in making it mandatory for the courts to determine the ability to pay.

F21: The Legislative Policy Advisor for the Public Defender of the County of Los Angeles stated that the Public Defender is opposed to legislation similar to AB 447.

F22: The County of Orange Public Defender, Alternate Defender, said that she would not be in favor of the proposed legislation.

F23: The County of Santa Barbara Public Defender indicated no opinion, but would carefully analyze an introduction of legislation similar to AB 447. Conclusions C-01. There is no basis to sustain the complainant’s allegations. (F-01, F-02) C-02. The Grand Jury concurs with the PD’s conclusion that his office is staffed adequately to meet required standards. (F-04) C-03. The County of San Bernardino Grand Jury and public officials interviewed believe that the courts, which are State agencies, have shown little enthusiasm for the additional hearings required to determine reimbursement of costs of indigent representation to the counties. (F-11 through F-13 and F-17 through F-23) C-04. While it is appropriate to maintain records of representation expenses, the Grand Jury concludes that the cost-benefit consideration does not warrant further in-depth evaluation of potential cost recovery. (F-06 through F-09, F-13, F-14) C-05. There are strong differing views among the public officials interviewed as to the merits of the proposed Nestande legislation which would require the courts to determine indigents’ ability to pay. (F-17 through F-23) ________________________________________________________________ 6 Indigent Representation Recommendations

May 20, 2010 — Where are You Sleeping Tonight?

28 pages 42 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 42 findings

F01: The Stewart B. McKinney Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11301, et seq. (1994) defines the homeless as an individual or family who: • lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, and • has a primary nighttime residence that is: a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed o to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for persons with mental illness), or an institution that provides a temporary residence for o individuals intended to be institutionalized, or a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used o as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings

F02: The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH)1 reported that nearly 3.5 million people worldwide experience homelessness each year. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH)2, in 2007 there were 671,859 homeless in the U. S., and of that total 159,732 were residing in California. This figure represents 23.8% of the total homeless population in the U.S. [Ref-01, Ref-02]

F03: James J. O’Connell, in his paper Premature Mortality in Homeless Populations: A Review of the Literature published by National Health Care for the Homeless Council states, "Life on the streets is brutal and short. The average age of death for homeless people is 30 years less than that of housed people." [Ref-03] 1 The National Coalition for the Homeless is a national network of people who are currently experiencing or who have experienced homelessness, activists and advocates, community-based and faith-based service providers, and others. The National Alliance to End Homelessness is a nonpartisan, mission-driven organization committed to preventing and ending homelessness in the United States. ________________________________________________________________ 2 Where are You Sleeping Tonight?

F04: The NCH cites two tendencies for the increase in homelessness over the last 25 years as follows: [Ref-04] • increasing shortage of affordable rental housing • increase in poverty

F05: As incomes fail to keep pace with housing costs, Americans face difficult choices: • trying to put food on the table • paying for quality healthcare • educating their children • keeping a roof over their heads Those who cannot manage that balancing act become homeless or live on the periphery of homelessness. [Ref-04]

F06: Over 5.2 million low-income households in the U.S. have serious housing problems due to high housing costs, substandard housing conditions, or both. [Ref-05]

F07: It is estimated that 15.8 million people in the U.S. are living in “worst case housing” conditions, meaning they spend 50 percent of their income on rent and earn only 50 percent of the area median income or live in severely substandard housing. [Ref-05]

F08: About half of the people who experience homelessness over the course of a year are single adults. [Ref-06]

F09: About 80 percent of single adult shelter users enter the homeless system (System) only once or twice, stay just over a month, and do not return. [Ref-06]

F10: About nine percent of single adult shelter users enter nearly five times a year and stay nearly two months each time. This group utilizes 18 percent of the System’s resources. [Ref-06]

F11: About 10 percent of single adult shelter users enter the system just over twice a year and spend an average of 280 days per stay—virtually living in the System and using up over 50 percent of the System’s resources. These individuals are defined as chronically homeless. [Ref-06]

F12: The chronically homeless often cycle between living on the streets and living in hospitals, jails, and other institutions. They often have complex medical problems, serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, and/or alcohol or drug addiction. [Ref-06]

F13: Some of the ways in which homelessness is costly to society are: [Ref-07] • hospitalization and medical treatment Where are You Sleeping Tonight? 3 the New England Journal of Medicine reports homeless people o spent an average of four days longer per hospital visit, at a cost of $2,414 a study found that the average cost to California hospitals of o treating a substance abuser is about $8,360 for those in treatment, and $14,740 for those who are not • jail or prison - a University of Texas two-year survey of homeless individuals showed that each person cost the taxpayers $14,480 per year • emergency shelter - the cost of a bed funded by HUD's Emergency Shelter Grants program is approximately $8,067 per year • lost opportunity - the most difficult cost to quantify is the loss of future productivity

F14: The Ventura County 2009 Homeless Count, conducted on 27 January 2009, reported that: [Ref-08] • there were 2,193 homeless adults and children 1,842 (84%) adults o 351 (16%) children o • of the 1,842 adults 1,232 (67%) were men o 610 (33%) were women o • there were 161 families consisting of: 41 two-parent families o 120 single-parent families o

F15: The Ventura County 2010 Homeless Count, conducted on 26 January 2010, reported that: [Ref-09] • there were 1,815 homeless adults and children 1,604 (88%) adults o 211 (12%) children o • of the 1,604 adults 1,078 (67%) were men o 526 (33%) were women o • there were 117 families consisting of: 30 two-parent families o 87 single-parent families o ________________________________________________________________ 4 Where are You Sleeping Tonight?

F16: The total homeless population in the County decreased by 378 people between the 2009 and 2010 homeless counts. This is a net decrease of 17.2% as shown below: [Ref-08, Ref-09] 2009 AND 2010 Homeless Counts CITY 2009 2010 Net change Camarillo 13 15 2 Fillmore 4 5 1 Moorpark 7 1 -6 Ojai 60 52 -8 Oxnard 679 520 -159 Port Hueneme 1 9 8 Santa Paula 91 54 -37 Simi Valley 303 229 -74 Thousand Oaks 147 106 -41 Ventura 623 601 -22 Unincorporated Areas 265 223 -42 Total 2,193 1,815 -378

F17: In 1995, HUD began requiring communities to submit a single application for McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants3 in order to streamline the funding application process, encourage coordination of housing and service providers on a local level, and promote the development of Continuums of Care (CoC)4. [Ref-10]

F18: The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is a federal agency established by Congress to be responsible for supporting and encouraging local jurisdictions to develop and implement 10-Year strategies. [Ref-11]

F19: Prior to the introduction of these 10-Year strategies, the typical method of managing homelessness involved moving homeless people from food and meal programs to emergency shelters and back to food and meal programs, day after day, week after week, month after month, and for an increasing number of homeless persons, year after year. [Ref-11]

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The Cities should take a leading role in coordinating services and resources directed at eliminating or minimizing homelessness in their communities through marshaling and motivating volunteers to assist with programs for the homeless. (C-10)

F20: Managing homelessness also involves moving homeless people in and out of motels, winter shelters, and correctional institutions in an endless cycle of homelessness. [Ref-11] 3 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants are the primary source of funding for programs serving homeless people, providing assistance for families with children experiencing homelessness, people experiencing chronic homelessness, and other people experiencing homelessness. A Continuum of Care is a regional or local planning body that coordinates housing and services funding for homeless families and individuals. Where are You Sleeping Tonight? 5

Related Recommendations (1)

F21: The purpose of these 10-Year plans was to develop courses of action, not to manage homelessness, but to end it. [Ref-11]

F22: The VCHHC has functioned as the lead planning organization for homeless assistance in the County since 1991.

