Home
California Grand Jury Reports
County of San Bernardino Grand Jury final report
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
County of San Bernardino Grand Jury final report
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
2005- 2006
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
Mel Abeyta, Chair
Susan Brewster
Tom Hale
Betty Hornbrook
Elaine Marable
Mark Taylor
The Editorial Committee would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their hard work and invaluable
assistance in the preparation of the Final Report of the 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury.
Graphic Arts Silvia Schreiber, Graphic Designer
Cover Design Karizma Villafuerte, Graphic Designer
Photograph Roddy Padilla, Graphic Arts
Printing Services County Printing Services Personnel
Typing/ Preparation Susan Shuey, Grand Jury Assistant
351 North Arrowhead Avenue, Room 200, Courthouse
San Bernardino, CA 92415- 0243 • ( 909) 387- 3820
Fax ( 909) 387- 4170
GRAND JURY COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
FOREMAN’S STATEMENT
The 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury is pleased to present this final report
to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors,
and the citizens of San Bernardino County.
This has been a very active year for the Grand Jury. Normally, the Grand Jury’s year
starts out with 19 citizens who have to spend the first 4 or 5 months of their year just learning
about the County operations through visitations by each of the department heads and their
staff. It is not until those visits/ presentations are complete that the Grand Jury can proceed with
its department investigations. This year we were fortunate to have six former Grand Jurors who
applied and were selected to serve. This helped tremendously in getting us started with our
investigations sooner and helped everyone have a better understanding of the Grand Jury
process.
I was one of the former Grand Jurors selected, and feel honored that I was chosen by
the Presiding Judge to be the Foreman. This is a responsibility that I did not take lightly. I would
like to thank all of the 18 other Grand Jurors who made my job so very easy this past year.
Without them, nothing would have been accomplished.
The Grand Jury’s goal is to complete a Final Report by the end of June and submit it to
the Presiding Judge and the Board of Supervisors by July 1. The Board of Supervisors then has
up to 90 days to respond. In many instances, the Grand Jury may have completed some of its
investigations in October or November of the preceding year, but the report doesn’t go to the
Board of Supervisors until July of the next year; and then they don’t respond until October,
possibly 12 months after the completion of the investigation! At that point, the term of the
Grand Jury who wrote the report has been over for three months and they have no opportunity
to respond to the County’s response.
The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury felt it was critical that if an investigation turned up important
issues that should not be held up until the Final Report, we should initiate the option of submitting
an Interim Report. The Penal Code allows for such a report, but the Board of Supervisors is still
not required to answer until it responds to the Final Report. But at least the information and the
Grand Jury’s recommendations will be published for the citizens of the County and the Board to
see and perhaps act upon.
During the 2005- 2006 year, this Grand Jury released four ( 4) Interim Reports. The
Grand Jury felt these issues were important enough that we did not want to wait until the end of
our term to bring them out in the open. All four of these Interim Reports are included in this Final
Report. I hope that future Grand Juries will give consideration to issuing more Interim Reports.
If we truly find a problem that needs correcting now, the Grand Jury shouldn’t wait for a year to
let the County know of this issue.
The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Foreman discussed in his Statement in that Final Report the
issue of the costs to the County and its citizens of services to illegal immigrants. At the beginning
of the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury term, I requested all Grand Jury committee and sub- committee
chairmen ask each and every department they investigated if: ( 1) They provided services to
illegal immigrants; ( 2) If so, what services; ( 3) What is the County cost of these services to illegal
immigrants; and ( 4) Has anyone told them that they cannot ask users of the service about their
legal status? You will find a report on this subject contained in this Final Report. We believe you
will find it quite disturbing when you see the dollar amounts illegal immigrants are costing the
County and taxpayers from just six ( 6) departments.
The Grand Jury has a difficult job. We are saddled with the role of investigating a
government operation with almost 18,000 employees; all departments/ entities of the County
government ( 58); plus special districts. It is impossible to do a thorough investigation of this
massive operation. But, each and every year 19 dedicated citizens of the County attempt to
accomplish this task. Even though the job is almost impossible, the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury made
every effort to comply with their Charge. I again must give my thanks and congratulations to
them for a job well done.
I would also like to state that this Grand Jury believes that the majority of San Bernardino
County employees are truly dedicated and want to do a good job. The department heads and
department supervisors were very cooperative in helping the Grand Jury understand what their
departments’ job was all about. There were a few times when we felt we were being “ stonewalled”
in hopes we would go away, but not too often. I would especially like to thank Mark Uffer, County
Administrative Officer. Mr. Uffer has been extremely cooperative with this Grand Jury.
Finally, I take my hat off to the two people who make the Grand Jury’s job possible. Sue
Shuey, Grand Jury Assistant, and Clark Hansen, Jr., Deputy District Attorney and Grand Jury
Legal Advisor. These two individuals provide leadership, guidance and support throughout the
year. They have been doing this for many, many years and are a tremendous asset to the
Grand Jury, the Superior Court and the County of San Bernardino, both government and the
citizenry. I thank them for making my job so much easier.
BRADFORD L. KUIPER
Foreman
2005- 2006 Grand Jury
2005- 2006 GRAND JURY
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Bradford L. Kuiper Foreman
J. Mark Taylor Foreman Pro Tem
Susan S. Brewster Secretary
Lawrence E. Rich Assistant Secretary
Allen D. ( Skip) Burt Sergeant- at- Arms
Melvin E. Abeyta Highland
Gordon G. Bjorklund Running Springs
Susan S. Brewster Alta Loma
Franklin J. Browning Bloomington
Allen D. ( Skip) Burt Alta Loma
Kenneth E. Dean Hesperia
Arden C. Fritz Yucaipa
Thomas H. Hale Redlands
Betty Lou Hornbrook Yucaipa
Bradford L. Kuiper Apple Valley
Elaine M. Marable Apple Valley
Catherine P. Meister Colton
Melinda J. O’Connor Hesperia
Jenny L. Overton San Bernardino
M. A. “ Kelly” Potter Hesperia
Lawrence E. Rich Rialto
J. Mark Taylor Apple Valley
Frank B. Travis Chino
RESIGNATIONS:
Joetta Lee Moore ( August 2005) Chino Hills
Joe A. Diaz ( August 2005) Alta Loma
Roberta F. Minor ( August 2005) Fontana
Michael Martinez ( May 2006) Ontario
Presiding Judge 2005 Peter H. Norell
Presiding Judge 2006 Larry W. Allen
Legal Advisor Clark A. Hansen, Jr.
