Ventura County 2016-2017 - California Grand Jury Reports

May 25, 2017 — Oxnard Red Light Cameras

14 pages 10 findings 4 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F01: In 2008, the City entered into a five year contract with Redflex to install, operate, and maintain a new RLC system. The contract was dated the 23rd of September. The year was not indicated.

F02: The contract was subsequently extended for two, one year terms. In October, 2015, the contract was extended on a month to month basis.

F03: Per the contract, Redflex invoices the City a fixed fee of $30,500 per month. The City pays Redflex an amount equal to the monthly RLC revenue less the City’s operating costs of $2,562.

F04: For the 24 month period from January, 2015 through December, 2016:  RLC monthly revenue to the City ranged from a low of $17,794 to a high of $32,254, before operating costs were deducted. Oxnard Red Light Cameras  In each of the 24 months, after operating costs were deducted, the City's payment to Redflex was less than Redflex’s invoice amount of $30,500.  The difference between the invoice amount and the payment by the City ranged from a high of $15,268 to a low of $808. The average monthly shortfall during the 24 month period was $7,976. (Att-01)

F05: The contract contains a “Cost Neutrality” clause which establishes the City will not pay more per month than actual receipts from RLC fines, less operating costs. If the amount of fines collected is less than the Redflex invoice amount, the difference accrues as an outstanding balance. The contract states, “Cost neutrality will be reconciled and any necessary adjustments made at the end of the contract.” As of December 31, 2016, the outstanding negative balance of such accruals was $806,460. The outstanding balance accrued from the first Redflex contract signed in 2008. (Att-02)

F06: The City's interpretation of the Cost Neutrality clause is that the accrued balance is to be zeroed out at the end of the contract. They contend there is no specific language detailing any type of repayment requirement. (Att- 02)

F07: All RLC infractions submitted by Redflex are reviewed by the City before citations are issued. The typical RLC fine is $490. After County and State administrative fees, approximately $154 is remitted to the City. In 2016, 9,668 RLC incidents were processed. A majority were rejected. There were 4,131 citations issued. As of March 2017, approximately 23% of these citations had not been paid.

F08: Yellow light duration in California is established in conformance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2014 (CA MUTCD). The yellow light phase duration was modified by the CA MUTCD in August, 2015. Yellow light duration is directly related to the observed speed of traffic. The higher the speed, the longer the duration. The City allows a 0.2 second grace period after the light turns red before considering a violation has occurred. (Ref-02)

F09: The City maintains the yellow light duration at all eight RLC intersections is in compliance with the CA MUTCD. An independent traffic engineer determined the minimum yellow light duration, as reported by the City, at four RLC intersections is not in compliance with CA MUTCD standards. (Att-03).

F10: California Vehicle Code 21455.5(a) requires signage at RLC intersections: “...(1) Identifies the system by signs posted within 200 feet of an intersection where a system is operating that clearly indicate the system’s presence and are visible to traffic approaching from all directions in which the automated traffic enforcement system is being utilized to issue citations…". Seven of eight RLC intersections in the City had the required Oxnard Red Light Cameras 3 signage. The sign was missing at southbound Victoria Avenue and Channel Islands Boulevard. (Ref-03) Conclusions C-01. The Redflex contract was not well vetted by the City prior to signing. The contract’s effective date is missing. The Cost Neutrality clause is vague and does not make it clear if the City is required to pay any accrued balance at the end of the contract period. If the City does not prevail in its interpretation of the clause, the City may be exposed to a significant financial liability. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-05, FA-06, FA-07) C-02. It appears the RLC program as currently structured is likely to generate a significant outstanding balance. The fact that an $806,460 balance was allowed to accrue over nine years, despite multiple contract extensions, suggests the City has not employed proper oversight in regards to the RLC program. (FA-03, FA-04) C-03. The duration of the yellow light at four RLC intersections, as reported by the City, is not in conformance with the CA MUTCD. Even small inaccuracies in yellow light durations pose a potential financial liability to the City as citations could be dismissed. (FA-06, FA-07, FA-08, FA-09) C-04. The missing required Photo Enforced sign at the intersection of southbound Victoria Avenue and Channel Islands Boulevard poses a potential loss of revenue to the City. Resulting citations could be dismissed. (FA-10) Recommendations R-01. The Grand Jury recommends the City Council ensure any future RLC contracts do not obligate the city to pay vendors more than the revenue collected by the City, less operating expenses. (C-01) R-02. The Grand Jury recommends the City Council require an audit of the RLC program, dating back to the 2008 Redflex contract. The audit should examine if adequate oversight, financial controls, and procedures were employed in the management of the program. (C-02) R-03. The Grand Jury recommends the City Council direct a program be instituted, starting with the RLC intersections, to ensure yellow light duration at all intersections is set in accordance with the CA MUTCD. (C-03) R-04. The Grand Jury recommends the City Council arrange for the installation of the required Photo Enforced sign at the intersection of southbound Victoria Avenue and Channel Islands Boulevard. (C-04) 4 Oxnard Red Light Cameras Responses Responses Required From: City Council, City of Oxnard (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04) References Ref-01. IIHS-HLDI Red Light Camera Forum, “Red light running new research”, July 28, 2016, http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/presentations (accessed May 4, 2017). Ref-02. CA.GOV, Caltrans, “CA MUTCD 2014 Archive”, http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/camutcd2014.html (accessed May 4, 2017). Ref-03. California Legislative Information, California Vehicle Code 21455.5(a), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?law Code=VEH&sectionNum=21455.5 (accessed May 4, 2017). Attachments Att-01. Oxnard Police Department Payments to Redflex Att-02. Cost Neutrality Clause of Redflex Contract Att-03. Oxnard RLC Intersection Yellow Phase Duration Glossary TERM DEFINITION CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices City City of Oxnard Grand Jury 2016-2017 Ventura County Grand Jury Police Department Oxnard Police Department Redflex Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. RLC Red Light Camera Oxnard Red Light Cameras 5 Attachment 01 Oxnard Police Department Payments to Redflex 6 Oxnard Red Light Cameras Oxnard Police Dept. Payments to Redflex Operating Payment to Cumulative Invoice Month/Year Revenue Costs Redflex Balance Amount Jan-15 20,781.95 2,561.80 18,220.15 627,308.25 30,500.00 Feb-15 23,255.76 2,561.80 20,693.96 637,114.29 30,500.00 Mar-15 28,321.98 2,561.80 25,760.18 641,854.11 30,500.00 Apr-15 22,257.79 2,561.80 19,695.99 652,658.12 30,500.00 May-15 18,809.59 2,561.80 16,247.79 666,910.33 30,500.00 Jun-15 19,341.04 2,561.80 16,779.24 680,631.09 30,500.00 Jul-15 23,018.29 2,561.80 20,456.49 690,674.60 30,500.00 Aug-15 22,789.17 2,561.80 20,227.37 700,947.23 30,500.00 Sep-15 30,210.69 2,561.80 27,648.89 703,798.34 30,500.00 Oct-15 23,034.57 2,561.80 20,472.77 713,825.57 30,500.00 Nov-15 22,107.08 2,561.80 19,545.28 724,780.29 30,500.00 Dec-15 27,410.72 2,561.80 24,848.92 730,431.37 30,500.00 Jan-16 28,125.28 2,561.80 25,563.48 735,367.89 30,500.00 Feb-16 31,332.91 2,561.80 28,771.11 737,096.78 30,500.00 Mar-16 32,012.99 2,561.80 29,451.19 738,145.59 30,500.00 Apr-16 32,253.60 2,561.80 29,691.80 738,953.79 30,500.00 May-16 28,726.80 2,561.80 26,165.00 743,288.79 30,500.00 Jun-16 29,008.54 2,561.80 26,446.74 747,342.05 30,500.00 Jul-16 29,176.02 2,561.80 26,614.22 751,227.83 30,500.00 Aug-16 27,721.59 2,561.80 25,159.79 756,568.04 30,500.00 Sep-16 26,594.56 2,561.80 24,032.76 763,035.28 30,500.00 Oct-16 18,121.13 2,561.80 15,559.33 777,975.95 30,500.00 Nov-16 17,793.69 2,561.80 15,231.89 793,244.06 30,500.00 Dec-16 19,845.56 2,561.80 17,283.76 806,460.30 30,500.00 Totals $602,051.30 $61,483.20 $540,568.10 $732,000.00 Oxnard Red Light Cameras 7 Attachment 02 Cost Neutrality Clause of Redflex Contract 8 Oxnard Red Light Cameras (From Redflex contract ) EXHIBIT "D" Oxnard Red Light Cameras 9 Attachment 03 Oxnard RLC Intersection Yellow Phase Duration 10 Oxnard Red Light Cameras Oxnard RLC Intersection Yellow Phase Duration Yellow Phase Duration (seconds) for Straight Through and Right Turns h e d d * Direction/ ta r a r Direction/ yn d 85th bx n Posted Speed Intersection d O a Percentile e f S t Limit do Speed vi y e P r o Ci t S t a t SB 39 R O S E AVENUE @ SB 3.9 NB & SB 45 - 40 NB 51 GONZALES ROAD 4.6 NB 5.0 NB 42 S A V IERS ROAD @ NB & SB 40 - 40 SB 42 CHANNEL ISLANDS BLVD 4.1 4.3 NB 48 V I C TORIA AVENUE @ NB & SB 50 - 50 SB 48 CHANNEL ISLANDS BLVD 4.8 4.7 GONZALES ROAD @ WB 45 WB 42 SNOW AVENUE 4.6 4.3 WB 43.1 F I F TH STREET @ WB & EB 35 -35 EB 43.1 VENTURA ROAD 4.2 4.3 ROSE AVENUE @ NB 40 NB 43 FIRST STREET 4.4 4.3 VICTORIA AVENUE @ NB 50 NB 53 WOOLEY ROAD 4.8 5.0 WB 44 G O NZALES ROAD @ WB & EB 45 -45 EB 44 VENTURA ROAD 4.6 4.3 *State standard as verified by independent Registered Professional Traffic Engineer Oxnard Red Light Cameras 11 This page intentionally blank 12 Oxnard Red Light Cameras