F23: The mission of VCHHC, a nonprofit organization, is to develop and maintain a county-wide cooperative effort to address the needs of homeless individuals, those at risk of becoming homeless, and those in need of low income housing.

F24: VCHHC does the following: • advises the various agencies and the Cities on the procedures to apply for Federal and State grant monies which are available to assist the homeless • encourages the Cities to identify the programs, procedures, and methods designed to combat and prevent homelessness and to provide needed services to assist the homeless

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: Cities that have not pursued grant funds, or have been unsuccessful in receiving them, should aggressively seek such funds. (C-18)

F25: Beginning in early 2006, a working group of representatives from both the public and private sectors met at least monthly to develop a plan to end homelessness.

F26: In June 2007, after 18 months of effort, the Strategy was adopted by VCHHC. [Ref-11]

F27: The initial goal of the Strategy was to reduce homelessness within the County by 50% during the first five years (2008-2012) of implementation.

Related Recommendations (1)

R03: The County and the Cities should make every effort to ensure that the original goal of the Strategy, to reduce homelessness within the County by 50% during the first five years (2008-2012), is accomplished. (C-10 through C-12)

F28: The Strategy focuses new and existing tools and resources on three sub-populations of homeless persons: [Ref-11] • chronic homeless persons5 • episodic homeless persons6 • persons at risk of becoming homeless7 5 A person who is “chronically homeless” is an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. A disabling condition is defined as a diagnosable substance abuse disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability including the co- occurrence of two or more of these conditions. Episodic homeless persons are individuals or families who are homeless for a short period of time—days, weeks, or months—not a year or more. Persons at risk of becoming homeless have limited income and often have to choose between paying their rent or mortgage and other daily living costs which often put them at risk of becoming homeless. ________________________________________________________________ 6 Where are You Sleeping Tonight?

F29: The Strategy focuses on seven activities: [Ref-11] • establishing the community’s commitment • adopting “Guiding Principles” • determining the number of persons to be served • recommending service and housing needs • developing community involvement • funding the strategy • measuring performance

F30: The Strategy contains 22 recommendations to end homelessness. These recommendations focus on: • providing more housing, whether emergency shelters, transitional housing, or permanent housing • providing services to assist people towards independence, and to help prevent more people from becoming homeless Not all recommendations are applicable to each city in the County. [Ref-11]

F31: The County Human Services Agency, Homeless Services Program publishes a brochure listing resources for homeless people in the east and west County areas. These brochures provide information on places in the County to find food, shelter, clothing, counseling, and other services to aid homeless people. [Ref-12]

F32: When the Strategy was completed, the local Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH) adopted the chart below. These goals for additional housing needs are for the first five years of the Strategy. [Ref-13] Additional Housing Goals Jurisdiction Permanent Permanent Shelter Transitional Affordable Supportive Beds Housing Housing Housing Camarillo 38 35 19 12 Fillmore 11 10 5 3 Moorpark 17 16 9 5 Ojai 5 4 2 1 Oxnard 80 73 40 24 Port Hueneme 2 2 1 1 Santa Paula 24 22 12 7 Simi Valley 39 36 20 12 Thousand Oaks 22 20 11 7 Unincorporated 15 14 8 4 Ventura 47 42 23 14 Total 300 274 150 90 Where are You Sleeping Tonight? 7

F33: In addition to the beds listed above, the Strategy envisioned the creation of a 20-bed, social-model detoxification program for adults. These beds would be located in both the east and west County. [Ref-13]

F34: Seven cities in the County have task forces, comprised of private citizens, members of faith-based communities, service providers, elected officials, and city and County employees: • Camarillo Workforce Housing Group • Ojai Valley Homeless Task Force • Oxnard Commission on Homelessness • Santa Paula Task Force on Homelessness • Simi Valley Task Force on Homelessness • Conejo Affordable Housing Workgroup (Thousand Oaks) • Ventura Social Services Task Force

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: Cities without a homelessness task force, Fillmore, Moorpark, and Port Hueneme, should consider establishing one. (C-13)

F35: In November 2009, the VCHHC published a progress report on the Strategy. In the report they state, "As with any plan, some parts have succeeded far beyond the hopes of the working group that created this document, while other parts still have challenges to overcome." [Ref-13]

Related Recommendations (1)

R05: Innovative and effective programs developed by Cities and other organizations should be documented and replicated in other areas of the County that lack such programs. (C-17)

F36: The actual total number of housing units achieved during the period June 2007 to November 2009 and planned are as follows: Type of Housing Goal Achieved Planned Permanent Affordable Housing 300 178 *215 Permanent Supportive Housing 274 78 Shelter Beds 150 -14 Transitional Housing 90 -40 **100 * 215 units are in development ** All of these beds are planned at the Kingdom Center in Ventura. Other cities also need transitional housing. [Ref-13]

F37: There have been no detoxification beds established anywhere in the County. [Ref-13]

F38: To date, community involvement in supporting homeless services has consisted of efforts of representatives from a wide-range of community groups including: [Ref-13] • businesses • coalitions and committees • community service clubs • educational institutions • faith-based agencies/organizations ________________________________________________________________ 8 Where are You Sleeping Tonight? • for-profit organizations • housing developers • local government • neighborhood associations • nonprofit organizations • private foundations • individual concerned residents

Related Recommendations (1)

R07: The County and all Cities should continue to recognize and publicly thank the various nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and other volunteer groups for their ongoing and highly effective support of the homeless population in Ventura County. (C-19) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-03, R-07) City Council, City of Camarillo (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Council, City of Fillmore (R-01 through R-07) City Council, City of Moorpark (R-01 through R-07) City Council, City of Ojai (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Council, City of Oxnard (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Council, City of Port Hueneme (R-01 through R-07) City Council, City of Santa Paula (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Council, City of Simi Valley (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Council, City of Thousand Oaks (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Council, City of Ventura (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) Responses Requested From: City Manager, City of Camarillo (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Manager, City of Fillmore (R-01 through R-07) Where are You Sleeping Tonight? 13 City Manager, City of Moorpark (R-01 through R-07) City Manager, City of Ojai (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Manager, City of Oxnard (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Manager, City of Port Hueneme (R-01 through R-07) City Manager, City of Santa Paula (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Manager, City of Simi Valley (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06, R-07) City Manager, City of Thousand Oaks (R-01, R-02, R-03, R-05, R-06,

F39: The County is a quarter of the way into the implementation of the Strategy.