Grand Jury Assistant Susan L. Shuey
11
San Bernardino Mountains
SB Government Center
SB Architecture
Front ( left to right): Susan L. Shuey ( Grand Jury Assistant), Catherine Meister, Clark A. Hansen, Jr. ( Grand Jury Legal Advisor), Kelly Potter, Frank Travis, Brad Kuiper
( Foreman), Presiding Judge Larry W. Allen, Gordon Bjorklund, Elaine Marable, Sue Shuey ( Assistant to the Grand Jury Assistant)
Back ( left to right): Larry Rich, Mark Taylor, Susan Brewster, Tom Hale, Arden Fritz, Mel Abeyta, Frank Browning, Skip Burt, Betty Hornbrook, Jenny Overton, Ken
Dean, Melinda O’Connor
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2005- 2006 GRAND JURY
FINAL REPORT
Page
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE 1
County Administrative Office 2
Human Resources Department 4
Superintendent of Schools 6
Interim Report:
Is Your Life At Risk? 8
Board of Supervisors Response 13
Interim Report:
Why Isn’t There Competition? 18
COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE 23
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 24
Community Development & Housing 25
County Library 26
County Museum 28
Regional Parks 29
HEALTH CARE SERVICES COMMITTEE 32
Public Health Department
Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency ( ICEMA) 34
Page
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE 36
Department of Aging and Adult Services
Adult Protective Services 37
Long- Term Care Ombudsman 38
Department of Children’s Services
Child Protective Services 40
Foster Home Services 41
Independent Living Program 43
LAW AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE 46
District Attorney
Public Integrity Unit 48
Public Defender 50
Sheriff- Coroner
Coroner Division 52
Scientific Investigations Division 53
Interim Report:
And You Thought “ In- N- Out Was a Hamburger” 55
PUBLIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES COMMITTEE 58
Architecture and Engineering Department 59
County Fire Department
Office of Emergency Services 61
Fleet Management Department 63
Real Estate Services Department 65
Registrar of Voters 67
AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT
Does San Bernardino County Have Untapped Resources? 69
Illegal Immigrants 72
ADMINISTRATIVE AND AUDIT
COMMITTEE
Arden Fritz, Chairman
Mel Abeyta
Gordon Bjorklund
Susan Brewster
Skip Burt
Tom Hale
Betty Hornbrook
Melinda O’Connor
Jenny Overton
Larry Rich
Mark Taylor
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
1
ADMINISTRATIVE AND AUDIT
COMMITTEE
The Administrative and Audit Committee investigated the following boards,
departments and agencies:
Assessor
Auditor/ Controller- Recorder
Board of Supervisors
County Administrative Office
Human Resources
Purchasing Department
Superintendent of Schools
The departments under Administrative and Audit have been through a number of
changes in the past two years. The new County Administrative Officer has endeavored to
streamline operations and improve customer service.
Two committee members attended all of the Board of Supervisors’ meetings,
including those that were scheduled in other areas of the County. Two Interim Reports
were prepared concerning air ambulance services, which were filed with the Board of
Supervisors. The committee received one complaint, which resulted in a final report on
the Human Resources Department.
The actions of the Administrative and Audit Committee resulted in the following
findings and recommendations.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
2
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
BACKGROUND
The County Administrative Office is responsible for developing and implementing
budgets, policies and procedures, directing departmental activities in accordance with the
County Charter and general laws, and carrying out the strategic goals adopted by the
Board of Supervisors.
The County Administrative Office is under the direction of the County
Administrative Officer ( CAO) who is appointed by, and reports directly to, the Board of
Supervisors. The CAO oversees the operations of County departments and assists in the
coordination of activities of departments headed by elected officials.
On September 8, 2005 the Board of Supervisors ratified a proclamation of a local
emergency regarding Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. The County responded by providing
medical, hospital, social services, public health, mental health, public safety, fire, public
works, and other resources to aid in the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts both locally and to
the incident.
FINDINGS
Fourteen ( 14) County personnel traveled by truck convoy to Gulfport, Mississippi to
deliver the surplus goods and other donated items. In addition, eight high level County
officials, three members of the Board of Supervisors, along with two Supervisors’ Chiefs of
Staff, and 13 other elected officials and high level management staff from other local
public agencies traveled together to Gulfport in one charter flight. This was in violation of
County Travel Policy No. 12- 08.
The trip was a fact- finding mission to give County officials the opportunity to see
first- hand the effects of a major disaster and to learn lessons from Gulfport’s response to
relief and recovery efforts. The County’s Administrative Officer stated “… the trip served
as the impetus for the formation of a County Disaster Task Force to review the County’s
Emergency Preparedness Plan and apply any lessons that were learned during the
Gulfport mission.”
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
3
County Travel Policy 12- 08 states, in part, that “ No more than two members of the
Board of Supervisors shall travel together on whatever transportation mode is utilized” and
“ Department Heads and Assistant Department Heads or their immediate subordinates are
strongly discouraged from traveling together on the same flights or other common
carrier.” This is to ensure that the management of County government is not jeopardized
by multiple injuries or fatalities to County executives traveling together on common
carriers on County related business. If a serious accident with the chartered flight had
occurred that resulted in major injuries or deaths, the ongoing management of County
government and the other public agencies within the County, would have been
jeopardized.
The Grand Jury finds that even though this endeavor may be commendable and its
humanitarian efforts applauded, public opinion appears to be mixed on the value of the
trip and the costs incurred by the County. The type of disaster that Gulfport experienced
( flooding) is not one that this County would likely experience. A San Bernardino County
major disaster would probably be an earthquake or a major fire calamity.
The Grand Jury also found the County Administrative Officer does not currently do
annual Work Performance Evaluations on department heads. He stated department heads
know what they have to do and their job duties and responsibilities are listed in their job
description. If a department head is not doing his/ her job, he gets rid of them. Currently,
departmental evaluations are financially based. Departments are evaluated on their
budgets, programs, and achievements accomplished.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 01 COUNTY POLICY 12- 08 BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH BY ALL COUNTY
ELECTED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES ON ALL COUNTY AUTHORIZED
BUSINESS TRAVEL.
06- 02 ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT A POLICY FOR ANNUAL WORK
PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF ALL COUNTY DEPARTMENT HEADS.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
4
HUMAN RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
During an investigation into allegations made against a San Bernardino County
employee, several areas of concern came to our attention regarding the Human Resources
Department’s policies. Members met with the Director of Human Resources for
clarification of our concerns regarding job reclassification and/ or upgrading, job
descriptions, and employee background checks.
FINDINGS
When a position is being considered for reclassification, Human Resources and the
office of the County Administrative Office ( CAO) review the current duties and
responsibilities of the position under consideration. Wording changes in the job title may
be required due to changes in technology or technical requirements. If justified, a
reclassification or an upgrade is recommended. The CAO’s office and the affected
department approve the job title change. It is then recommended to the Board of
Supervisors that the request for reclassification be approved, subject to final approval
from the Human Resources Department. The job descriptions, in some cases, are not
complete when submitted to the Board for approval. Writing a job description after the
fact makes it appear the job description is being written around a person already holding
the position. Most counties complete the job description first, obtain final approval from
the appropriate administration, and then fill the position under the new job description.
The County does background checks on most applicants being considered for
employment. This is limited to a medical exam, drug testing, and a DMV check. If the
position is for a high level post, or one that includes working with finances, a more
thorough background check is done. The current policy on background checks is not
consistent throughout the County, and they are not required for those hired for “ at will”
( appointed) positions. The Human Resources Department is working on a new
background check policy that will set standards for positions from entry level ( level 1) to
the highest positions requiring a more extensive background investigation ( level 4). This
policy, if approved, will apply to any employees hired by the Board of Supervisors, new
hires, and any promotional upgrades working for the County. Background checks cannot
be done on present employees without just cause.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
5
Currently the County does not have a program in place with the Department of
Motor Vehicles ( DMV) to automatically notify the County when a County employee has
been charged with or convicted of any violations of the Vehicle Code. It is up to the
employee to notify his or her supervisor of any such incidents. If an employee’s license
has been suspended for any reason, it could be putting the County at risk, especially with
employees who drive County vehicles or conduct County business using their own
personal vehicles.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 03 REVISE THE RECLASSIFICATION AND/ OR UPGRADE PROCESS TO PROVIDE
FOR A COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE FILLING THE POSITION.