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R01: The Grand Jury recommends the City Council ensure any future RLC contracts do not obligate the city to pay vendors more than the revenue collected by the City, less operating expenses. (C-01)

R02: The Grand Jury recommends the City Council require an audit of the RLC program, dating back to the 2008 Redflex contract. The audit should examine if adequate oversight, financial controls, and procedures were employed in the management of the program. (C-02)

R03: The Grand Jury recommends the City Council direct a program be instituted, starting with the RLC intersections, to ensure yellow light duration at all intersections is set in accordance with the CA MUTCD. (C-03)

R04: The Grand Jury recommends the City Council arrange for the installation of the required Photo Enforced sign at the intersection of southbound Victoria Avenue and Channel Islands Boulevard. (C-04) 4 Oxnard Red Light Cameras Responses Responses Required From: City Council, City of Oxnard (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04) References Ref-01. IIHS-HLDI Red Light Camera Forum, “Red light running new research”, July 28, 2016, http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/presentations (accessed May 4, 2017). Ref-02. CA.GOV, Caltrans, “CA MUTCD 2014 Archive”, http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/camutcd2014.html (accessed May 4, 2017). Ref-03. California Legislative Information, California Vehicle Code 21455.5(a), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?law Code=VEH&sectionNum=21455.5 (accessed May 4, 2017). Attachments Att-01. Oxnard Police Department Payments to Redflex Att-02. Cost Neutrality Clause of Redflex Contract Att-03. Oxnard RLC Intersection Yellow Phase Duration Glossary TERM DEFINITION CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices City City of Oxnard Grand Jury 2016-2017 Ventura County Grand Jury Police Department Oxnard Police Department Redflex Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. RLC Red Light Camera Oxnard Red Light Cameras 5 Attachment 01 Oxnard Police Department Payments to Redflex 6 Oxnard Red Light Cameras Oxnard Police Dept. Payments to Redflex Operating Payment to Cumulative Invoice Month/Year Revenue Costs Redflex Balance Amount Jan-15 20,781.95 2,561.80 18,220.15 627,308.25 30,500.00 Feb-15 23,255.76 2,561.80 20,693.96 637,114.29 30,500.00 Mar-15 28,321.98 2,561.80 25,760.18 641,854.11 30,500.00 Apr-15 22,257.79 2,561.80 19,695.99 652,658.12 30,500.00 May-15 18,809.59 2,561.80 16,247.79 666,910.33 30,500.00 Jun-15 19,341.04 2,561.80 16,779.24 680,631.09 30,500.00 Jul-15 23,018.29 2,561.80 20,456.49 690,674.60 30,500.00 Aug-15 22,789.17 2,561.80 20,227.37 700,947.23 30,500.00 Sep-15 30,210.69 2,561.80 27,648.89 703,798.34 30,500.00 Oct-15 23,034.57 2,561.80 20,472.77 713,825.57 30,500.00 Nov-15 22,107.08 2,561.80 19,545.28 724,780.29 30,500.00 Dec-15 27,410.72 2,561.80 24,848.92 730,431.37 30,500.00 Jan-16 28,125.28 2,561.80 25,563.48 735,367.89 30,500.00 Feb-16 31,332.91 2,561.80 28,771.11 737,096.78 30,500.00 Mar-16 32,012.99 2,561.80 29,451.19 738,145.59 30,500.00 Apr-16 32,253.60 2,561.80 29,691.80 738,953.79 30,500.00 May-16 28,726.80 2,561.80 26,165.00 743,288.79 30,500.00 Jun-16 29,008.54 2,561.80 26,446.74 747,342.05 30,500.00 Jul-16 29,176.02 2,561.80 26,614.22 751,227.83 30,500.00 Aug-16 27,721.59 2,561.80 25,159.79 756,568.04 30,500.00 Sep-16 26,594.56 2,561.80 24,032.76 763,035.28 30,500.00 Oct-16 18,121.13 2,561.80 15,559.33 777,975.95 30,500.00 Nov-16 17,793.69 2,561.80 15,231.89 793,244.06 30,500.00 Dec-16 19,845.56 2,561.80 17,283.76 806,460.30 30,500.00 Totals $602,051.30 $61,483.20 $540,568.10 $732,000.00 Oxnard Red Light Cameras 7 Attachment 02 Cost Neutrality Clause of Redflex Contract 8 Oxnard Red Light Cameras (From Redflex contract ) EXHIBIT "D" Oxnard Red Light Cameras 9 Attachment 03 Oxnard RLC Intersection Yellow Phase Duration 10 Oxnard Red Light Cameras Oxnard RLC Intersection Yellow Phase Duration Yellow Phase Duration (seconds) for Straight Through and Right Turns h e d d * Direction/ ta r a r Direction/ yn d 85th bx n Posted Speed Intersection d O a Percentile e f S t Limit do Speed vi y e P r o Ci t S t a t SB 39 R O S E AVENUE @ SB 3.9 NB & SB 45 - 40 NB 51 GONZALES ROAD 4.6 NB 5.0 NB 42 S A V IERS ROAD @ NB & SB 40 - 40 SB 42 CHANNEL ISLANDS BLVD 4.1 4.3 NB 48 V I C TORIA AVENUE @ NB & SB 50 - 50 SB 48 CHANNEL ISLANDS BLVD 4.8 4.7 GONZALES ROAD @ WB 45 WB 42 SNOW AVENUE 4.6 4.3 WB 43.1 F I F TH STREET @ WB & EB 35 -35 EB 43.1 VENTURA ROAD 4.2 4.3 ROSE AVENUE @ NB 40 NB 43 FIRST STREET 4.4 4.3 VICTORIA AVENUE @ NB 50 NB 53 WOOLEY ROAD 4.8 5.0 WB 44 G O NZALES ROAD @ WB & EB 45 -45 EB 44 VENTURA ROAD 4.6 4.3 *State standard as verified by independent Registered Professional Traffic Engineer Oxnard Red Light Cameras 11 This page intentionally blank 12 Oxnard Red Light Cameras