F40: In their December 2009 newsletter, VCHHC reported that some of the successes achieved during the first 30 months were model programs: • the Homeless Prevention Fund started by the City of Ventura’s Social Services Task Force has kept dozens of families in their housing at an average cost of $700 per incident • the “One Stop Multi-Service Center”8 takes place each Tuesday morning at the Health Care Agency Auditorium in Ventura, provides a variety of resources for persons who are facing homelessness • the Alliance to House the Homeless in Simi Valley has coordinated services and housing for persons in that community • Many Meals in Santa Paula provides meals that feed hundreds of local homeless weekly 8 The One-Stop Multi-Service Center is a collaboration of County-wide public and private agencies sponsored by the Health Care Agency. Staff and volunteers provide the following services: • medical services • application assistance for Ventura County Medical Center’s medical services discount program • legal assistance • counseling services • housing application assistance • food stamp and general relief application assistance • homeless referral services • veterans’ services • sack lunches • links to other community-based public and private agencies Where are You Sleeping Tonight? 9

F41: The cities responding to the Grand Jury survey reported numerous accomplishments. Some of the specific accomplishments are: (Att-02) • Camarillo - has supported programs of CoC with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds as well as general fund grants • Simi Valley - has submitted a joint application with Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, and Ventura for the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program9 (HPRP) funds in the amount of $1.2 million • Thousand Oaks - with funds from CDBG provides financial support to programs that assist families in crisis, including emergency shelter funds or rental/lease assistance • Simi Valley - was awarded a grant in the amount of $801,674 in Neighborhood Stabilization Program10 (NSP) funds • Simi Valley Police Department - when it is determined that individuals being released from custody are homeless, they are provided with referral information on available homeless services, and they may stay at a facility at the police station temporarily instead of being released with no place to sleep • Simi Valley - has adopted a Parking Citation Alternative Remedies (PCAR) pilot program to provide an alternative sentencing program that allows the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless, under certain circumstances, to perform community services as payment for Simi Valley parking violations

F42: Some of the recent examples of governmental and non-governmental entities’ efforts to end homelessness as reported in the Ventura County Star are: • in Simi Valley, the creation of an innovative nonprofit called The Wide Umbrella, aimed at helping families in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure or those who just need help with housing for a few months • the City of Ventura has allocated $22,000 in public money for a pilot program that would allow certain vehicles and qualified participants to legally park overnight in one of two designated church parking lots. This program is for individuals who are forced to sleep in their vehicles. The intent of the program is to provide temporary relief while people seek stable housing 9 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes $1.5 billion for the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program. The Neighborhood Stabilization Program was established for the purpose of stabilizing communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. ________________________________________________________________ 10 Where are You Sleeping Tonight? • a small Ojai charity, Hearts of Fire Project, donated a decades- old, but still working, recreational vehicle to a homeless healthcare-giver and single mother • donations to Ventura County Together, a joint effort of several local nonprofit groups to raise money for those in need of food, shelter, and healthcare, will be matched by the Amgen Foundation, a philanthropic affiliate of the Thousand Oaks biotechnology company • the BOS decided that the County will share its allocation of federal stimulus money for homeless prevention with the four cities (Ventura, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley) that failed to receive any grant funds. The County was awarded $857,000 under the Federal Homeless Prevention and Re-Housing program, to be used in the County’s unincorporated areas and its five smallest cities • in early April 2010, the BOS agreed to spend up to $3.1 million on year-round shelters and other programs for the homeless. The funding package includes: $2 million in matching grants for cities, nonprofits or other o groups that want to open year-round shelters $600,000 over three years will go to open a detoxification o center for alcoholics and drug addicts $500,000 to start a “housing trust fund” for affordable o housing projects Conclusions C-01. Homelessness remains a major problem, not only within the County, but across the entire United States. (F-02, F-03, F-30, F-31) C-02. Due to the poor economic times, more people are at greater risk of losing their housing. (F-04 through F-07) C-03. The primary cause of homelessness is a lack of affordable housing. Adding low-income rental housing appears to be the most expedient and lowest-cost approach to reducing homelessness. (F-04 through F-07) C-04. Tenant-based rental assistance to low- and very low-income households can often forestall evictions and prevent homelessness. (F-04 through F-07) C-05. The chronic homeless are the hardest to reach and help, since they often have complex medical problems, serious mental illnesses, and/or suffer from alcohol or drug addiction. (F-11, F-12) C-06. The cost of homelessness to society can be quite high, particularly for those with chronic illnesses. Since they have no regular place to stay, Where are You Sleeping Tonight? 11 people who are homeless use a variety of public systems in an inefficient and costly way. (F-13) C-07. Emergency shelters are a costly alternative to low-cost permanent housing. While sometimes necessary for short-term crises, they too often serve as long-term housing. (F-13) C-08. Preventing a homeless episode or ensuring a speedy transition into stable permanent housing can result in significant cost savings. (F-13) C-09. Homelessness in the County is decreasing, according to the latest homeless count. (F-14 through F-16) C-10. The Strategy has raised the bar for government agencies, nonprofits, and the faith-based community to work together and to coordinate programs and funding to best meet the needs of a particular community and the County as a whole. (F-27 through F-30) C-11. The Strategy recognizes that preventing homelessness, as well as housing the chronically and episodically homeless, is not only humane but cost-effective. (F-27 through F-30) C-12. Eliminating chronic homelessness requires establishing permanent housing with supportive services, and implementing policies to prevent high-risk people from becoming chronically homeless. (F-26 through F-32) C-13. Not all Cities in the County have a homelessness task force in place. The cities that do have a task force vary in their participation from active to non-active. (F-34) C-14. The County as a whole has made modest gains in the number of permanent supportive housing beds, but has actually lost beds in the areas of shelter beds and transitional housing. (F-36) C-15. Plans to create sobering stations in several areas of the County have yet to go beyond the planning stage. (F-37) C-16. The Strategy has been successful in bringing together a diverse cross section of public and private groups. (F-38) C-17. Some Cities and private entities have developed and implemented creative and effective programs to deal with homelessness. (F-40 through F-42) C-18. Several Cities have aggressively pursued grants available through HPRP and NSP. (F-41) C-19. The County as a whole is making strides on most of the 22 recommendations in the Strategy through the energy and dedication of volunteers. (F-40 through F-42) ________________________________________________________________ 12 Where are You Sleeping Tonight? Recommendations

May 11, 2010 — City of Simi Valley Public Works Contracting

19 pages 14 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F01: The fourth phase of the contract “Los Angeles Ave., Madera Rd., Lysander Ave. Sewer Rehabilitation- SV 07-11” (Contract) was to trench and provide rigid sliplining of piping beneath the number two, or shoulder, lane along the eastbound side of Los Angeles Avenue between Madera Road and Sinaloa Road.

F02: Los Angeles Avenue is a four-lane arterial road traversing east-west through the Simi Valley.

F03: The Contract was signed June 11, 2007 and was to be completed December 27, 2007. There were no intermediate completion dates for the four phases of the Contract. ______________________________________________________________________________ Simi Valley Contracting 1

F04: The fourth phase of the project started when traffic barricades were installed, closing one of the two eastbound lanes of the thoroughfare on September 17, 2007 and was completed on April 10, 2009.

F05: Following a delay of five months due to the Contractor submitting unacceptable plans for a bypass sewage system, actual construction of the fourth phase began on February 21, 2008.