06- 04 IMPLEMENT A STANDARD BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY FOR ALL NEW,
UPGRADED, AND “ AT WILL” EMPLOYEES.
06- 05 IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
( DMV) THAT ALERTS THE COUNTY TO VIOLATIONS INVOLVING A COUNTY
EMPLOYEE.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
6
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
BACKGROUND
The County Superintendent of Schools ( CSS) employs a staff of 2,000 that includes
five assistant superintendents and a management team of 30. Their office is located in
San Bernardino, and was built by the County in 1984. By Contract Agreement 84- 552, the
County is required to monetarily cover the costs of utilities and maintenance. What began
as a $ 196,541 annual expenditure 21 years ago now has escalated to $ 1,200,000.
FINDINGS
Short of audit authority, the Grand Jury could determine little oversight or authority
the Superintendent has over San Bernardino County’s school systems. Even with audits,
their responsibility was limited to simply determining if each school district had sufficient
money available to cover their budget. The County Superintendent of Schools had no
input into budgeting items or procedures. Even though all County schools are on the CSS
accounting system, abuse or mishandling of Associated Student Body funds ( as in the San
Bernardino High School incident in November 2005) goes undetected.
School districts are not required to report absences and truancies to CSS; districts
must first request CSS assistance before they can become involved. The 129 San
Bernardino County schools that were not meeting their Annual Yearly Progress goals are
only accountable to themselves and the State, not the County Superintendent of Schools.
When inquiries were made to determine the extent of illegal immigrant attendance,
CSS chooses to interpret Plyler v. Doe as prohibition to identify, even though that court
decision specifically applies to denial of services. Clearly, the Grand Jury only wanted to
identify costs involving the 14,000 classrooms in the San Bernardino County school
system, each with 20 or more non- English speaking students.
The above assimilation of facts is in no way meant to suggest that the County
Superintendent of Schools is denying or shirking responsibilities. It is to say that the time
has come to recognize the benefit of the CSS to the County would not denigrate with the
transfer of funding to the State. Currently, the State of California reduces financial
support to CSS to the extent of county funding. We are the lowest State- funded County
Superintendent of Schools in California, and one of only three that is not totally funded by
the State.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
7
RECOMMENDATION
06- 06 THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OFFICE SEEK LEGISLATIVE
ACTION TO BECOME FISCALLY INDEPENDENT, AND THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE WORK WITH THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT
TO DEVELOP A PROCESS TO MOVE TOWARD FISCAL INDEPENDENCE
WHILE SUSTAINING CURRENT AND FUTURE FISCAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, TO
ENSURE NO REDUCTION OF STATE REVENUES TO THE COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OFFICE.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
8
INTERIM REPORT
Released November 10, 2005
IS YOUR LIFE AT RISK?
On October 13, 2005, an unfortunate incident occurred in Apple Valley involving a
young man on a bicycle, who was struck by a passing automobile. The Adelanto- based
Mercy air ambulance was unavailable, and the Sheriff’s air rescue helicopter was on
another incident in Victorville. The next Mercy air ambulance on the list was also
unavailable. The third Mercy airship took the call, only to report back three minutes later
that it was also unavailable. At that point, personnel at the scene decided to do a ground
transport to Loma Linda University Medical Center.
On October 6, 2005, there was another unfortunate incident involving a young
motorcyclist and two vehicles, requiring three air transport helicopters. The Sheriff’s air
rescue helicopter responded to the initial call. When the call came for the second air
ambulance unit, Mercy’s first three air ambulances were unavailable, and it became
necessary to go to the Mercy unit assigned in Banning. California City Air Ambulance was
not called.
In early 2004, unavailability was again the issue when there was a traffic accident
on Highway 58 at the BNSF Railroad crossing west of Kramer Junction. The first two
Mercy units were not available. While the third Mercy unit responded some 37 minutes
later, California City Air Ambulance had an ETA of less than ten minutes. In spite of the
restrictions imposed by giving priority to Mercy Air, California City Air Ambulance continued
to provide “ last resort” services as a mutual aid provider to San Bernardino County on ten
occasions during 2004.
gold- en hour adj. That time period when most trauma patients,
suffering from shock, can most likely be saved.
Trauma begins the moment a person is involved in a serious accident. If trauma is
severe enough, circulation becomes impaired or non- existent, and chemical changes in the
body bring on shock. If bleeding can be stopped and blood pressure restored within that
golden hour, the medical community contends that a patients’ chances of surviving are
greatly increased.
Some trauma patients in San Bernardino County may not have been afforded that
increased chance for survival.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
9
In April, there was an accident involving three vehicles near Kramer Junction,
resulting in seven patients, six of which had to be extricated, four needed immediate
attention by a trauma unit, and one expired at the scene. Two Mercy units were
dispatched rather than utilizing the services of California City Air Ambulance, who could
have arrived at the scene approximately 30 minutes prior to arrival of Mercy’s second
airship. ICEMA’s ( Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency) staff report to the
Emergency Medical Care Committee ( EMCC) included this information, also noting there
could potentially have been “ four fatalities”.
Under authority of the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 9, Chapter
8, Section 100276, ICEMA is the governing body designated to recommend and approve
EMS ( emergency medical service) aircraft policies, as well as recommend the integration
of EMS aircraft into San Bernardino County’s transport system. The San Bernardino
County Board of Supervisors is also the ICEMA Board of Directors.
In early 2004, ICEMA recognized inherent delays with San Bernardino County’s ALS
( Advanced Life Support) system due, in part, to there being only one permitted provider:
Mercy Air. Having proven the need and necessity to increase emergency medical
helicopter assistance in the Highway 395/ Highway 58 corridor in the High Desert of San
Bernardino County, ICEMA approached California City Air Ambulance with a request for
them to become qualified under ICEMA’s pre- hospital requirements. After completion of a
study, ICEMA proposed to the EMCC in January 2005, that California City Air Ambulance
be permitted to operate within San Bernardino County’s 20,000 square miles to improve
response times in certain corridors. This proposal passed by EMCC 8- 0, with one
abstention.
California City Air Ambulance agreed to pursue the permitting process, and after an
out- of- pocket expense of $ 48,500, passed all qualifications and signed an agreement with
ICEMA on June 8, 2005 to become permitted to operate in San Bernardino County.
On June 21, 2005, Item 130, “ Agreement with California City Fire Department to
Authorize and Classify Advanced Life Support Air Ambulance Service” was placed on the
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors’ Consent Calendar for approval. The County
Administrative Office, County Counsel and Department of Public Health supported this
action. The First District Supervisor requested that Item 130 be continued until July 12,
2005.
On July 12, 2005 the item again appeared on the Consent Calendar, and this time
the First District Supervisor pulled it off calendar without explanation. As of the date of
this report, the Board of Supervisors’ has never voted on this issue.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
10
This Grand Jury was sworn in July 1, 2005, and in August began an investigation
into the status of this matter. San Bernardino County is divided into 18 HDZ’s ( helicopter
demand zones) in order to cover emergency medical evacuation needs. While San
Bernardino County air space is non- exclusive, Mercy Air is the only permitted company,
aside from the Sheriff’s air rescue unit, operating within the County. Others, such as
California City Air Ambulance, are not permitted and can only provide service within the
County as a mutual aid provider. Being a “ non- permitted” or mutual aid provider means:
1. On- board medical equipment may not meet ICEMA standards and
medical personnel on board may not have the required qualifications.