May 18, 2017 — Annual Detention Facilities and Law Enforcement Report

11 pages 8 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F01: The Sheriff’s office and all police agencies in the County participate in Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training. This training teaches law enforcement methods to de-escalate situations where an individual is in crisis, typically involving mental illness. Currently 72% of patrol-based officers (patrol, traffic, school resource), 55% of custody deputies, and 40% of dispatchers have completed the 40 hour CIT training. The Sheriff and the Police Chiefs in the County have agreed to a goal of 100%. Approximately 300 personnel remain to be trained. There are three scheduled training classes a year designed to accommodate as many as 50 participants. Classes currently average 40 participants. (Ref-01, Ref-02, Ref-03, Att-01)

F02: Six short-term holding facilities (Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme, and Ventura) have limited or no English/Spanish signage explaining rights and the booking process. Four of the cities (Fillmore, Moorpark, Port Hueneme, and Ventura) have a 30% or greater Hispanic population. (Ref-04, Att-01)

F03: The Main Jail was opened in 1980. On October 17, 2016, it housed 850 inmates. The facility is certified by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) for a maximum rated housing capacity of 790. Annual Detention and Law Enforcement Todd Road Jail was built in 1995. On November 14, 2016, it housed 826 inmates (598 male, 228 female) and has a BSCC maximum rated housing capacity of 796. In 2011 AB 109 transferred the responsibility of incarcerating certain kinds of felony offenders from State prisons to county jails in a process known as realignment. (Ref-05) In 2014 Proposition 47 re-categorized some non-violent felonies as misdemeanors. Misdemeanants are housed in County jails rather than State prisons. (Ref-06)

F04: Inmates with mental illness are housed primarily at the Todd Road Jail. A $61 million medical/mental health facility is expected to be completed by December, 2020. The 64-bed facility will be used to treat inmates with severe and persistent mental illness. (Ref-07, Ref-09)

F05: Financial problems in the City of Port Hueneme are well documented and have impacted staffing at all levels of the police department. Recruitment and retention of dispatchers has been difficult. On a regular basis, sworn officers are required to work overtime as dispatchers. There is only one dispatcher scheduled per shift. Occasionally, that individual is the only staff member in the building when detainees are in the holding cells. It is expected officers will be away from the holding facility while on patrol or when transporting arrestees to the Main Jail, a procedure which could last over one hour. (Ref-10)

F06: The Santa Paula Police Department building is small and cannot accommodate all staff members. The detective unit is located in an off- site building.

F07: Repairs and renovation of the Santa Paula station continues to be a priority. Expensive asbestos abatement and roof repairs, noted in past grand jury reports, have been addressed. However, exposed wiring and missing ceiling tiles were noted by the Grand Jury.

F08: Simi Valley is the only city law enforcement agency in the County that does not employ body cameras or in-car video (dash cams). The agency has received three Requests for Proposal (RFP) from various providers. The Simi Valley City Council has rejected grant funding and voted not to approve funding for the devices. According to the Cato Institute, “Police body cameras undoubtedly have potential to improve police accountability and assist police misconduct investigations.” (Ref-08) Annual Detention and Law Enforcement 3 Conclusions C-01. The Grand Jury concluded CIT training is an important aspect of law enforcement. The 100% goal for CIT training has not been achieved. (FA- 01) C-02. The Grand Jury concluded six city holding facilities have insufficient signage in the pre-booking areas explaining rights and procedures in both English and Spanish. (FA-02) C-03. The Grand Jury concluded both the Main Jail and the Todd Road Jail are overcrowded, regularly exceeding their rated inmate capacity. (FA-03) C-04. The Grand Jury concluded Todd Road Jail has become a de-facto mental health facility. Constructing a new mental health facility at the jail will take at least three years and it will continue to be challenging to meet the needs of these inmates in the interim. (FA-04) C-05. The Grand Jury concluded the financial situation in Port Hueneme has resulted in staff shortages. With limited staffing, the safety of citizens and officers could be compromised. This situation is aggravated when sworn officers are required to work overtime as dispatchers or while performing required arrestee transport and booking. (FA-05) C-06. The Grand Jury concluded the size of the Santa Paula police station is inadequate to accommodate current and future needs. The existing building has exposed wiring and other maintenance problems. (FA-06, FA- 07) C-07. The Grand Jury concluded body cameras have become a law enforcement best practice. The Simi Valley Police Department is the only city law enforcement agency in the County not using body cameras. (FA-08) Recommendations R-01. The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff increase the availability of 40-hour CIT training by increasing class size and/or adding additional classes. (C- 01) R-02. The Grand Jury recommends the police departments in Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme, and Ventura post signage in the pre- booking areas, explaining rights and procedures, in Spanish as well as English. (C-02) R-03. The Grand Jury recommends the Sheriff continue to advise the County Board of Supervisors on the overcrowded conditions at the jails and the impact of realignment and new sentencing mandates. (C-03) R-04. The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors take all reasonable steps to ensure on-time construction of the medical facility at Todd Road Jail. (C-04) 4 Annual Detention and Law Enforcement R-05. The Grand Jury recommends the Port Hueneme City Council consider the feasibility of contracting with a neighboring law enforcement agency for selected services, such as dispatch and arrestee transport and booking. (C-05) R-06. The Grand Jury recommends the Santa Paula City Council formally review the feasibility of upgrading or replacing their police facilities. (C-06) R-07. The Grand Jury recommends the Simi Valley City Council follow best practice and approve funds to implement a body camera program for sworn officers. (C-07) Responses Responses Required From: Port Hueneme City Council (C-02, C-05, R-02, R-05) Santa Paula City Council (C-06, R-06) Simi Valley City Council (C-07, R-07) Ventura County Board of Supervisors (C-04, R-04) Ventura County Sheriff (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, R-01, R-02, R-03) Responses Requested From: Ventura Police Department (C-02, R-02) References Ref-01. Ventura County, Crisis Intervention Team, Mission Statement, http://www.venturacountycit.org/ (accessed April 18, 2017) Ref-02. CA Commission on Police Officers Standards and Training, The Crisis Intervention Team, https://www.post.ca.gov/crisis-intervention- team.aspx (accessed April 18, 2017). Ref-03. National Alliance on Mental Illness, What is CIT? http://www.nami.org/Law-Enforcement-and-Mental-Health/What-Is-CIT (accessed April 18, 2017). Ref-04. United States Census Bureau, Quick Facts, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table (accessed on April 18, 2017). Ref-05. California Legislative Information, 2011 AB 109, April 4, 2011. https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101- 0150/ab_109_bill_20110404_chaptered.pdf (accessed May 9, 2017). Ref-06. Proposition 47, “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act”, Appendix I, May 2016. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Prop-47- Information.pdf (accessed May 9, 2017). Annual Detention and Law Enforcement 5 Ref-07. Gonzalez, Hector, Moorpark Acorn, “County jail for mentally ill inmates moves forward with state grant”, May 6, 2016, http://www.mpacorn.com/news/2016-05- 06/Front_Page/County_jail_for_mentally_ill_inmates_moves_forward.ht ml (accessed April 24, 2017). Ref-08. Feeney, Mathew, Cato Institute, “Watching the Watchman: Best Practices for Body Cameras,” October 27, 2015, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/watching-watchmen- best-practices-police-body-cameras (accessed April 18, 2017). Ref-09. Gonzales, Hector, Moorpark Acorn, “County moves forward with facility for disabled inmates”, September 30, 2016, http://www.mpacorn.com/news/2016-09- 30/Community/County_moves_forward_with_facility_for_disabled_in.ht ml (accessed April 18, 2017). Ref-10. Kallas, Amy, Ventura County Star, “Port Hueneme budget woes worsen”, January 4, 2017, http://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/port- hueneme/2017/01/04/huenemes-budget-woes-worsen/96164824/ (accessed May 2, 2017). Attachments Att-01. Detention Facilities Inspection Summary Glossary TERM DEFINITION BSCC Board of State and Community Corrections CIT Crisis Intervention Team Grand Jury 2016-2017 Ventura County Grand Jury Main Jail Pre-Trial Detention Facility RFP Requests for Proposal Ventura City of San Buenaventura Sheriff Ventura County Sheriff’s Office State State of California 6 Annual Detention and Law Enforcement Attachment 01 Detention Facilities Inspection Summary Annual Detention and Law Enforcement 7 E=Excellent, S=Satisfactory, N=Needs Improvement 8 Annual Detention and Law Enforcement This page intentionally blank Annual Detention and Law Enforcement 9