F06: The City terminated the Contractor on February 29, 2008 after concluding that the Contractor “had breached their contract with City by refusing to repair/replace defective work” in an earlier contract phase and for “being three months over the contract completion date, and working unsafely.”

F07: Under the “Obligations of the Contractor: Termination” clause of the Contract, when the City finds that a contractor is not faithfully following the terms and conditions of the contract, the City may give the contractor a 10-day notice to correct the problem. (Att-01)

F08: If a contractor fails to cure the contract problems within the 10-day notice period, City may terminate the contractor by written notice. (Att-01

F09: Most public works contracts, including the one under this investigation, have a surety bond provided by the contractor (in the awarding authority’s format). This bond obligates Surety to complete any work not completed by the contractor as a result of default, termination, or non-performance. (Att-02)

F10: In accordance with “City of Simi Valley Purchasing Practices and Procedures 2008,” Surety accepted responsibility for project completion and executed a limited Takeover Agreement of the Contract with the City on August 8, 2008. Surety then rehired the Contractor and work recommenced on August 11, 2008. (Att-02)

F11: When Surety is called upon to complete the work of the Contract, the contract and bond do not require the City’s concurrence with Surety’s choice of contractors. (Att—02)

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The City should amend the surety bond and/or the terminology of its public works contracts to require concurrence of the City with respect to Surety’s selection of a contractor to complete work under the contract as a result of default, termination, or non-performance. (C-01, C-03 through 05)

F12: The City terminated the Takeover Agreement with Surety on January 16, 2009 “for lack of timeliness as their takeover agreement had a completion date of October 31, 2008.”

Related Recommendations (1)

R02: The City should be more diligent in the administration of public works contracts. (C-03 through C-05) Responses Response Required From: City Council, City of Simi Valley (R-01 and R-02) Response Requested From: City Manager, City of Simi Valley (R-01 and R-02) Information To: City Manager, City of Camarillo (R-01) City Manager, City of Fillmore (R-01) City Manager, City of Moorpark (R-01) City Manager, City of Ojai (R-01) City Manager, City of Oxnard (R-01) City Manager, City of Port Hueneme (R-01) City Manager, City of Santa Paula (R-01) Simi Valley Contracting 3 City Manager, City of Thousand Oaks (R-01) City Manager, City of Ventura (R-01) County Executive Officer, County of Ventura (R-01) References Ref-01. “City of Simi Valley Purchasing Practices and Procedures 2008” (PUR 2008) Attachments Att-01 “City of Simi Valley Purchasing Practices and Procedures 2008” Obligations of the Contractor: Termination Att-02 “City of Simi Valley Purchasing Practices and Procedures 2008” Bond for Faithful Performance Att.-03 Project Time Line ________________________________________________________________ 4 Simi Valley Contracting (This page intentionally blank) Simi Valley Contracting 5 Attachment -01 “City of Simi Valley Purchasing Practices and Procedures 2008” Obligations of the Contractor: Termination ________________________________________________________________ 6 Simi Valley Contracting (This page intentionally blank) Simi Valley Contracting 7 ________________________________________________________________ 8 Simi Valley Contracting Simi Valley Contracting 9 (This page intentionally blank) ________________________________________________________________ 10 Simi Valley Contracting Attachment-02 “City of Simi Valley Purchasing Practices and Procedures 2008” Bond for Faithful Performance Simi Valley Contracting 11 (This page intentionally blank) ________________________________________________________________ 12 Simi Valley Contracting Simi Valley Contracting 13 (This page intentionally blank) ________________________________________________________________ 14 Simi Valley Contracting Attachment-03 Project Time Line Simi Valley Contracting 15 (This page intentionally blank) ________________________________________________________________ 16 Simi Valley Contracting Project Time Line June 26, 2007 City issued “Notice to Proceed” to Contractor September 17, 2007 Traffic controls (barricades) installed for fourth phase of contract November 27, 2007 Completion date of original contract February 21, 2008 Work actually started on phase four February 29, 2008 Contractor terminated by Public Works Director August 8, 2008 Surety executed Takeover Agreement with City August 11, 2008 Surety rehired terminated Contractor October 31, 2008 Completion date of project under Takeover Agreement January 16, 2009 City terminated Takeover Agreement January 26, 2009 City awarded contract to new contractor to complete phase four February 16, 2009 New contractor started work April 10, 2009 Project completed Simi Valley Contracting 17

F13: As an agenda item at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting on January 26, 2009, the City authorized a contract with a different contractor on an emergency basis to finish the project. Work started on February 16, 2009 and was completed on April 10, 2009.

Related Recommendations (1)

F14: During the times in which the contracts were negotiated and re- negotiated, there were long intervals when the road remained blocked while no work was in progress. ________________________________________________________________ 2 Simi Valley Contracting Conclusions C-01. Both the City and Surety followed the terms of the Contract and, in particular, the surety bond according to “The City of Simi Valley Purchasing Practices and Procedures 2008.” (F-01, F-03, F-06 through F-12) C-02. Surety accepted responsibility for completion of the project and was able to rehire the terminated Contractor for that purpose. The City’s Contract does not require concurrence of the City with Surety’s selection of contractors. (F-9 through F-11) C-03. For most of the 19-month construction period during the fourth phase, there was no work visibly in progress while one-half of the eastbound thoroughfare remained closed. Much of that time was subsequent to the termination of the original contract. (F-04 through F-06, F-13, F-14) C-04. During the prolonged period of the Contract, diversion of traffic on a heavily traveled road presented an impediment to traffic as well as an inconvenience to the public at large. (F-03 through F-06, F-12, F-14) C-05. The City was slow to take action in overseeing the Contract. (F-04 through F-06, F-12, F-14) Recommendations

May 11, 2010 — Utilization of the Ventura County Juvenile Justice Facilities

27 pages 79 findings 12 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 79 findings

F01: Groundbreaking for the JJF was held in 2001. At the time of construction, it was anticipated that the JJF would be filled to near capacity by 2010 based on demographic trends and juvenile crime projections. [Ref-02]

F02: The JJF has a total CSA rated capacity of 420 youths in detention and commitment housing. Total CSA rated capacity is the number of juveniles that can be housed in a facility according to the CSA of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

F03: Detention housing has a CSA rated capacity of 240 youths. Detention housing is intended for juveniles requiring custody pending court action and also provides temporary custody for those in need of short term placement or awaiting transfer. Detention housing units are configured as follows: • Matilija, Sycamore, and Wheeler are general population housing, each with two 30-bed living units, which have their own dayrooms, classrooms, staff stations, interview rooms, and outdoor exercise areas • Balcom is special population housing with three 20-bed living units each with its own dayroom, classroom, staff station, and interview rooms and sharing two outdoor exercise areas ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 3 Balcom is designed for juveniles with mental health issues, those who present high security risks, or those who are new to the JJF. [Ref-03]

F04: Based on current staffing levels, the capacity of detention housing is approximately 140 youths.

F05: In JJF detention housing, two 15-bed units in Matilija, four 15-bed units in Sycamore, two 15-bed units in Wheeler, and one 20-bed unit in Balcom are in use.