2. Because of infrequency of use in most areas of San Bernardino
County, pilots and crews of mutual aid providers are not always
current on flight routes, facilities and other associated issues with
regard to critical timing issues.
3. The only permitted carrier ( Mercy Air) receives absolute priority over
all mutual aid providers, even though response times may not
be superior.
Air ambulance dispatches increased from 1,382 in 2002 to 1,819 in 2004, an
increase of 32 percent. As populations increase, it is likely that trauma incidents requiring
air ambulance rescue will also increase. Of necessity, resources providing this service
must also increase.
After interviewing ICEMA personnel, as well as California City’s Fire Chief, inquiry
was made of each member of the Board of Supervisors as to the status of the ICEMA
recommendation that was pulled from the Board’s agenda. Of the five Supervisors, the
Board Chairman took responsibility, advising that he was “… not convinced that providing
a permit to California City Air Ambulance was the right thing to do.” He further stated “…
the Board has to concern itself with the financial security and stability of its current
provider”. Mercy Air’s business manager has also written several letters of objection to
ICEMA, EMCC, and the Board of Supervisors.
Inasmuch as ICEMA’s endorsement request had only recommended approval for
California City Air Ambulance to be “ third on the list” in only three of the 18 HDZ’s, it was
obvious that this, in itself, would not cause the insolvency of a major provider such as
Mercy Air, whose parent company, Air Methods, reported second quarter 2005 results of a
net income increase of 32 percent. The only “ financial issue” the County Board of
Supervisors should have concern for is that they can ill afford not to provide additional
emergency aircraft resources. ICEMA should be allowed to function in its intended
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
11
capacity. The Board of Supervisors should not discount ICEMA’s expertise and allow
Mercy Air’s business manager to override the recommendation of its own designated
authority.
Further investigation revealed that 9- 1- 1 and emergency transport calls are not the
greatest monetary provider to the air ambulance industry. The bigger picture is in “ after
the fact inter- hospital transports.” In that regard, only those providers with a permit from
ICEMA are allowed to provide such service. Therefore, Mercy Air is now the sole provider
of inter- hospital service, and there is no restriction or cap on the amount that can be
charged for this service. Indeed, if the Board of Supervisors desired to operate the
County’s air ambulance service in the best financial interests of its citizens, they would
consider the fact that California City Air Ambulance is a non- profit entity.
The tendency might be to divert criticism toward Mercy Air; however, mechanical
failures do occur, and an extraordinary sequence of events will sometimes preclude
availability of equipment. Under FAA regulations, helicopters must be periodically
grounded for necessary inspections and, in the free- enterprise system, companies will
work hard to gain a competitive advantage. However, no provider of services should ever
be allowed to position itself to dictate to the County. It is not cost effective or efficient to
allow a single- source provider. If any company doing business in San Bernardino County
is financially unstable, it is not the responsibility of the County Supervisors to protect
them. The Board of Supervisors must be in the business of protecting the health and
welfare of its citizens.
A review of public records found that Mercy Air and its parent company, Air
Methods, based in Colorado, have over a period of time, contributed thousands of dollars
to the campaigns of several former and current members of the San Bernardino County
Board of Supervisors. When genuine concern for the safety of constituents gives way to
politics, the public suffers!
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 07 THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SITTING AS
THE GOVERNING BOARD OF INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL
AGENCY ( ICEMA) SHOULD APPROVE THE PERMITTING OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AIR AMBULANCE AS AN ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT ( ALS) PROVIDER
WITHIN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ITS
CITIZENS WITH THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO REACH A TRAUMA CENTER
WITHIN THAT CRITICAL “ GOLDEN HOUR.”
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
12
06- 08 INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY SHOULD REVISE THE
HDZ ( HELICOPTER DEMAND ZONE) PROVIDER LIST. QUICKEST
RESPONSE TIMES SHOULD BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN DECIDING
WHICH PERMITTED PROVIDER IS FIRST CALLED TO RESPOND TO THE
NEED.
06- 09 OTHER AIR AMBULANCE PROVIDERS WHO HAVE APPLIED AND BEEN
DENIED IN THE PAST SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED. IF THEY COMPLY
WITH ICEMA’S QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, THEY SHOULD ALSO BE
GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUALIFY AS A PERMITTED AIR AMBULANCE
PROVIDER.
06- 10 THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHOULD NOT SERVE AS THE
GOVERNING BOARD OF INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY
( ICEMA). IN ADDITION MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
ICEMA SHOULD NEVER BE IN A POSITION TO ACCEPT DONATIONS OR
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY PERMITTED PROVIDER OR ITS
PARENT COMPANY.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
13
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RESPONSE TO
NOVEMBER 10, 2005 INTERIM REPORT
OF THE 2005- 2006 COUNTY GRAND JURY
January 31, 2005
The County of San Bernardino welcomes the grand jury’s interest in the important
subject of air ambulance Advanced Life Support services within the County. However,
the grand jury’s interim report dated November 10, 2005, contains key inaccuracies and
is not in the County’s view a balanced account of the current status of air ambulance
service in the County.
As an overall premise, the report erroneously states the public’s safety is at risk
because California City Air Ambulance in Kern County has not been granted a permit to
provide Advanced Life Support services within San Bernardino County. This conclusion
creates the false impression that California City’s services are not available to accident
victims in San Bernardino County and is based on the inaccurate notion that a permit
would improve air ambulance response times and availability.
In fact, California City has been and would continue to be utilized as a provider of
emergency air services in the County regardless of whether it is granted a permit. It
must be noted that a permit would not change the fact that California City has only one
helicopter in its fleet, and that currently it has no helicopters at its disposal, compared
to eight owned by Mercy serving the County and 15 total from all providers serving the
County ( California City’s one helicopter has been removed from service, and the agency
does not expect to have a replacement aircraft in operation until late April). Also, a
permit would not move California City’s helicopter any further up on the priority call list.
The grand jury’s interim report contains errors of fact and omission that call the report’s
conclusions and recommendations into question. They include:
The grand jury used an account of an October 13, 2005 emergency incident to
support its conclusion that granting California City a permit would increase the
availability of air ambulance service in San Bernardino County. The grand jury’s
account of the incident omits the fact that California City was contacted to
respond to the incident, but that its one helicopter was unavailable.
The grand jury used an account of an October 6, 2005 emergency incident to
support its conclusion that granting California City a permit would improve air
ambulance response times. The grand jury’s account of the incident omits the
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
14
fact that the units that were contacted all responded in less than 40 minutes,
and that a permit for California City would not have affected response times for
that incident.
The grand jury used an account of an April 18, 2004 emergency incident also to
support its conclusion that granting California City a permit would improve air
ambulance response times. The grand jury concluded that California City’s
helicopter “ could have arrived at the scene approximately 30 minutes prior to
arrival of Mercy’s second airship.” This would have been impossible given the
fact that the Mercy helicopters arrived a respective 25 minutes and 27 minutes
after they were dispatched.