May 18, 2017 — Ventura County Children and Family Services

18 pages 24 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 24 findings

F01: In 2015, there were over 10,000 calls made to the County CFS Hotline alleging child abuse or neglect. State law mandates the Hotline worker must determine if an in-person investigation needs to occur. The investigation would begin immediately (within 24 hours) or within 10 calendar days. When a case has been opened, the family may be assigned three different social workers within the first 45 days:  Emergency response social worker (ER)  Court unit social worker  Ongoing unit social worker

F02: The ER social workers are responsible for investigating referrals of child abuse and neglect. Their duties include:  Interviewing the child, parents, siblings, and family either individually or as part of a multi-disciplinary team, which may include law enforcement or a public health nurse  Reviewing drug records, birth records, health records, and photographs Children and Family Services 3  Writing comprehensive reports  Referring families to counseling, parenting classes, and substance abuse testing and treatment when the situation does not require removal of the child  Removing the child from the home when the situation warrants: o Placing the child in protective custody for up to 48 hours pending a court hearing or placement in alternative housing o Assessing whether the child can safely be returned home with supportive services or whether intervention of the juvenile dependency court is needed o Preparing and filing a petition with the court within two working days after the child is removed, once it is determined the case will proceed to court  Closing out the referral or promoting it to a case within 30 days  Developing case plans within 30 to 60 days and conducting case plan meetings  Working a standby 12-hour shift once or twice a quarter (Ref-07, Ref-08)

F03: The court unit social worker receives cases from the ER social worker and is responsible for:  Preparing the documents for cases within the Juvenile Dependency Court  Continuing the investigation to assess preferred custody  Assessing available appropriate services  Interviewing parents, children, and other family members

F04: Subject to court disposition, the case is transferred from the court unit social worker to the ongoing unit social worker. This process takes place within 35 to 40 days, but in some cases it may take as long as 90 days. The ongoing unit social worker’s duties include:  Continuing case management  Monitoring families’ compliance with their case plan  Providing referrals to community services  Meeting with families and children once or twice each month  Developing a status review report for the court six months after receiving the case

F05: If children have been removed from the home and supervised visits are required, the ongoing social worker schedules and often supervises these visitations. The average length of time the ongoing social worker may be 4 Children and Family Services on a specific case is 12 months for children over three years, and six months for children under three years.

F06: An ER social worker, at any one time, may have as many as 38 cases, involving up to 80 children. Such workers may be assigned as many as six to seven new cases a week. Court unit social workers may average 17 cases at one time. Ongoing unit social workers may average 18 to 20 cases. The consensus among caseworkers and management is an ideal caseload would be 20 or fewer. This would allow for more time to engage with families. Staff and management uniformly report that current caseloads can exceed the optimum by 50% or more.

F07: The 2016-2019 MOA between the County and SEIU Local 721 states, “No worker will be required to carry a caseload more than ten percent (10%) in excess of the average caseload.” The MOA goes on, “The current Human Services Agency workload/caseload standards are obsolete, based upon programs that no longer exist or that have changed over time. As has been the intent to define more relevant and equitable standards, it is recognized that with present uncertainties for social service funding and program design, it is not optimal to establish standards that will be irrelevant in the short term. The county continues to work toward realistic workload standards that best represent the work that is expected by each stakeholder.” (Ref-09)

F08: ER social workers, court unit social workers, and ongoing unit social workers all have access to support staff. In addition to clerical duties, support staff responsibilities include:  Performing background research for placement  Answering phone calls, taking messages for social workers, and referring calls to the designated Officer of the Day  Providing contact information for a supervisor when a family requests that information

F09: There is no policy specifying when social workers should return phone calls. Some return calls within 24 hours, some within 48 hours, and still others take longer.

F10: When a social worker meets the family for the first time, they are given a business card containing the social worker’s name, phone number, email address, and the Hotline number. Social workers do not routinely provide families contact information for a supervisor or the Custodian of Records. Additionally, families are not informed how to file a grievance regarding the case management services of their social worker.

Related Recommendations (2)

R02: The Grand Jury recommends, early in the process, families be provided with the contact information for the social worker’s supervisor, contact information for the Custodian of Records, and the procedure to follow if there is a grievance about how the social worker is providing case management services. (C-02)

R04: The Grand Jury recommends CFS develop a simple, written form for families to document any grievances regarding the performance of case management services. All staff should be informed of the procedure and families provided with a copy. The procedure should include a protocol to follow until grievances are resolved. (C-04)

F11: If the family wants to contact a social worker’s supervisor they must call the Hotline. Hotline calls are referred to the Officer of the Day who will connect them with the relevant supervisor. If a voice message is left, the call may or may not be returned. Children and Family Services 5

F12: If a parent or family member has an unresolved question or grievance regarding their social worker, the social worker’s supervisor is the appropriate person to address the matter. If the issue is still unresolved, it moves up the chain of command. Commonly, families are not told about this procedure, nor provided with the CFS document entitled “Client Services Concerns & Inquiries”, which includes:  The chain of command when assistance is needed (social worker, supervisor, regional manager, Director of CFS)  Information on issues of perceived discrimination  Procedures for grievance regarding child removal  Information on requesting a fair hearing  Adherence to confidentiality Not all social workers are familiar with this document. (Att-01)

Related Recommendations (1)

F13: Social workers are required to provide records to the families including:  court reports  case plans  proposed findings and orders  police reports Families can access records through their social workers or from the Custodian of Records. However, families are not always told about the Custodian of Records.