F06: Commitment housing has a CSA rated capacity of 180 youths and holds juveniles serving court imposed commitments of up to one year. Each of the three commitment housing units, Anacapa, Santa Cruz, and Santa Rosa has four 15-bed living units which include three 4-person dorms and three single rooms, each unit with its own dayroom and outdoor exercise area and sharing four classrooms, two program rooms, and a dining and activity area. [Ref-03]

F07: Based on current staffing levels, the capacity of commitment housing is approximately 90 youths.

F08: In JJF commitment housing, three 15-bed living units in Anacapa and two 15-bed living units in Santa Cruz are in use. In Santa Rosa, two classrooms are in use and the living units are empty.

F09: The average total daily Census of the JJF over the past 12 months was 188 juveniles, 45% of CSA rated capacity. Average daily Census for detention was 94 juveniles. Average daily census for commitment was 94 juveniles. Average daily census is the average number of juveniles housed each day for a specified period of time.

F10: The JJF no longer houses juveniles separately based on gang affiliation. This practice had reduced the number of youth that could be housed because space was intentionally kept empty in order to separate specific juveniles.

F11: The County has mutual aid agreements with Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County to house juveniles from each other’s jurisdictions in cases of emergency.

F12: In addition to housing, the JJF includes an intake/booking area, recreation areas, gymnasium, classrooms, visiting center, medical and staff offices, kitchen and dining areas, and a laundry. [Ref-03]

F13: The JJF was designed for and houses Providence School, an accredited kindergarten through 12th grade school administered by the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools. Each youth at the JJF is required to attend an average of 270 minutes (4.5 hours) of school a day.

F14: Psychiatric, crisis intervention, and group, individual, and family therapy services are provided by the County’s Behavioral Health Department under the Health Care Agency. Probation Agency staff and community based organizations also provide therapy services. Routine outpatient medical services are provided by a private contractor. [Ref-03] __________________________________________________________________________ 4 Juvenile Justice Facilities

F15: The JJF runs a Leaders’ Program for juveniles 16 to 18 years of age which stresses vocation, education, and socialization. A majority of the participants in the Leaders’ Program subsequently pass the General Educational Development Tests (GED), earn a high school diploma, or pass the California High School Exit Examination.

F16: The JJF offers programs on tolerance, parenting, gender specific issues, anger management, and substance abuse, none of which are court mandated programs.

F17: Classes offered at the JJF include chess, music, and dance.

F18: Juveniles housed in Commitment are given the opportunity to volunteer for non-profit organizations in the community.

F19: Since 2002, the Probation Agency has participated in JDAI, a juvenile justice system reform initiative aimed at reducing the unnecessary confinement of youth. Launched in 1992, JDAI focuses on the juvenile detention component of the juvenile justice system and is an initiative of the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF), a private charitable organization. JDAI holds that youth are often inappropriately placed in detention at a high cost to the public, with negative consequences for public safety and youth well-being. [Ref-04]

F20: The Probation Agency approached the AECF to participate in JDAI because prior juvenile facilities were in the midst of an overpopulation crisis. In 2001, ACEF representatives first consulted with Probation Agency officials about JDAI. [Ref-05]

F21: The AECF initially provided the Probation Agency with a grant of $126,588 to implement JDAI and now gives the Probation Agency $25,000 annually. [Ref-05]

F22: Groundbreaking for the JJF was held in 2001, prior to the Probation Agency’s adoption of JDAI in 2002.

F23: The goals of JDAI are to: • decrease the number of youth unnecessarily or inappropriately detained • reduce the number of youth who fail to appear in court or re- offend prior to adjudication • redirect public funds toward effective juvenile justice practices and public safety policies • reduce disproportionate minority confinement • improve the juvenile justice system [Ref-06]

F24: A County JDAI Committee meets monthly to analyze policies and services, identify policies that can be improved, identify gaps in service that should be filled, and create improved policies and services. The ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 5 Committee is co-chaired by the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court and the Chief Probation Officer of the County. Membership includes representatives from: • Ventura County Superior Court • Probation Agency • City of Oxnard Police Department • City of Ventura Police Department • Ventura County Sheriff’s Department • Ventura County District Attorney’s Office • Ventura County Public Defender • Ventura County Behavioral Health Department • Ventura County Health Care Agency • Community Action Partnership • Ventura County Office of Education • Interface Children and Family Services • other community-based groups, community activists, and faith- based organizations [Ref-07]

F25: According to a Justice Policy Institute (JPI) report, studies have shown that detention has a profoundly negative impact on juveniles’ mental and physical well-being, their education, and their potential for future employment. The JPI is a public policy organization dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration. [Ref-08]

F26: JDAI has been implemented in San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Ventura counties, in over 100 jurisdictions in 25 states, and in the District of Columbia. [Ref-09]

F27: Other initiatives of the AECF aimed at child welfare reform, assisting youth leaving foster care, collecting data and advocating for the well- being of youth on a state and local level, and helping families and children in higher crime neighborhoods are active in Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, and Riverside counties. JDAI is the only AECF initiative operating in the County. [Ref-10]

F28: Santa Cruz County is a JDAI model site. According to the AECF, the results of JDAI implementation in Santa Cruz County are as follows: • the average daily juvenile detention population was reduced by 65% between 1997 and 2005 • juvenile felony arrests decreased 47% from 30 youths per 1,000 in 1997 to 16 youths per 1,000 in 2004 __________________________________________________________________________ 6 Juvenile Justice Facilities • the average minority population in juvenile hall was reduced from 64% to 47% • more than $7 million in detention expenses have been redeployed to community alternatives since 1998 [Ref-11]

F29: According to the JPI report, many counties across the United States implementing JDAI state that they have reduced the number of youth confined and that juvenile crime rates have fallen as much as, or more than, national rates. The report states that these communities experienced an increase in the number of young people who return to court for sentencing after they had been released from detention, further reducing the need for detention. [Ref-08]

F30: A 2009 study of JDAI in Washington, a JDAI model state, conducted by the Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee concluded that participation in JDAI yielded substantial savings in detention costs, with no increase in recidivism or juvenile offenses. Data collected indicates a decrease in average daily population, average length of stay in juvenile detention, detention admissions, and juvenile arrest rates. [Ref-12]

F31: In 2009, the AECF produced a report reviewing 17 years of JDAI results from its inception in 1992 to 2009. The report concluded that participating jurisdictions have significantly reduced their reliance on secure detention for youth awaiting trial or pending placement. The report also stated that JDAI has generated considerable savings for taxpayers by enabling participating jurisdictions to avoid costs for the construction and operation of secure detention facilities. According to the report, JDAI sites do not have consistent measures of public safety outcomes. However, those sites that do measure indicators of public safety showed outcomes improving during the period of JDAI participation. [Ref-13]

F32: According to the Probation Agency, the incremental annual staffing costs to open an additional 30-bed detention housing unit at the JJF would be $951,527. The incremental annual staffing costs to open an additional 15-bed commitment unit at the JJF would be $400,360.