The grand jury reported that Mercy air “ receives absolute priority over all mutual
aid providers, even though response times may not be superior.” This is false.
In some regions, California City is higher in the dispatch order than some Mercy
units. For instance, in Red Mountain, California City is third in the dispatch
order, ahead of six Mercy units. In Barstow, California City is fifth in the dispatch
order, ahead of seven Mercy units. In some of the more remote regions of the
County, mutual aid providers are first in the dispatch order, ahead of all
permitted units.
The grand jury states “ California City Air Ambulance is a non- profit entity.”
Although on its face this statement is true, it omits the fact that California City’s
Air Ambulance provider, Tri- State Care Flight, is a private for- profit entity that
may have a direct financial stake in whether California City is granted a permit.
The grand jury concluded via a statement attributed to the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors that the County should not concern itself with the financial viability of
companies providing services to the County and its citizens and visitors.
When appropriate, the County responsibly concerns itself with the financial security and
stability of providers of vital public services to ensure that there is no interruption of
service. This is why the County in contract situations often requires prospective
providers of critical and/ or ongoing services to provide certified documentation of their
fiscal health and stability.
In the case of air ambulance service, the grand jury stated that inter- hospital transports
are the greatest monetary provider to the air ambulance industry. Since the County
has established that granting a permit to California City would have zero impact on air
ambulance response times, California City’s entrance into the inter- hospital business in
San Bernardino County becomes an issue.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
15
The County has received no indication from the customers of inter- hospital transports –
hospitals within the county – that competition is needed to control rates, improve
patient care, or achieve some other public benefit.
While the County is not directly concerned with the financial state of Mercy Air, it would
be highly irresponsible for the County not to concern itself with factors that might
influence the level of service Mercy makes available to the County. While the grand
jury is most likely correct in assuming that competition from California City’s one
helicopter would probably not threaten Mercy’s existence, it may prompt Mercy to make
a business decision to reduce the number of airships currently serving the County or to
not add airships as need increases. Whereas the vast majority of air ambulance
Advance Life Support service in the County is provided by Mercy, it seems questionable
to grant a permit to California City when the only effect would be to create competition
that serves no apparent benefit to the public and could compromise a vital life- saving
public safety function.
Finally, the County will keep the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury informed of any action or
changes regarding this subject matter.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SITTING AS THE
GOVERNING BOARD OF INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY ( ICEMA)
SHOULD APPROVE THE PERMITTING OF CALIFORNIA CITY AIR AMBULANCE AS AN
ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT ( ALS) PROVIDER WITHIN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE ITS CITIZENS WITH THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO REACH A
TRAUMA CENTER WITHIN THAT CRITICAL “ GOLDEN HOUR.”
County Response: Granting a permit to California City Air Ambulance would provide
no increased opportunity to reduce air ambulance response times or otherwise provide
County citizens or other injured persons a better opportunity to reach a trauma center
within one hour of the onset of injuries. A permit provides ICEMA with the opportunity
to exert medical supervision over an air ambulance provider’s operations, and allows
the provider to transport stabilized patients from one hospital to another. If a recom-mendation
can be made to the ICEMA governing board that granting a permit to
California City Air Ambulance is in the best interests of the public, the board will
reconsider the recommendation.
2. INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY SHOULD REVISE THE HDZ
( HELICOPTER DEMAND ZONE) PROVIDER LIST. QUICKEST RESPONSE TIMES SHOULD
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
16
BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN DECIDING WHICH PERMITTED PROVIDER IS FIRST
CALLED TO RESPOND TO THE NEED.
County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. During the
summer, several months before the grand jury’s interim report was released, the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors’ office requested that California City be moved
higher in the dispatch order in the Red Mountain, Barstow, and Kramer Junction areas.
The request apparently never reached ICEMA staff, so the request was renewed
following the appearance of the grand jury interim report. The dispatch order is set
based upon recommendations by the Emergency Medical System Aircraft Providers Task
Force, which includes all providers, including Mercy and California City. ICEMA staff
brought the issue before the Task Force on January 18, 2006. California City did not
attend meeting, at which the Task Force unanimously recommended moving California
City from third to second in the dispatch order in the Red Mountain area, from fifth to
third in the Barstow area, from seventh to fifth in the Victorville area, and from third to
second in the Kramer Junction area. This recommendation will be implemented when
California City resumes air ambulance service.
3. OTHER AIR AMBULANCE PROVIDERS WHO HAVE APPLIED AND BEEN DENIED IN
THE PAST SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED. IF THEY COMPLY WITH ICEMA’S
QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, THEY SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY
TO QUALIFY AS A PERMITTED AIR AMBULANCE PROVIDER.
County Response: This recommendation cannot be implemented because the
ICEMA Executive Director is aware of no other provider besides California City that has
applied for a permit.
4. THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHOULD NOT SERVE AS THE GOVERNING
BOARD OF INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY ( ICEMA). IN
ADDITION, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICEMA SHOULD NEVER BE
IN A POSITION TO ACCEPT DONATIONS OR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY
PERMITTED PROVIDER OR ITS PARENT COMPANY.
County Response: The County will not implement this recommendation. As
representatives directly accountable to the people of San Bernardino County, the Board
of Supervisors is ideal to serve as the governing board members overseeing an agency
charged with such an important public safety mission. Also, having the Board of
Supervisors serve as directors of ICEMA ensures that all matters involving the agency
are deliberated during public meetings of the Board of Supervisors. Assigning this task
to an appointed board would result in ICEMA matters being considered during meetings
of that appointed board, which would most likely be sparsely attended and receive
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
17
much less news media coverage than meetings of the Board of Supervisors. Clearly,
the public is best served by having the Board of Supervisors act as the ICEMA
governing board.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
18
INTERIM REPORT
Released May 11, 2006
WHY ISN’T THERE COMPETITION?
BACKGROUND
In February of 2004, the Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency ( ICEMA),
which includes authority over air ambulance service, approached California City Air
Ambulance ( CCAA) with a request to qualify to meet ICEMA standards in order to become
“ permitted” within San Bernardino County. CCAA agreed to do so, completing all
requirements by April of 2004, after expending $ 48,500 to do so.
After considerable investigation, ICEMA substantiated it to be in the best interests
of the public to add “ permitted” air ambulance resources. Before proceeding with any
recommendations to its governing board ( Board of Supervisors), ICEMA followed protocol,
bringing the issue before the Emergency Medical Care Committee ( EMCC) to secure their
approval. This Committee is comprised of physicians, law enforcement personnel and
hospital administrators, as well as nurses and Emergency Medical Technician ( EMT)
personnel. At their January 2005 meeting, the EMCC voted 8- 0 in favor of ICEMA’s
recommendation to request the governing board ( Board of Supervisors) to permit CCAA.
ICEMA then submitted the recommendation to County staff, and it was placed on the June
21, 2005 Board of Supervisors’ agenda.
On June 13, 2005 the Chairman of the Board received a $ 1,000 donation from
Mercy Air Ambulance. Eight days later, at the June 21st meeting, the Chairman deferred
the ICEMA agenda item until July 12, 2005. At the July 12th meeting, the Chairman then
pulled the item from the agenda.
