Gran Jurado del Condado de Ventura
2020-2021
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
16 hallazgos
F01:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO provides training to its deputies that exceeds the minimum basic academy training hours recommended by POST by approximately 273 hours, or 41%.
F02:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO conducts thorough background investigations as part of its efforts to identify bias of its recruits and past instances that may lead to the use of improper force.
F03:
The Grand Jury finds that since bias, especially implicit bias, is a result of prior influences and imprints, it cannot be completely eliminated.
F04:
The Grand Jury finds that law enforcement agencies can help to mitigate the impact of bias in their interaction with the community through policies and the enforcement of those policies.
F05:
The Grand Jury finds that training can allow an individual to identify his or her biases, become aware of the impact those biases can have on his or her perception of people and situations, and help to mitigate that impact.
F06:
The Grand Jury finds that the very nature of policing involves the possibility of the use of force and the need to make decisions under pressure.
F07:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO’s Policies and Learning Domains appear to address the items required by California Senate Bill 230.
F08:
The Grand Jury finds that law enforcement can work to minimize the use of improper force through policies and training.
F09:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO’s policy regarding BWCs contains an element of discretion as to when the BWC is to be turned on or off.
F10:
The Grand Jury finds that BWC information can be an important element in determining the outcome of many citizen complaints.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCSO require activation of BWCs when responding to all calls for service and during all enforcement-related encounters and activities. (F-09, F-10)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends that, once a BWC is activated, whether in accordance with the previous recommendation or for any other reason, VCSO require the BWC to remain in recording mode until the conclusion of the encounter/activity or the officer has left the scene, except for limited exceptions announced while the BWC is recording. (F-09, F-10)
F11:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO makes an internal determination of the outcome of citizen complaints filed against its deputies.
F12:
The Grand Jury did not find any pattern of bias or use of improper force in the citizen complaints reviewed by the Grand Jury for the calendar years 2018 through 2020. Policing by VCSO
F13:
The Grand Jury finds that California AB 1185 provides a vehicle for civilian oversight of county sheriffs through the authorization of sheriff oversight boards.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors consider creating a sheriff oversight board with respect to VCSO as authorized by AB 1185. (F-11, F-13, F-14, F-15)
F14:
The Grand Jury finds that the BOS’s November 10, 2020 Resolution 20- 126, did not specially address AB 1185.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors consider creating a sheriff oversight board with respect to VCSO as authorized by AB 1185. (F-11, F-13, F-14, F-15)
F15:
The Grand Jury finds that the creation of a sheriff oversight board for VCSO would benefit both VCSO and the public by increasing accountability and transparency, and would serve to provide an additional level of trust to community members who encounter deputies.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors consider creating a sheriff oversight board with respect to VCSO as authorized by AB 1185. (F-11, F-13, F-14, F-15)
F16:
The Grand Jury finds that VCSO’s Citizen’s Complaint Form does not comply with the express wording and formatting requirements of PC Section 148.6(a)(2). RECOMMENDATIONS
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCSO revise its Citizen Complaint Form to comply with the express wording and formatting requirements of California Penal Code Section 148.6(a)(2). (F-16) RESPONSES Responses required from: The following elected officers or agency heads within 60 days: Ventura County Sheriff (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06, F-07, F-08, F-09, F-10,
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
13 hallazgos
F01:
The Grand Jury finds that bus drivers are expected to do a demanding set of tasks: simultaneously drive a bus while following all the rules of the road and monitor and respond to any behavioral issues during the bus ride.
F02:
The Grand Jury finds that among special education students, autistic, emotionally disturbed, and combined loss of hearing and vision students are distinctly vulnerable populations that would benefit from increased supervisory presence on the school bus.
F03:
The Grand Jury finds that VCOE transports a significant number of County special education students, including autistic, emotionally disturbed, and those with combined loss of hearing and vision.
F04:
The Grand Jury finds that the County SELPA is a valuable resource for any family with a child who has special needs.
F05:
The Grand Jury finds that VCOE follows an established process to assign a transportation aide for special education students on the bus through an IEP.
F06:
The Grand Jury finds that VCOE transportation personnel (bus drivers and transportation administrators) are rarely included in student IEP meetings.
F07:
The Grand Jury finds that VCOE uses a case-by-case method for determining the need for a non-IEP assigned bus attendant to a school bus.
F08:
The Grand Jury finds that the current policy and practice of submission of Bus Conduct Report Forms at VCOE does not include a method for analyzing information from completed Bus Conduct Report Forms to identify and determine trends and recurring safety issues on buses for special education students.
F09:
The Grand Jury finds that the VCOE Policy and Procedures for Transportation of Special Education Students does not include a procedure regarding the use of bus attendants as suggested by the California Special Education Transportation Guidelines.
F10:
The Grand Jury finds that VCOE has no written standards, policies, or procedures by which a school administrator can evaluate the need for and request a bus attendant on a special education school bus.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCOE adopt a procedure by which a VCOE administrator can evaluate the need for, and request, a bus attendant. (F-10, F-11)
F11:
The Grand Jury finds that having an additional adult on a school bus transporting student with behavioral problems is one of several strategies that would increase supervision and safety on buses for special education students.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCOE adopt a procedure that relates to strategies for assuring increased supervision and a safe environment on a school bus. Strategies could include assigning bus attendants to buses carrying students of higher risk, for example, autistic, emotionally disturbed, or deaf/blind students. Another strategy could be installing internal cameras or other innovative systems on special education school buses. (F-02, F-11, F-12, F-13) RESPONSES Responses required from: The following elected officer within 60 days: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-05, F-06, F-07,
F12:
The Grand Jury finds that installation of video cameras on a school bus is one of several strategies that would increase supervision and safety on buses for special education students. School Bus Safety for Special Education Students
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCOE adopt a procedure that relates to strategies for assuring increased supervision and a safe environment on a school bus. Strategies could include assigning bus attendants to buses carrying students of higher risk, for example, autistic, emotionally disturbed, or deaf/blind students. Another strategy could be installing internal cameras or other innovative systems on special education school buses. (F-02, F-11, F-12, F-13) RESPONSES Responses required from: The following elected officer within 60 days: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-05, F-06, F-07,
F13:
The Grand Jury finds that new systems for school bus monitoring and supervision are being explored and utilized by at least one County school district. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recomendaciones adicionales
2
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCOE include transportation personnel in scheduled student IEP meetings when the student needs adaptive or assistive equipment, when school bus equipment is required to be modified or a when a behavior intervention plan is to be implemented for pupils exhibiting severe behavioral difficulties, as recommended by the California Special Education Guidelines. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-05, F-06,
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCOE adopt a standardized, predictive approach of analyzing data from Bus Conduct Report Forms to identify trends in behaviors that lead to unsafe situations, with the goal of developing specific strategies to minimize those risks. (F-08, F-09)