F33: In the “Ventura County Comprehensive Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan” dated April 2008, the County calculated the daily cost of JJF detention per youth at $389.42 and the daily cost of JJF commitment per youth at $280.64. In comparison, intervention and prevention programs aimed at gang violence and repeat offenders cost between $10.39 and $29.56, respectively, per youth per day. The Grand Jury could not find evidence that the County has undertaken a full cost- benefit analysis of its juvenile justice programs. Models for such analyses exist and cost-benefit analyses of juvenile justice programs have been conducted in other jurisdictions. [Ref-14, Ref-15] ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 7

Related Recommendations (2)

R04: The Probation Agency should perform a cost-benefit analysis of all juvenile justice programs in the County. (C-13 and C-14)

R05: The Probation Agency should use data gained from program evaluation and cost-benefit analysis to guide decisions regarding the utilization of the JJF. (C-2, C-3, C-6, C-13, C-14)

F34: The Probation Agency collects and submits data on specific JDAI performance measures to the AECF as part of its ongoing grant. The Probation Agency measures average daily population, average length of stay, failure to appear, pre-adjudication re-arrest rates, and the number and percent of minority youth in secure detention. For the reporting period, January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009, failure to appear was 3% and the pre-adjudication re-arrest rate was 10.3%. [Ref-16]

F35: One of the core strategies of JDAI is the development of objective admissions criteria and an RAI for use by juvenile facilities.

F36: The JJF Intake Department (Intake) uses the RAI to determine the need for secure, locked confinement by evaluating which youth pose a public safety risk to the community. (Att-01)

F37: The RAI is a written checklist of criteria applied to each juvenile for release versus detention-related risks. The overall risk score, a point value, is used as a guide by Intake to decide whether a juvenile is eligible for secure detention, for Community Confinement Program, or for release on a Promise to Appear in court. Intake can override the results of the RAI if deemed appropriate. [Ref-17]

F38: Juveniles who are eligible for the Community Confinement Program are allowed to remain at home under strict conditions and close supervision with or without electronic monitoring. [Ref-03]

F39: The Probation Agency states that the number of juveniles in the JJF has been reduced through the use of the RAI.

F40: The Director/Chief Probation Officer believes that community alternatives to detention reduce crime and recidivism more effectively than detention, as suggested by the JDAI concept.

F41: The juvenile crime rate in the County as measured by juvenile felony arrests per 1,000 juveniles aged 10 to 17 has fallen from 1998, when plans for the JJF were completed, to 2007, the latest year for which complete information is available. In 1998, the juvenile crime rate in the County was 14.6 juvenile felony arrests per 1,000 juveniles. In 2007, the juvenile crime rate was 11.4 juvenile felony arrests per 1,000 juveniles. Statewide during the same time period, the juvenile crime rate fell from 20.2 to 14.2 juvenile felony arrests per 1,000 juveniles. [Ref-18]

F42: Recidivism is a commonly used measure of the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system. It is defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “a tendency to relapse into previous criminal behavior.” The Grand Jury could find no evidence that either the County or the State uses a standard definition or measure of recidivism. [Ref-19]

F43: The three most common measures of recidivism are: • re-arrest, being charged with a new offense __________________________________________________________________________ 8 Juvenile Justice Facilities • reconviction, being found guilty of a new offense in a court of law • re-incarceration, being sentenced to a secure facility after being found guilty of a new offense [Ref-20]

F44: The Director/Chief Probation Officer stated that the most useful definition of recidivism is the commission of a new offense, or re-arrest.

F45: Instead of measuring negative outcomes, some jurisdictions focus on positive results, gathering information on their success rates in meeting specific juvenile justice goals. [Ref-21]

F46: Outcomes are measured only for specific programs at the JJF including the Boys and Girls Club Targeted Re-Entry, Girls Inc., Health Returns Initiative, and Recovery Classroom.

F47: Studies of juvenile recidivism rates have been conducted in many jurisdictions, including Washington, Oregon, and Virginia, allowing these states to evaluate the effectiveness of programs intended to reduce recidivism. [Ref-22 through Ref-24]

F48: The Probation Agency has not established a definition of recidivism and does not measure it for the JJF as a whole. The Probation Agency receives State, federal, and private grants which require the measurement of recidivism for funded programs, but each grant organization uses a different definition of recidivism.

Related Recommendations (3)

R01: The Probation Agency should establish a definition for recidivism and measure juvenile recidivism yearly within the County. (C-05, C-06, C-14)

R03: The Probation Agency should monitor success rates for all juvenile justice programs in the County on a yearly basis. (C-06, C-14)

R05: The Probation Agency should use data gained from program evaluation and cost-benefit analysis to guide decisions regarding the utilization of the JJF. (C-2, C-3, C-6, C-13, C-14)

F49: In 2000, the California Legislature passed the JJCPA, which was designed to provide a stable funding source for community-based programs that have proven effective in reducing crime and delinquency among at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. [Ref-25]

F50: In 2009, the JJCPA provided over $2 million to the County to support: • aftercare and day reporting centers • enhanced institutional services • expansion of the Early Intervention Program • Gang Violence Prevention Program • HOPE (Habitual Offender Prevention Endeavor) aimed at repeat offender prevention • Juvenile Drug Court • THRIVE (Truancy Habits Reduced Increased Vital Education) aimed at truancy reduction These early intervention and prevention programs are not part of JDAI. [Ref-26] ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 9

F51: The table below shows the total CSA rated capacity (detention and commitment) and Census for juvenile facilities in other Southern California counties. Capacity and Census of Juvenile Facilities by County NAME OF COUNTY TOTAL CSA RATED AVERAGE DAILY PERCENT OF CAPACITY OF CENSUS LAST 12 CAPACITY FACILITIES MONTHS OF DATA Imperial 72 31 43% Kern 475 440 93% Orange 955* 805* 84% Riverside 368 241 66% San Bernardino 650 359 55% San Diego 1,103 875 79% San Luis Obispo 45 40 89% Santa Barbara 236 190 81% Ventura 420 188 45% *Orange County permanently closed a facility with a rated capacity of 156 juveniles in July 2009. The total capacity includes this facility. The average daily census includes data for this facility from November 2008 to June 2009.

F52: The Orange County Probation Department attributes the significant reduction in the population of incarcerated minors in Orange County to their adoption of JDAI principles, although they are not a JDAI site.

F53: The Probation Agency uses unoccupied housing and classroom space within the JJF to add two on-site programs: the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme (BGC) and a Regional Occupational Program (ROP).

F54: The BGC approached the JJF with funding from the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and the State to locate a club within the facility. In Anacapa, the BGC occupies two 15-bed commitment housing units, one classroom, and one office. The Probation Agency provides this space rent free as a grant-in-kind. This BGC opened in 2007 in the JJF and serves only youth from within the facility.

F55: The BGC operates the Targeted Re-entry Program, a partnership among the BGC, the Probation Agency, the Coalition to End Family Violence, and the Palmer Drug Abuse Program, which provides services to juveniles at the JJF based on each youth’s needs, interests, and strengths. [Ref-27] __________________________________________________________________________ 10 Juvenile Justice Facilities

F56: The BGC counsels youth after their release, assisting them with finding employment, completing school, and receiving health and counseling services.