After investigation, the Grand Jury released an Interim Report dated November 15,
2005, recommending the Board of Supervisors grant California City Air Ambulance a
permit. On January 31, 2006 the Board responded regarding their denial to do so stating,
“ If a recommendation can be made to the ICEMA governing board that granting a permit
to California City Air Ambulance is in the best interest of the public, the board will consider
the recommendation.”
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
19
FINDINGS
In response to the aforementioned Interim Report, the Board’s Chairman stated he
had instructed the ICEMA staff to revise the calling order of air ambulance providers,
“… in the summer, several months before the Grand Jury’s interim report was
released.” The Director of Public Health recalled a discussion took place, but did not
interpret it as a directive. The Public Health Officer, who was also at the meeting, did not
recall such a statement. The Director of ICEMA, who would have enacted such
instructions, never received such an order. What the Grand Jury has found is the
following:
1. San Bernardino County has a reputation that its top officials accept
contributions from people it does business with, and grants favors in
return.
2. Mercy Air Ambulance’s parent company donates to members of the Board
of Supervisors.
3. June of 2005 the proposal of permitting CCAA to be a provider of air
ambulance service, in addition to Mercy Air, was placed on the Boards’
calendar.
4. June 13, 2005, Mercy Air contributed $ 1,000 to the Chairman of the
Board.
5. Eight days later, on June 21, 2005, the item was continued until July 12,
2005.
6. July 12, 2005, the Chairman pulled the item from the Consent Calendar.
7. November 15, 2005, the Grand Jury released its Interim Report criticizing
the Boards’ actions.
8. Board of Supervisors then requests “ an objective view” of the proposal from
someone not involved; a Deputy County Administrative Officer.
9. November 21, 2005, the report from the Administrative Officer was returned
to the Board of Supervisors. This “ study” was accomplished by reviewing
ICEMA’s original recommendation and analysis, and no new data was
obtained. The study recommended that ICEMA reconsider several issues and
resubmit the proposal to the Emergency Medical Care Committee ( EMCC)
for another vote.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
20
10. January of 2006, ICEMA did reconsider these issues as outlined in the
November recommendations from the Administrative Officer and, once
again, presented it to the EMCC. The vote was again 8- 0 in favor of
allowing California City Air Ambulance to be permitted.
11. Board of Supervisors’ responded in January of 2006 to the Grand Jury
report, stating it is “ inaccurate, offensive, and the reported risk to the
public’s safety is erroneous”. However, the Town of Apple Valley has
subsequently requested ICEMA to undertake a study to evaluate automatic
air ambulance dispatching to improve air ambulance response. Apparently,
Apple Valley did not feel the stated issues were “ erroneous”.
The delay since this issue initially surfaced has taken its toll. California City Air
Ambulance has apparently been discouraged from becoming a competitive asset to the
County. The Fire Chief in California City, who established their air ambulance service, has
since accepted another position. The helicopter has been placed out of service for major
equipment upgrades, and we have now been informed CCAA will no longer pursue the
“ permitting” process in San Bernardino County.
In a letter from the State Director of Emergency Medical Services Authority, the
State has concluded that, in spite of allowing Mercy Air an exclusively “ permitted” air
ambulance contract, San Bernardino County has never applied at the State level for
approval of an Exclusive Operating Area ( EOA). If nothing changes, the County is subject
to anti- trust litigation. This applies not only to the County, but the local EMS agency
( ICEMA) as well, in spite of their recommendation to the Board. Such exposure to
litigation is totally unnecessary. Any successful litigation would drain precious funds from
critically needed projects.
Lack of competition has also taken its toll. There are a total of 18 helicopter
“ calling zones” within San Bernardino County. Of these, Mercy Air is first on the list to be
called in 15 of these zones, with our County Sheriff’s rescue copter being listed first in two
other zones. The one remaining zone, on the Arizona border, is protected with resources
from Mercy Air in Nevada, and Native and Guardian Air from Arizona who, like California
City, are mutual aid non- permitted providers.
Aside from safety, what better “ interest of the public” could there be than cost?
Below is a reproduction of an actual invoice received from Mercy Air, covering less than 90
minutes service time, from dispatch to return to base, a 28 mile flight.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
21
While Mercy Air received $ 3,500 from the recipient’s insurance carrier as payment,
the patient was billed for the additional $ 7,220. This is not an issue with which the Grand
Jury faults Mercy Air – they are exercising the freedom provided them by the County.
Without competition and an operating agreement that places a cap on charges, Mercy Air
is simply participating in a perfect business world. The issue lies with those responsible
for making governmental decisions.
Justification for alternative resources cannot be better exemplified than the results
of a comparison of fees charged in San Bernardino County with other counties. Calstar
provided air ambulance service, alongside Mercy Air, in Santa Barbara County and
adjoining Ventura County. Mercy Air’s “ liftoff” rate ( Helicopter Base Rate) in Ventura
County was $ 7,897, or $ 1,200 less than San Bernardino County. Also, the mileage charge
was $ 49.50, or $ 7.43 per mile less than San Bernardino County.
Approximately 90 days following completion of a new contract with Ventura’s Board
of Supervisors, Mercy Air stopped serving both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
22
Mercy Air moved that equipment to the Marine Base at Twentynine Palms. During this
process, unauthorized Mercy Air equipment operated in San Bernardino County. Mercy
Air’s departure from Santa Barbara and Ventura counties points out the severe need for
an alternative, competitive air ambulance resource in San Bernardino County.
The Board of Supervisors needs to revisit this entire issue. ICEMA is mandated
to make recommendations on behalf of the health and well being of the citizens of San
Bernardino County. It is ill advised, at best, to allow a political board to have veto
power over a medical panel such as ICEMA and the EMCC. Because of the Board’s
response citing concern for the “ stability” of Mercy Air, the citizens of San Bernardino
County are benefactors of a governmental system that has responded to “ special
interests” and not the “ public’s interest.”
When the Board of Supervisors sits as the governing board of ICEMA, they are
subject to California Government Code Section 84308, that " Prohibits any public official
acting in a non- elected or appointed capacity from being involved in a decision that affects
anyone who has donated more than $ 250.00 in the preceding 12 months to his or her
campaign”. This Code is not currently being complied with.
ICEMA is one of eight EMS agencies in the State with multiple county jurisdictions.
Unlike the other seven counties, our Board of Supervisors serves as ICEMA’s governing
board. San Bernardino County Supervisors, in response to an earlier Interim Report, insist
on serving as ICEMA’s governing board because it “… ensures that all matters involving the
agency are deliberated during public meetings...” In this case, however, “ deliberations”
consisted of pulling the item from the agenda, and San Bernardino County is now
vulnerable to anti- trust litigation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 11 ADVERTISE AN IMMEDIATE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ( RFP) IN AN
ATTEMPT TO SECURE ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE AIR AMBULANCE
RESOURCES.
06- 12 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CEASE FUNCTIONING AS THE GOVERNING
BOARD OF THE INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY
( ICEMA) TO AVOID EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
06- 13 THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CEASE
ACCEPTING CAMPAIGN DONATIONS FROM ALL EMERGENCY MEDICAL
PROVIDERS, GROUND AND AIR.
complaints COMMITTEE
Allen ( Skip) Burt, Chairman
Ken Dean
Kelly Potter
Mark Taylor
Frank Travis
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
23
COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
The Grand Jury receives complaints from throughout the County. It is the duty of
the Complaints Committee to evaluate these complaints and determine if the Grand Jury
has jurisdiction and, if so, does the complaint actually have merit. When it is determined
that a complaint is valid, it is given to the appropriate existing committee or an ad hoc
committee may be formed.