F14: During 2015:  There were 10,212 referrals called into the CFS Hotline alleging child abuse or neglect.  5,442 referrals were assigned for an in-person response.  514 new cases were opened because intervention was required.  Most referrals were related to poverty, domestic violence, and/or substance abuse.

F15: As of September 2016, there were 1,120 children under dependency court jurisdiction.

F16: Child Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers states, “CPS efforts are most likely to succeed when clients are involved and actively participate in the process.” It further states, “The success of intervention is directly related to the CPS worker’s ability to develop a partnership with the family.” However, the most common family complaint is social workers, or their supervisors, don’t return phone calls in a timely manner and in some cases not at all. (Ref-10)

F17: Child Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers also states “Providing child protective services is a complex, demanding and emotionally draining 6 Children and Family Services job. Making decisions that affect the lives of children and families takes a toll on caseworkers. In order to maximize performance and minimize burnout, support systems must be developed within the CPS unit to provide caseworkers with opportunities to discuss and deal with feelings that may range from frustration and helplessness to anger and incompetence. Opportunities to discuss these feelings openly in the unit [in debriefing groups] are essential. In addition, whenever crises occur in cases (e.g. a child is reinjured or a child must be removed from his or her family) the caseworker involved needs extra support and guidance.” (Ref-10)

F18: Currently there are no regularly scheduled debriefing groups. Social workers may choose to attend a program which is conducted on an as needed basis. No data is available as to how often these groups meet or which social workers attend.

Related Recommendations (1)

R05: The Grand Jury recommends CFS schedule weekly meetings for social workers to discuss the demanding and stressful aspects of their jobs and to provide mutual support. (C-05)

F19: The County Wellness Program is available to social workers. However, CFS does not track usage or seek feedback on the effectiveness of the program for its staff.

F20: Child Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers states, “CPS supervisors are responsible for ensuring that the agency mission and goals are accomplished and that positive outcomes for children and families are achieved through the delivery of competent, sensitive and timely services. … [The supervisor is responsible for] creating a psychological and physical climate that enables staff to feel positive, satisfied, and comfortable about the job so that clients may be better served.” (Ref-10)

F21: Some social workers do not always feel supported by their supervisors. Supervisors may not be accessible at critical times to authorize required procedures or to ensure the safety of social workers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: The Grand Jury recommends CFS establish new procedures to ensure supervisors are more readily available to social workers in the field. (C-06)

F22: Family satisfaction surveys have been used in the past, but they were conducted while cases were still open. Some families reported feeling coerced to provide positive feedback, fearing critical answers might lead to retaliation. The surveys have been discontinued.

Related Recommendations (1)

R07: The Grand Jury recommends CFS enhance opportunities for families to provide feedback on case management services, both positive and negative, once their case has been closed. Findings should be evaluated to improve future services. (C-07)

F23: Parental substance abuse is the most common reason that children need to be removed from the home. It is also the main cause of recidivism. Personnel of CFS report:  There are not enough substance abuse treatment programs to accommodate parents and treatment centers often have long waiting lists.  There are limited services for parents with long-term addiction and mental illness.  There are not enough drug counselors to go into the field with the social workers.  There are not enough ongoing parenting classes available for families after their cases have been closed. Children and Family Services 7  There is not a comprehensive list of treatment programs and parenting classes provided to CFS staff to utilize as a resource for families.  Social workers use electronic devices in the field to access internet information about available resources for families.

Related Recommendations (2)

R08: The Grand Jury recommends CFS prepare and maintain a comprehensive written list of all programs and resources available to families in the child welfare system. All CFS staff in contact with clients should have copies of this list to use as a reference and to provide to families. (C-08)

R09: The Grand Jury recommends CFS prepare recommendations to the Ventura County Board of Supervisors to fund additional substance abuse treatment programs. (C-09) Children and Family Services 9 Responses Responses Requested From: County of Ventura Human Services Agency, Children and Family Services (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, C-08, C-09, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05,

F24: The CFS has become a defacto social welfare system without adequate resources to support the whole family. Conclusions C-01. The caseloads of the child welfare social workers, in particular the ER social workers, are excessive and currently have no defined limit. A lower case load would allow social workers to spend more time with families. This would foster the team approach essential for optimal case management. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-04, FA-05, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08, FA-13, FA-14,

May 17, 2017 — Water Considerations for Cities May 17, 2017

23 pages 16 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings

F01: Providing water to the Cities is complicated. In many parts of the County, water is provided through imports from water wholesalers such as the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas), and the United Water Conservation District (UWCD). In other cases, water is obtained through local supplies, including ground water, runoff stored in reservoirs, and recycling. (Ref-08, Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-18, Ref-19, Ref-20, Ref-21)

F02: Projected water demand in the wholesale agency reports is based on population projections from a number of sources including:  Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)  California Department of Finance  U.S. Census  Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG)/County Planning (Ref-22, Ref-23, Ref-24, Ref-25)

F03: Without a significant increase in the amount of available water, MWD projects by 2040, there will be water restrictions in eight out of every 10 years. Without significant conservation, annual retail water demand within MWD will outstrip resources by approximately 1.3 million AF or 22%. (Ref- 29) Water Considerations for Cities 3

F04: All but one of the Cities and all of the water suppliers have submitted 2015 UWMPs to the State for approval. These plans indicate:  There are sufficient water supplies for the long term. In some cases, this is based on anticipated increases in imported water. In other cases, it is based on having historical average supplies of surface water, groundwater, and the development of new water sources including recycling and desalting facilities. The increased importation of water is reliant on new infrastructure which has neither been approved nor funded.  Most of the Cities are predicting increased supply in excess of future demand.  All of the Cities have adopted drought regulations and enforcement measures for short-term drought.  The Cities’ plans do not quantify the impact of individual conservation measures. They do consider savings due to changes in household plumbing fixtures and outdoor water use. (Ref-08, Ref 10, Ref 11, Ref 12, Ref 13, Ref 14, Ref 15, Ref 16, Ref 17, Ref 18, Ref 19, Ref 20, Ref 21, Ref 26, Ref-27, Ref-28, Ref 30, Ref-31)

F05: The Cities all complied with the minimum State requirements for water conservation to address the recent drought. When drought conditions ease, some Cities may choose to ease water use restrictions. (Ref-32, Ref-33, Ref-34, Ref-35)

F06: All of the Cities’ UWMPs predict having sufficient water to serve the 2035 or 2040 estimated population. These predictions do not include any consideration of a water constrained future of frequent and extensive periods of drought. (Ref-08, Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref- 15, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-18, Ref-20, Ref-21)

F07: The Cities’ UWMPs have complied with a State mandate requiring the prediction of water availability in the event of droughts lasting at least three years. Water providers’ projections may exceed the State minimum and consider droughts longer than three years. However, none of the Cities’ UWMPs exceed the minimum requirement. The recent drought lasted more than five years. (Ref-08, Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-18, Ref-20, Ref-21)

F08: With limited exceptions, urban growth will take place inside the Cities and not in the unincorporated areas of the County. This is due to the combination of long standing County policies based on the 1969 Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development, greenbelt agreements, and the SOAR measures. (Ref-05, Ref-06, Ref-07)