F57: The Probation Agency offers ROP in previously unused space within the JJF. ROP occupies three commitment classrooms in Anacapa originally intended for use by the Providence School, but unused because of the lower than expected Census. ROP is a public education service offered through the Ventura County Office of Education.

F58: The goal of ROP is to provide hands-on career preparation by offering classes in silk screening, computer repair, and landscaping services, and by stressing work ethic and employment-seeking skills. [Ref-28]

F59: Upon satisfactory completion of an ROP class, students earn a Certificate of Proficiency which can be shown to potential employers.

F60: Police departments within the County and the Sheriff’s Department have extensive written policies and procedures regarding the detention, arrest, and disposition of juvenile offenders as required by State law.

F61: The majority of Officers interviewed by the Grand Jury contact Intake to receive prior approval before transporting juveniles to the JJF. The Grand Jury was unable to find any instance where doing so is a specific written policy.

F62: Officers from several jurisdictions said that they found it difficult to get juveniles admitted to the JJF and, therefore, assumed that the JJF was, in their word, “full.”

F63: Officers said that they believe all felony and violent misdemeanor offenses should qualify for booking into the JJF.

F64: Felony and violent misdemeanor crimes do not automatically meet the RAI criteria for booking into the JJF. (Att-01)

Related Recommendations (1)

R07: The Probation Agency should modify the RAI so that any felony or violent misdemeanor offense is sufficient basis for housing a juvenile at the JJF. (C-10)

F65: Officers expressed concern that some chronic repeat offenders did not meet the RAI criteria for acceptance into the JJF and expressed belief that such offenders should be accepted. (Att-01)

Related Recommendations (1)

R08: The Probation Agency should modify the RAI to assign higher point values for multiple repeat offenses. (C-11)

F66: The majority of Officers interviewed were unfamiliar with the use of the RAI and with JDAI policies.

Related Recommendations (4)

R02: The Probation Agency should conduct a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of JDAI in the County which should include input from police departments and the Sheriff’s Department. (C-05 through C-12, C-14, C-21 through 23) ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 15

R06: The Probation Agency should modify the RAI to include the recommendations of police officers and Sheriff’s deputies in the decision of whether a juvenile is to be housed at the JJF. (C-22)

R09: The Probation Agency should make certain that all police departments and the Sheriff’s Department receive information on the criteria for accepting juveniles into the JJF, on the use of the RAI, and on JDAI. (C-21 through C-23)

R10: Police chiefs and the Sheriff should provide 0fficers with Probation Agency information regarding the criteria for accepting juveniles into the JJF, the use of the RAI, and JDAI. (C-21 through C-23)

F67: Officers indicated interest in having the RAI available for their use in preliminary screening in order to understand subsequent actions taken by Intake.

Related Recommendations (1)

F68: The Probation Agency states that it has made police departments and the Sheriff’s Department aware of the RAI and of JDAI by contacting police chiefs and by attending some shift briefings on an ongoing basis.

F69: The Director/Chief Probation Officer stated that Officers’ recommendations regarding juveniles are considered by Intake. ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 11

F70: Officers interviewed stated that either their recommendations are not taken into consideration by Intake or that they stopped making recommendations because they were not followed by the JJF.

Related Recommendations (2)

R06: The Probation Agency should modify the RAI to include the recommendations of police officers and Sheriff’s deputies in the decision of whether a juvenile is to be housed at the JJF. (C-22)

F71: The Officers said that Intake personnel are professional in their dealings with juveniles and with law enforcement.

F72: All Officers interviewed said that they are usually at the JJF for 15 to 20 minutes when bringing a juvenile to Intake.

F73: Some Officers interviewed stated that they were not informed when juveniles with probation histories moved into their jurisdiction from other jurisdictions in the County. In their opinion, this lack of notification results in crimes that might otherwise have been prevented through intervention or surveillance.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Probation Agency should develop a formal procedure to inform police departments and the Sheriff’s Department when juveniles with probation histories move into their jurisdiction from elsewhere in the County. (C-24)

F74: The Probation Agency confirmed that no formal process exists to notify officers when juveniles with probation histories move into their jurisdiction.

Related Recommendations (1)

F75: Intake is staffed from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. During regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., telephones are answered by the reception staff at the JJF. After regular business hours, the reception telephone line rolls calls over to Central Control. Central Control is staffed 24 hours per day, seven days a week. If Central Control staff cannot answer a question, the call is transferred to the on-duty Watch Commander. Watch Commander coverage is provided by either a Supervising Deputy Probation Officer or a Senior Deputy Probation Officer 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Watch Commanders are able to answer most questions, but, if necessary, the on-call Division Manager is contacted. All of these personnel are JJF staff. According to the JJF Chief Deputy Probation Officer, the after-hours determination of whether a juvenile meets booking criteria is often made by the Watch Commander who has the discretion to override the RAI.