The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury received 15 complaints, of which three were
investigated.
economic development
COMMITTEE
Tom Hale, Chairman
Mel Abeyta
Gordon Bjorklund
Frank Browning
Skip Burt
Ken Dean
Arden Fritz
Elaine Marable
Catherine Meister
Jenny Overton
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
24
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
The Economic Development Committee had the responsibility to investigate the
following County departments:
Agriculture, Weights & Measures
Airports
Community Development and Housing
County Library
County Museums
Redevelopment
Regional Parks
Workforce Development
Subcommittees were established to review the function and operation of each
department. The committee carefully reviewed prior Grand Jury reports and Board of
Supervisors’ responses regarding the departments, back to 1995. Visitations were made
to all departments.
Findings and recommendations from the investigations are detailed in this final
report for the following departments:
Community Development and Housing
County Library
County Museums
Regional Parks
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
25
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING
( Report jointly submitted by the Community Development & Housing
and Administrative and Audit’s Audit/ Fiscal Subcommittees)
BACKGROUND
The Department of Community Development and Housing ( CDH) is responsible for
administering Federal, State and local grant funds allocated to the County of San
Bernardino for housing and community development programs. CDH obtains grants from
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) to fund
construction, housing rehabilitation, economic development, public service, and
community revitalization projects throughout the County. Other sources that provide
funds for CDH are Community Development Block Grants, Emergency Shelter Grants,
Home Investment Partnership Act Grants, Neighborhood Initiative Grants, the Economic
Development Initiative Program, and administrative fees written into State of California
housing bond issues.
FINDINGS
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury became aware of the existence of the Housing Trust
Fund administered by CDH at the end of its term. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury was alerted
to this fund from reports of the previous Grand Jury and decided to reinvestigate this
issue. The source of the funds in the Housing Trust Fund is an administrative fee written
into each of the State of California housing bond issues.
During a visitation in September 2005 with the prior director of CDH, the existence
of this fund was acknowledged. All the monies provided by Federal and State sources are
audited annually. However, the Housing Trust Fund has never been audited. At the
suggestion of the Audit/ Fiscal Subcommittee, the director agreed that an audit of the fund
was in order and asked his staff to implement such an audit with the office of the County
Auditor/ Controller- Recorder ( ACR). To date, this request has not been received by the
ACR. The amount of money in the fund varies, but at present is approximately $ 1.2
million. The Grand Jury feels that, given the size of this fund, it should be audited. CDH
and the Auditor/ Controller would need to establish the basis and scope of the audit.
RECOMMENDATION
06- 14 CONDUCT AN IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL AUDIT OF THE HOUSING TRUST
FUND.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
26
COUNTY LIBRARY
BACKGROUND
The County Library serves 30 branches in the unincorporated areas and 18 cities in
the County of San Bernardino. In addition, there are two new joint- use branches, Carter
High School, now open in Rialto, and Summit High School, opening in September 2006 in
North Fontana.
The County Library is working with the City of Victorville in its efforts to establish a
city library. Victorville is considering using Development Impact Fees to build a library. It
is anticipated that they will build another library in the west end of the city in five to seven
years, also using Development Impact funds. Victorville city officials believe by taking
over the library, they could use Development Impact Fees to improve library services to
the community. The County will turn over its operation to the city in July 2006.
Building a new County library in Hesperia will currently meet the needs of that city,
but the County Librarian predicts another library will soon be needed in Hesperia to meet
future needs.
The County Library has a budget of $ 13 million, with 80 percent of that coming
from special district taxes. The rest of the funds come from the County and fund raising
efforts of the various Friends of the Library organizations.
The County Library has a total of 370 employees, which includes 215 part- time
employees. Upgrading of their computer system and refurbishing of the main Library
headquarters facility in San Bernardino are currently in progress.
The County Librarian is projecting a minimum space increase of 20 percent over
the approximate 200,000 square feet currently available; a 15 percent increase over the
395 personal computers currently available; and a ten percent increase over the 175,000
current transactions through the next two years.
FINDINGS
The Library’s biggest challenge is finding the funds to increase the $ 1,390,000 book
budget. Over the last 12 years, the County’s book budget has decreased from $ 1.98 per
patron to $ 1.00 per patron, while the State’s budget has increased to $ 2.81. The Friends
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
27
of the Library have raised over $ 500,000 for books, but it still does not meet the book
budget needs.
The County Library System does not have access to Development Impact Fees;
San Bernardino County does not impose such fees. Victorville is an example of how
Development Impact Fees are used to improve the library system in its city. Many
libraries in the System are old and outdated and in need of enlargement or new
construction. The County Library System needs to find new sources of revenue.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 15 ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO THE LIBRARY TO BRING FUNDING IN
LINE WITH THE $ 2.81 PER PATRON STATE AVERAGE.
06- 16 IMPOSE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO ASSIST THE FUNDING OF THE
COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND
EXPANSION.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
28
COUNTY MUSEUM
BACKGROUND
The San Bernardino County Museum maintains and develops cultural as well as
natural science collections. The Museum hopes to inspire the public to learn more about
the cultural and natural history of this region and the greater Southwest, attempting to
accomplish this goal through responsible collection, preservation, exhibition and
education.
The Museum provides educational and cultural programs at its main facility in
Redlands and seven other regional sites: the Agua Mansa Cemetery in Colton, Casa de
Rancho Cucamonga ( Rains House) in Cucamonga, the Daggett Stone Hotel in Daggett,
the Asistencia Mission in Redlands, the Mousley Museum in Yucaipa, the Yucaipa Adobe
also in Yucaipa, and the Yorba- Slaughter Adobe in Chino.
FINDINGS
The Museum director addressed issues regarding inadequate fire protection in their
document and artifacts storage areas, which was a concern of a previous Grand Jury. We
observed that this fire protection upgrade was nearing completion. Our discussion and
visual observations indicated that some of the storage and filing cabinets were obviously
secured to prevent loss or damage in the event of an earthquake. Others appeared not to
have any earthquake preventive aspects or precautions.
RECOMMENDATION
06- 17 BRING MUSEUM FACILITIES UP TO CURRENT SAFETY STANDARDS.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
29
REGIONAL PARKS DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The San Bernardino County Regional Parks Department has responsibility for ten
regional parks with a full range of activities, from camping with full hook- ups, to
waterslides and picnic facilities. Grand Jurors visited the parks at Glen Helen, Cucamonga-
Guasti, Prado, Lake Gregory, Calico and Mojave Narrows.
The director has an ambitious program for expansion of the parks’ facilities and
improvement of existing facilities. Much of the money for expansion comes from State
Parks and other grants. New programs in partnership with the Wildlands Conservancy at
Bluff Lake in Big Bear and Bear Paw in Forest Falls are primarily designed for youth
education.
FINDINGS
Glen Helen Regional Park has two 300- foot waterslides and one half- acre swim
lagoon. There is a need for lifeguards at all parks where swimming facilities are provided.