F09: The City of San Buenaventura’s plan to annex land for development was turned down by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in February, 2017, due to inadequate future supplies of water. On April 20, 2017, LAFCo revised its decision to allow for the annexation dependent on 4 Water Considerations For Cities Ventura Water providing a letter of proof that the city has enough water. (Ref- 36)

F10: Most of the Cities’ UWMPs provide a cursory plan to address catastrophic failures or long-term interruptions within the system. These include infrastructure failures, damage to the groundwater caused by saltwater intrusion, or other environmental disasters. The Cities’ UWMPs typically state conservation measures will be instituted in the case of long term disruptions. Two water wholesalers, Calleguas and MWD, address catastrophic events in their UWMPs, primarily by identifying stored sources of water. Both Calleguas and MWD’s plans anticipate a 25% reduction in water supplies in the event of disaster. (Ref-08, Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref-12, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16, Ref-17, Ref-18, Ref-19, Ref-20, Ref-21, Ref-26, Ref-27, Ref-28, Ref-30, Ref-31)

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Grand Jury recommends the 10 city councils collaborate with all the County water purveyors to develop long term plans to respond to catastrophic disruptions of water supplies. (C-07)

F11: The State of California Bay-Delta Authority and the California Department of Water Resources’ worst-case scenario projects water imports from the State Water Project (via the Sacramento Delta) could be unavailable for a year. (Ref-37)

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Grand Jury recommends the 10 city councils collaborate with all the County water purveyors to develop long term plans to respond to catastrophic disruptions of water supplies. (C-07)

F12: Calleguas delivers water to about 75% of the County. Three quarters of Calleguas’ water comes from Northern California through the State Water Project aqueduct. If an earthquake were to damage the aqueduct, Calleguas would run out of water in about a month. Authorities state an earthquake cutting off the aqueduct isn’t a question of “if”; it’s a question of “when”. (Ref-38)

Related Recommendations (1)

R01: The Grand Jury recommends the 10 city councils collaborate with all the County water purveyors to develop long term plans to respond to catastrophic disruptions of water supplies. (C-07)

F13: Building water purification facilities, desalination plants, desalters, recycling plants, additional pipelines, and storage facilities are expensive capital projects. The costs will be paid for by the current and future ratepayers. For example, seawater desalination costs more than twice as much as importing water into the County. (Ref-39, Ref-40)

F14: The source of imported water for Ventura County is precipitation, primarily from the Sierra snowpack and rainfall in the Colorado River Basin. Over the last 100 years, the amount of precipitation in parts of the Sierra has steadily declined. The snowpack is also reduced by rising temperatures in California over the last century. (Ref-41, Ref-42, Ref-43, Ref-44, Att-02, Att-03)

F15: Since 1912, the average temperature in the State has increased by .06 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. This warming trend contributes to increased amounts of precipitation falling as rain, not snow, in the Northern Sierra. The State Water Project, which provides much of the water used in the County, depends upon precipitation falling as snow instead of rain. Most Sierra rainfall is not captured and thus not available for public use. (Ref-42, Ref-43) (Att-02, Att-03)

F16: The City of Santa Paula has not complied with the State requirement to submit its 2015 UWMP by the deadline of July 1, 2016. On October 27, 2016 the State sent the City a letter regarding the non-submittal of its UWMP. A complete draft had not been accepted by the State for review as Water Considerations for Cities 5 of April 13, 2017. Failure to comply threatens the City’s eligibility for future State grants or loans. (Ref-45, Ref-46) Conclusions C-01. Cities’ water plans are based on historic water availability patterns which may no longer be applicable. Over the last 100 years, water availability from precipitation has been trending downward and may never return to what was considered average. (FA-04, FA-06, FA-14, FA-15) C-02. Cities’ plans address the minimum, state-required, three-year drought scenarios. None of the UWMPs address a long term drought, even though the current drought has lasted over five years. (FA-04, FA-05, FA-06, FA- 07) C-03. Long term city plans are based on the optimistic view there will be as much water available in 2035 or 2040, as there was in 2010. Additional future water resources are not well-defined other than being described as imported water or coming from recycling and conservation efforts. (FA-01,

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: The Grand Jury recommends the Santa Paula City Council direct staff to comply with State requirements for submission of the 2015 UWMP. (C-08) Responses Responses Required From: City Council, City of Camarillo (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R-01, R- 02, R-03, R-04, R-05) City Council, City of Fillmore (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R-01, R- 02, R-03, R-04, R-05) City Council, City of Moorpark (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R-01, R- 02, R-03, R-04, R-05) City Council, City of Ojai (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R-01, R-02,

April 05, 2017 — Ventura County Performance Auditing

24 pages 15 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 15 findings

F01: Performance audits examine County programs and departments by using nationally recognized auditing principles. They recommend service delivery improvements, identify savings and revenue opportunities, identify poor performance, and detect fraud. Performance audits do not develop procedures or establish policies. An audit can take anywhere from two months to two years to complete. A typical audit is comprised of three steps: planning, field work, and report writing. A draft report is reviewed for errors by the audited department. The Internal Audit Division’s objective is to reach a consensus with the auditee in respect to the findings and recommendations. Disagreements are noted in the final report. (Ref- 03, Ref-07)

F02: The Auditor-Controller in Fiscal Year 2016-17 has a $13.4 million budget and 71 Full Time Equivalents (FTE). There are seven employees in the Internal Audit Division; six auditors and one Fiscal Manager. They are overseen by the Deputy Director Auditor-Controller who reports directly to the Auditor-Controller. Of the six auditors, one is assigned full-time to investigate calls to the County’s Fraud Hotline. Another auditor is assigned full-time to the Treasurer’s office. In Fiscal Year 2016-17 $800,000 was allocated in the budget for Audit Division salaries. All costs associated with the Internal Audit Division come from the General Fund. Auditor Controller Staff Allocation FTE % Controller 64 90% Auditor 7 10% (Ref-04)

F03: The Auditor-Controller makes fiscal year budget requests through the office of the CEO. In Fiscal Year 2016-17, the Auditor-Controller’s budget was reduced by $100,000 while the overall County budget was increased. The FTE was increased in Fiscal Year 2013-14 in order to upgrade the Ventura County Financial Management System. With the completion of the project, staff has been gradually reduced from a high of 77 FTE in Fiscal Year 2013- 14. In Fiscal Year 2015-16, the Auditor-Controller used $50,000 in Department savings to hire the external audit firm, Moss Adams, to examine physician’s contracts at the Health Care Agency, an engagement staff auditors would not have been able to complete. In September, 2016 Ventura County Performance Auditing 3 the Auditor-Controller requested the addition of three, full-time internal audit positions at a projected cost of $409,519. The needs described in the request were to provide additional scrutiny of information technology (IT) issues and the Ventura County Medical Center. The additional staffing would increase available audit hours by 4,302 or 55%. This request was not presented as a way to generate cost savings for the County. (Ref-04)

F04: A risk-based Internal Audit Plan is prepared at the beginning of each fiscal year. A risk level is assigned to every County department. Risk assessment uses 22 criteria including staff size, the number of transactions, evidence or suspicion of theft, substantiated Hotline tips, and the date of the last audit. Generally, the bigger the department, the greater the risk. After the risk assessment is completed, the Internal Audit Division staff selects a number of Planned Engagements to be conducted during the fiscal year. The Internal Audit Plan also lists Future Potential Audit Subjects which are described as potential audit subjects to be pursued in future years as Internal Audit Division staff resources allow. These Future Potential Audit Subjects have also been described as “placeholders”, “reminders”, or “something that has traditionally appeared in past Internal Audit Plans”. There are no expectations as to how many, if any, of these engagements will become Planned Engagements. (Ref-02, Att-01)