F76: Some Officers reported that after regular business hours they were unable to speak directly to a member of the Intake staff regarding juveniles but, instead, spoke with whomever was on call for the Probation Agency. They stated that they sometimes had difficulty getting answers to questions regarding juveniles.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: The Probation Agency should ensure that members of law enforcement who deal directly with juveniles in the community have easy, direct after-hours access to JJF personnel able to answer their questions. (C-25) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Supervisors, County of Ventura (R-01 through R-09, R-11 and R-12) City Council, City of Oxnard (R-10) City Council, City of Port Hueneme (R-10) City Council, City of Santa Paula (R-10) City Council, City of Simi Valley (R-10) City Council, City of Ventura (R-10) Sheriff, County of Ventura (R-10) __________________________________________________________________________ 16 Juvenile Justice Facilities References Ref-01. 1997-98 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Juvenile Justice System of Ventura County. Report. County of Ventura, 1997-98. Web. Aug. 2009. . Ref-02. Farbstein, Jay & Associates, Inc., Mark Morris Associates, and Patrick Sullivan Associates. Ventura County Juvenile Justice Center: Master Plan Program Requirements Draft: December 11, 1998. 1998. Print. Ref-03. “Juvenile Facility.” County of Ventura. Ventura County Probation Agency, 2009. Web. Jul. 2009. . Ref-04. "Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative." The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2009. Web. Aug. 2009. . Ref-05. Director/Chief Probation Officer, Ventura County Probation Agency. "Approval to Receive Grant Funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation to Implement a Local Juvenile Detention Initiative.” Letter to Ventura County Board of Supervisors. Oct. 2002. Ref-06. “About JDAI, JDAI Objectives and Core Strategies.” JDAI Help Desk. Pretrial Justice Institute. Web. Jan. 2010. Ref-07. Ventura County - Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative. VC-JDAI 09- 2008. Ventura: Ventura County Probation Agency, 2008. Print. Ref-08. Holman, Barry, and Jason Ziedenberg. “The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Facilities.” Justice Policy Institute. Justice Policy Institute, 2006. Web. Jan. 2010. . Ref-09. “JDAI Replication Sites.” JDAI Help Desk. Pretrial Justice Institute. Web. Dec. 2009. Ref-10. “Casey Places.” The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010. Web. Jan. 2010. . Ref-11. “Results from the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative.” The Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010. Web. 26 ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 17 Jan. 2010. . Ref-12. “The Governor’s Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee Policy Brief: The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, A Successful Start in Washington.” Department of Social and Health Services. State of Washington, Mar. 2009. Web. Sept. 2009. . Ref-13. Mendel, Richard A. “Two Decades of JDAI From Demonstration Project to National Standard A Progress Report.” JDAI National. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2009. Web. Oct. 2009. . Ref-14. County of Ventura and the Ventura County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. Ventura County Comprehensive Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Plan. Ventura: County of Ventura, 2008. Print. Ref-15. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Juvenile Justice Programs. Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, United States Department of Justice, 2002. Web. Jan. 2010. . Ref-16. Final/Annual Progress Report to The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Report. Ventura County Board of Supervisors, 2009. Print. Ref-17. Steinhart, David. Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2006. Web. Sept. 2009. <http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Docs/Documents/Objective%20Admissi ons%20Criteria%20and%20Instruments/Juvenile%20Detention%20Ri sk%20Assessment/Practice%20Guide%20to%20Juvenile%20Detentio n%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf> Ref-18. Juvenile Felony Arrests by Gender, Offense and Arrest Rate, Ventura County and Statewide. Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice. Web. Jan. 2010. . Ref-19. “Recidivism: Definition from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.” Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2010. Web. Jan. 2010. Ref-20. Data Spotlight Recidivism. MTC Institute, 2003. Web. Oct. 2009. Ref-21. Snyder, Howard N. and Melissa Sickmund. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2006. Web. Oct. 2009. . __________________________________________________________________________ 18 Juvenile Justice Facilities Ref-22. Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders Fiscal Year 2005. Sentencing Guidelines Commission, State of Washington, 2005. Web. Oct. 2009. . Ref-23. Juvenile Recidivism, Oregon's Statewide Report on Juvenile Recidivism 1998 through 2002. Oregon Youth Authority, State of Oregon, 2004. Web. Oct. 2009. . Ref-24. “Juvenile and Adult Recidivism.” Measuring Recidivism in Virginia - Virginia Performs. Council on Virginia's Future, 2009. Web. Oct. 2009. . Ref-25. Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2009. Web. Nov. 2009. Ref-26. The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, Program Descriptions and Allocated Funds. State of California. Web. Nov. 2009. . Ref-27. “Targeted Re-Entry.” Positive Place 4 Kids. Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme, 2009. Web. Nov. 2009. . Ref-28. Wheeler Career Technology Classes. Ventura County Probation Agency, Juvenile Facilities. Print. Ref-29. California Welfare and Institutions Codes § 601-608. Attachments Att-01. Ventura County Probation Agency, Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Instrument Glossary (AECF) The Annie E. Casey Foundation (BGC) Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme (Census) Average Daily Census (County) Ventura County ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 19 (CSA) Corrections Standards Authority of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CTC) Clifton Tatum Center (GED) General Educational Development Tests (Grand Jury) 2009 – 2010 Ventura County Grand Jury (Intake) Ventura County Juvenile Justice Facilities Intake Department (JDAI) Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JJCPA) Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJF) Ventura County Juvenile Justice Facilities (JPI) Justice Policy Institute (Officers) Police officers, school resource officers, and Sheriff’s deputies (Probation Agency) Ventura County Probation Agency (RAI) Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument (ROP) Regional Occupational Program (Sheriff’s Department) Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (State) State of California __________________________________________________________________________ 20 Juvenile Justice Facilities (This page intentionally blank) ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 21 Attachment-01 Ventura County Probation Agency Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment Instrument __________________________________________________________________________ 22 Juvenile Justice Facilities (This page intentionally blank) ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 23 __________________________________________________________________________ 24 Juvenile Justice Facilities ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 25

F77: Some Officers thought that persons 18 years of age and older should automatically be transferred from juvenile to adult probation.

F78: The Director/Chief Probation Officer believes that only youth who have committed very serious offenses or who owe restitution should remain on juvenile probation after the age of 18, but noted that the Court makes this determination. An individual can be on both juvenile and adult probation at the same time. __________________________________________________________________________ 12 Juvenile Justice Facilities

F79: California Welfare and Institution Code § 601 through 608 delineate who is under juvenile court jurisdiction. In California, the extended age of juvenile court jurisdiction is 21. If a juvenile is committed to the California Department of Juvenile Justice or to a mental health facility for certain offenses, jurisdiction may be extended until the offender's 25th birthday. [Ref-29] Conclusions C-01. The Probation Agency provides a wide range of services to juveniles housed at the JJF. (F-3, F-6, F-12 through F-18, F-55, F-56, F-58, F-59) C-02. Capacity planning for the JJF was done using the information available at the time (1998), but did not take into account the potential future impact of the implementation of JDAI since the design and construction of the JJF began prior to the Probation Agency’s adoption of JDAI. (F-1 through F-3, F-6, F-20, F-22) C-03. The housing components of both the detention and commitment units of the JJF are underutilized based on a comparison of the Census and CSA rated capacity, but the JJF is operating at near capacity based on present staffing levels. (F-2 through F-9, F-51) C-04. Many factors may have contributed to a lower than expected Census at the JJF including the Probation Agency’s participation in JDAI, use of the RAI, reduced juvenile crime rates, early intervention and crime prevention programs, and programs supported by the JJCPA. (F-10, F-19, F-20, F-23, F-28 through F-31, F-36 through F-39, F-41, F- 49, F-50, F-52) C-05. In order to be considered effective, JDAI results should show lower numbers of youth in confinement, increased public safety as demonstrated by lower juvenile crime rates, lower recidivism rates, an increase in the number of youth who appear in court, and decreased costs. (F-19, F-23, F-28 through F-31, F-34 through F-40) C-06. Measuring recidivism rates and program success rates can provide useful information to indicate the success or failure of juvenile justice programs. (F-42 through F-48) C-07. Studies of JDAI in other jurisdictions appear to indicate that the implementation of JDAI has led to decreased numbers of youth incarcerations and lowered costs without increasing the risk to public safety as measured by juvenile crime rates. However, juvenile crime rates have fallen throughout the State, not just at JDAI sites. (F-28 through F-31) C-08. While literature on the dangers of detention for youth supports the basic principles behind JDAI, some of the studies of JDAI effectiveness appear ______________________________________________________________________________ Juvenile Justice Facilities 13 to have been produced or funded by the AECF, the originator of JDAI. (F-28, F-31) C-09. It is unclear whether the Probation Agency makes use of JDAI performance measures which it collects for submission to the AECF. (F-24, F-34) C-10. The RAI does not necessarily advise the detention of juveniles alleged to have committed felony or violent misdemeanor offenses, contrary to the recommendations of officers interviewed. (F-63, F-64) C-11. The RAI does not necessarily advise the detention of chronic repeat juvenile offenders. (F-65) C-12. The issue of the utilization of the JJF is, at its core, one of public safety. The RAI has lowered the Census at the JJF, resulting in lower than anticipated staffing levels and costs. Whether the right juveniles are being diverted to detention alternatives, and whether those detention alternative programs are working to enhance public safety, however, have yet to be conclusively demonstrated eight years after the implementation of JDAI in the County. (F-23, F-28 through F-39, F-41,

Additional documents

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

Vcas Commission Meeting Thursday, November 21st, 202410 pp.