F05: The number of auditor hours that would be needed to conduct the Future Potential Audit Subjects has increased steadily in each of the last 5 years. It would take over 5 ½ years to complete all of the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Future Potential Audit Subjects based on the number of available auditor hours not committed to mandated cash and compliance audits. The Fiscal Year 2016-17 Internal Audit Plan lists 99 Future Potential Audit Subjects, totaling 37,070 planned audit hours. The Fiscal Year 2006-07 Internal Audit Plan listed 30 Future Potential Audit Subjects. The number of Future Potential Audit Subjects has increased 230% since Fiscal Year 2006-07. In the same ten year period, the County budget has increased by 43%, the number of county employees has increased 16% and the population of the County has increased 9%. Fiscal Year Future Potential Audit Subjects Audit Hours 2016-17 99 37,070 2015-16 94 35,770 2014-15 86 32,770 2013-14 84 31,030 2012-13 83 30,510 (Ref-02, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16, Ref-17)

F06: The Internal Audit Plan includes goals, objectives, and performance measurements for the Internal Audit Division. Fiscal Year 2012-13 is the only year of the last four where the Internal Audit Division met or exceeded its goal of the number of audit reports to be issued during the fiscal year. In Fiscal Year 2016-17, the goal is to issue 12 reports. Ventura County Performance Auditing Number of Audit Reports Issued Fiscal Year Goal Issued Follow-ups 2015-16 12 9 1 2014-15 15 9 0 2013-14 15 13 0 2012-13 15 18 2 (Ref-02, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16, Ref-17)

F07: The Internal Audit Plans’ performance measurements state that 80% of performance audits should “result in additional revenue and/or cost savings to the County”. The last five fiscal year Internal Audit Plans include a performance measurement goal of identifying $500,000 in cost savings or revenue enhancement opportunities for the County. (Ref-02, Ref-07, Ref- 13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16)

F08: There is no record or other evidence of the Internal Audit Division measuring its performance in meeting the stated goal of identifying cost savings.

F09: Among the Internal Audit Plan’s performance measurements is the statement, “100% of corrective action…has been initiated by management [of the audited department] during the course of the audit.” This is to be confirmed by follow-up audits. (Ref-02, Ref-13, Ref-14, Ref-15, Ref-16)

F10: Many audit programs of other counties, examined by the Grand Jury, monitor and follow-up on all audit recommendations to ensure audit findings are being addressed. However, according to County policy, “Follow-up audits will be performed on selected reports to ascertain the implementation of improvement efforts and the accomplishment of corrective actions. Follow-up will be accomplished by the Audit Division generally after six months, or as deemed appropriate, after improvements have been implemented and deficiencies corrected.” (Ref-05, Ref-07, Ref- 10, Ref-11, Ref-12, Ref-18, Att-02)

Related Recommendations (1)

R04: The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller publish an annual report evaluating the Internal Audit Division’s success in meeting all its goals, objectives, and performance measurements. The report should share key metrics with stakeholders and the public including:  The number of recommendations made.  The percentage of recommendations with agreement or disagreement  The percentage of recommendations implemented.  Cost savings or revenue enhancements  The number of follow-up audits conducted. (C-01, C-07)

F11: According to County policy, “Agencies and departments are required to provide written status reports to the CEO on items where corrective action [suggested during the audit] was not completed when the audit report was issued. The initial status report is due within 90 days of the audit report or when corrective action is completed. The CEO will evaluate the corrective actions taken and provide the results to the Auditor-Controller’s Office for scheduling follow-up audits.” The audited department is not required to send a copy of their status report to the Auditor-Controller, although some departments have copied the Auditor-Controller on their responses to the CEO. (Att-02)

F12: For at least the last five years, the Auditor-Controller’s office has not been regularly informed of the results of the CEO’s evaluation of departmental corrective actions.

Related Recommendations (2)

R05: The Grand Jury recommends the BOS direct the CEO, per existing County policy, to consistently provide the Auditor-Controller with written results of Ventura County Performance Auditing 7 evaluations of the corrective action taken by all audited County departments and agencies. (C-05, C-06)

F13: The BOS focuses on the controller function of the Auditor-Controller’s office, particularly at budget preparation time. There is less awareness of Ventura County Performance Auditing 5 the audit function of the office and they look to the CEO and his fiscal team for analysis of program effectiveness. There was little expectation by the BOS that audits would result in cost savings. Alternatively, many of the audit programs in other counties provide information to stakeholders, as well as to the news media and the public, about their audit programs and plans. They focus on the results of audits. An IIA survey of 36 government auditors found most make significant efforts to build understanding and support for their audit programs. Despite their efforts, fewer than half of those interviewed nationally agreed that they enjoyed the support and understanding of all key stakeholders. (Ref-07, Ref-09, Ref-10)

Related Recommendations (1)

R06: The Grand Jury recommends the Auditor-Controller make regular presentations to key stakeholders, such as the BOS and the CEO. These presentations would highlight and promote the work of the Internal Audit Division and increase its perceived value, particularly in the area of saving taxpayer’s money. (C-01, C-07)

F14: Many of the audit programs outside of the County that were examined by the Grand Jury issue annual reports which highlight the value they add to the community. Most will detail the status of implementation of the auditor’s recommendations. Some also identify cost savings generated from the implementation of audit recommendations. (Ref-07, Ref-09, Ref- 10, Ref-11, Ref-12)

Related Recommendations (2)

F15: Two key measures of the general effectiveness of an audit program are the organization’s audit recommendation acceptance rate and implementation rate. These two rates clearly indicate whether audited entities are using the information provided by audit reports to mitigate identified risks and to enhance the performance and efficiency of their operations. Other key measurements include the number of audit reports issued, the cost effects or savings, and the number of follow-up reports. (Ref-10, Ref-11, Ref-12) Conclusions C-01. There is no written evaluation or reporting available on the cost savings or revenue enhancing opportunities derived from audits conducted. These items are not routinely discussed with the CEO or the BOS. Budget requests for additional Internal Audit Division resources, including personnel, are rarely, if ever, presented as potential cost savings for the County. (FA-01,

February 27, 2017 — Ventura County Medical Center Accreditation

13 pages 8 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F01: The JC’s last full survey of VCMC was in May, 2014. The Accreditation Report considered Physical Environment, Patient Safety, and Patient Care. VCMC received full accreditation for three years, the maximum period allowed. There were four QPR reports for Patient Safety and Patient Care, the last in July, 2016.  Examples of Physical Environment Focus Areas o “Maintaining Fire Safety equipment” o “Management of risks associated with its utility systems” o “Hospital maintains the integrity of the means of egress”  Examples of Patient Safety Goals o “Improve the accuracy of patient identification” o “Improve the safety using medication” o “Reduce the risk of health infections”  Examples of Patient Care Domains o “Heart Failure Care” o “Pneumonia Care” o “Stroke Care” (Ref-06)

F02: The JC report of May, 2014 identified 11 issues regarding Physical Environment. At an unscheduled follow up survey in September, 2014, all issues were resolved.

F03: Of the 17 distinct indicators for Patient Safety, all national and state norms were met in the four QPRs. (Ref-06)

F04: The JC evaluated the VCMC on 10 different Domains for Patient Care, several on more than one occasion. Within these domains there were 94 separate clinical indicators such as timing of medications, appropriate use of laboratory tests, and discharge instructions. There were a total of 118 indicators evaluated in the four QPRs, some on multiple occasions. (Ref- 06) VCMC Accreditation 3

F05: The JC grades Patient Care performance as: Best Possible results, Above the Target range/value, Similar to the Target range/value, and Below the Target range/value. The average for the VCMC based on all four reports were: Result Indicators Percentage Best Possible 60 50.8% Above Target 19 16.2% Similar Target 34 28.8% Below Target 5 4.2% (Ref-06)

F06: The NSQIP is designed to stimulate and measure improvement in quality of care over a period of time. The report on VCMC tracked an average of 92 Quality indicators from January, 2011 through December, 2015. The Quality indicators were rated Exemplary, As Expected, and Need Improvement. The results from the full initial report and the most recent report were as follows: Ratings 01/11-12/11 01/15-12/15 Exemplary 0% 1% As Expected 83% 97% Need Improvement 17% 2% (Ref-03)

F07: VCMC was awarded the Stroke Gold Plus Quality Achievement Award from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association in 2016. This award recognized VCMC for two or more consecutive years of 85% or higher adherence on all applicable achievement measures and at least 75% or higher adherence with five or more select quality measures in stroke care. (Ref-04)

F08: VCMC was surveyed in June, 2015 by the MBSAQIP in partnership with the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS). VCMC achieved a Comprehensive Center accreditation for the maximum period allowed, three years. The MBSAQIP accreditation acknowledges VCMC’s commitment to providing and supporting quality improvement and patient safety for metabolic and bariatric surgery patients. (Ref-05) 4 VCMC Accreditation Conclusions C-01. The VCMC is performing very well as documented in the reports of the required assessments by the JC. (FA-02, FA-03, FA-05) C-02. In pursuit of improvement in quality of care, the VCMC has voluntarily sought and received additional accreditation by three nationally recognized organizations. Surveys by these organizations document consistent improvement in the quality of patient care. (FA-07, FA-08) Responses Responses Required From: None Responses Requested From: None Commendations  The Grand Jury commends VCMC for its record of performance as documented in accreditation surveys.  The Grand Jury also commends VCMC for seeking accreditation beyond what is required, and for its dedication to improvement in the quality of patient care. VCMC Accreditation 5 References Ref-01. Ventura County Health Care Agency 2015 Annual Report http://vcportal.ventura.org/VCHCA/pdf/AnnualReport_2-24-16.pdf (accessed February 9, 2017) Ref-02. The Joint Commission website https://www.jointcommission.org/ (accessed February 9, 2017) Ref-03. American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/acs-nsqip (accessed February 9, 2017) Ref-04. American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, Get With The Guidelines-Stroke Gold Plus Quality Achievement Award http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Professional/GetWithTheGuidelines/G etWithTheGuidelines-Stroke/Recognition-from-Get-With-The-Guidelines- Stroke_UCM_308034_Article.jsp#.WJzIV00zWUm (accessed February 9, 2017) Ref-05. Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/mbsaqip (accessed February 9, 2017) Ref-06. The Joint Commission, Accreditation Quality Report, 5/29/2014, 9/18/2014, 7/14/2015, 7/18/2016 for the Ventura Medical Center https://www.qualitycheck.org/accreditation-history/?bsnId=10178 (accessed February 9, 2017) 6 VCMC Accreditation Glossary TERM DEFINITION ACS American College of Surgeons ASMBS American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery CMS Federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Disproportionate share Hospital receiving additional Federal funds for hospital treatment of a disproportionate share of uninsured patients Grand Jury 2016-2017 Ventura County Grand Jury MBSAQIP Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program of the ACS NSQUIP National Surgical Quality Improvement Program of the ACS QPR Quality Performance Report JC The Joint Commission, formerly known as the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations Safety net hospital Hospital providing care for a large number of low-income or uninsured patients VCHCA Ventura County Health Care Agency VCMC Ventura County Medical Center, a hospital. When used by the JC and in Annual Reports of the VCHCA, VCMC includes Santa Paula hospital and related outpatient clinics VCMC Accreditation 7 8 VCMC Accreditation VCMC Accreditation 9 This page intentionally blank 10 VCMC Accreditation VCMC Accreditation 11

December 01, 2016 — Campaign Contributions Transparency

8 pages 11 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F01: The County’s website provides access only to electronically-recorded monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. The searcher must follow seven individual steps before arriving at a page which requires a specific name (last name only) and a filing date. Once the searcher gets to the “Summary Page”, four additional steps are required to get to the page which documents monetary contributions. On the Summary Page it is noted: “Only transactions from electronically filed documents are available through this website. Transactions from documents filed in paper format are not viewable with this search.” All records of monetary contributions made to elected County officials are available through the office of the Ventura County Clerk and Recorder/Registrar of Voters. (Ref-01)

F02: The City of Camarillo’s website does not provide access to records of monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. The information is available through the City Clerk’s Office. (Ref-02)

F03: The City of Fillmore’s website does not provide access to records of monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. The information is available through the City Clerk’s Office. (Ref-03)

F04: The City of Moorpark’s website does not provide access to records of monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. The information is available through the City Clerk’s Office. (Ref-04)

F05: The City of Ojai’s website does not provide access to records of monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. The information is available through the City Clerk’s Office. (Ref-05)

F06: The City of Oxnard’s website provides access to records of monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. From the home page: http://www.oxnard.org Click >> City Departments >> City Council >> Election Information Campaign Disclosures >>(year) Campaign 2 Campaign Contributions Transparency disclosures. The information is also available through the City Clerk’s Office. (Ref-06)

F07: The City of Port Hueneme’s website does not provide access to records of monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. The information is available through the City Clerk’s Office. (Ref-07)

F08: The City of Santa Paula’s website does not provide access to records of monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. The information is available through the City Clerk’s Office. (Ref-08)

F09: The City of Simi Valley’s website provides access to records of monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. From the home page: http://www.simivalley.org Click >> Departments >> City Council >> City Council Campaign Disclosures. The information is also available through the City Clerk’s Office. (Ref-09)

F10: The City of Thousand Oak’s website provides access to records of monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. From the home page: http://www.toaks.org Click >> Departments >> City Clerk >> Election Disclosures >> Council Member. The information is also available through the City Clerk’s Office. (Ref-10)

F11: The City of San Buenaventura (Ventura) provides access to records of monetary contributions made to candidates for public office. From the home page: http://www.cityofventura.net Click >> Departments >> City Manager >> City Clerk >> Campaign Disclosures Statements >> (Office holder by name). The information is also available through the City Clerk’s Office. (Ref-11) Conclusions C-01. The County’s website only provides access to transactions from electronically filed documents. However, the website is overly complicated, not intuitive, and may require the assistance of county staff in its navigation. Access to records of non-electronically filed monetary contributions requires a visit to the Registrar of Voters Office. (FA-01) C-02. The Cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme and Santa Paula provide access to records of monetary contributions made to their candidates for public office only through their City Clerk’s Office. (FA-02,

May 06, 2016 — Grand Jury 800 South Victoria Avenue

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

January 22, 2016 — For Immediate Release Contact: Foreperson Janice Feingold

1 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.