The director indicated that they have difficulty in recruiting lifeguards because the pay
scale is not adequate to attract qualified applicants. Lake Gregory Regional Park
sponsored a Red Cross lifeguard training program recently to attract lifeguards. Although
the training was successful, it was not enough to prevent the lifeguards from accepting
positions where the pay scale exceeded the $ 10 per hour paid by the County. Without
adequate lifeguards, swimming facilities at the parks cannot be opened.
At Prado Regional Park, mud hens routinely cross the walkways and the children’s
playground, leaving mounds of slippery droppings. The children’s playground is not
fenced and the mud hen droppings present a hazard.
At Mojave Narrows Regional Park there was evidence of dry rot on the beams
around one of the snack bar areas. Several of the park benches and picnic tables should
be replaced or restored. The restrooms and other facilities are being rehabilitated, but
these are done on a piecemeal basis whenever funds are available. The park offers
fishing on Horseshoe Lake, with picnic facilities and barbecue grills.
Lake Gregory Regional Park was clean and well maintained. They are currently
adding a skateboard park. The St. Mortiz clubhouse is under utilized for weekday
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
30
activities. It temporarily houses the senior center. The restroom facilities at the baseball
fields are portable toilets, and are located close to an existing sewer line.
The use of Sheriff’s Work Release personnel was seen in all the parks visited.
Using these workers has helped keep costs from increasing. Funds for replacing
barbecues, tables, trash cans and benches, etc., come from the operating budget. If
there is not enough money, then the replacement is not done. The director estimated an
additional $ 153,000 annual budget allocation for a period of three years would be enough
to catch up with needed replacement of barbecues, tables, benches and trash cans.
Most of the ten parks do not have an assigned permanent superintendent to
oversee the day- to- day activities, supervise maintenance, and control vandalism. As an
example, the superintendent at Lake Gregory divides his time between there and Mojave
Narrows in Victorville.
San Bernardino County does not have development impact fees. Other counties
have developer fees tied to their regional parks, which are then able to fund expansion
and capital improvements. Many cities have developer fees to pay for parks and other
public services.
Due to the variety and diversity of the Regional Parks system, the department
needs more coordination of information between its facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 18 INCREASE THE HOURLY PAY RATE FOR LIFEGUARDS AT COUNTY
REGIONAL PARKS TO A COMPETITIVE LEVEL.
06- 19 FENCE THE CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUND AT PRADO REGIONAL PARK TO
KEEP THE MUD HENS OUT OF THAT AREA.
06- 20 CONSTRUCT PERMANENT RESTROOM FACILITIES AT THE BASEBALL PARK
AT LAKE GREGORY REGIONAL PARK.
06- 21 INCREASE THE BUDGET BY $ 153,000 ANNUALLY TO PAY FOR
REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT AT REGIONAL PARKS FACILITIES.
06- 22 IMPLEMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO PROVIDE FOR A PORTION
OF FUTURE FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
OF REGIONAL PARKS.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
31
06- 23 ESTABLISH A REGIONAL PARKS INTER- DEPARTMENTAL NEWSLETTER.
COMMENDATION
The committee was extremely impressed with the efforts by the Director of
Regional Parks to establish working partnerships with outside agencies and
businesses/ corporations to enhance the opportunities for County residents to enjoy the
benefits that the Regional Parks provide. This includes partnerships with the Wildlands
Conservancy involving Bluff Lake, Bear Paw Camp and the Santa Ana River Trails; Turner’s
Sporting Goods, and their associated vendors, to promote the fishing derbies; and various
County service districts to coordinate the use of the Regional Parks to support programs
for the youth of the County. This vision toward the future, and the passion of the director
and his staff, can be used as a model for other County departments.
THE GRAND JURY COMMENDS THE DIRECTOR OF REGIONAL PARKS AND HIS
STAFF FOR THEIR VISION, DEDICATION AND CREATIVITY IN PROVIDING
OUTSTANDING SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY.
health care services
COMMITTEE
Susan Brewster, Chairman
Arden Fritz
Betty Hornbrook
Elaine Marable
Melinda O’Connor
Jenny Overton
Kelly Potter
Larry Rich
Frank Travis
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
32
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
COMMITTEE
The Health Care Services Committee was given the responsibility of investigating
the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center and the departments of Behavioral Health and
Public Health. Our meetings with department personnel not only focused on the functions
of the department, but also concerns such as current policies and procedures manuals,
accountability measures, performance reviews, and the cost to the County of services to
undocumented immigrants. The committee selected the following specific areas for its
review and research:
Arrowhead Regional Medical Center
Disaster Preparedness Plan
Emergency Room Overcrowding – Ambulance Wait Time
Facility Security
Fiscal Services – Certificates of Participation
Satellite Clinics
Department of Behavioral Health
Adult System of Care
Alcohol and Drug Programs
Disaster Preparedness Plan
Mental Health Services Act – Prop. 63
Patients Rights
Department of Public Health
Animal Care and Control
Disaster Preparedness Plan
Disease Control and Prevention
Environmental Health Services
Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency
Vector Control
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
33
The committee was gratified to find all department personnel with whom we spoke
to be knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and most cooperative with the committee. They were
professional, caring, forward thinking, and committed to providing excellent services to
San Bernardino County.
The Health Care Services Committee submits the following findings and
recommendations detailed in this final report for the following department:
Department of Public Health
Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency ( ICEMA)
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
34
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY
( ICEMA)
BACKGROUND
Under authority of the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division, 9, Chapter
8, the Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency ( ICEMA) is the governing body to
recommend and approve emergency medical service ( EMS) aircraft policies, as well as
recommend the integration of EMS aircraft into San Bernardino County’s transport system.
There are 18 Helicopter Air Ambulance Zones in San Bernardino County. Being a
“ permitted” air ambulance service provider means that it has qualified to meet ICEMA’s
standards. After meeting ICEMA’s standards, the contract is approved by ICEMA’s
governing board, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. A “ permitted” air
ambulance is the only one that can do inter- facility transfers, which is more financially
lucrative than responding to 9- 1- 1 calls. Other air ambulance services can operate within
the County to respond to 9- 1- 1 calls; they are mutual aid providers only.
FINDINGS
Currently there is only one “ permitted” air ambulance service provider under
contract with ICEMA to use County air space. This service has several helicopters in its
fleet. Even though ICEMA has sought to have other air ambulance service providers
permitted, having proven both need and necessity, the governing board ( County Board of
Supervisors) has not heeded that request.
By allowing air ambulance exclusivity in San Bernardino County, there is no
competition to keep the costs down. An actual invoice received by a patient’s family from
the “ permitted” air ambulance provider totaled $ 10,720.59 for a run covering less than 90
minutes, and flying only 28 miles. When ICEMA was asked if they knew what the one
“ permitted” air ambulance service was charging patients, they stated they did not. A
definite rate structure should be developed, based upon documented costs and acceptable
profit margins.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
35
When asked if they make unannounced visits to the bases where “ permitted” air
ambulances are stationed, ICEMA responded they do not. Regular base inspections
should be made to ensure that equipment and personnel meet the contract’s required
standards.
The present “ permitted” provider is not required to explain to ICEMA or the
Communications Center why a helicopter is not available for emergency service. When
the Communications Center calls, only then, in some cases, are they notified the
helicopter is “ out of service”. The Communications Center should be informed of the
absolute status of all resources at all times. When someone’s life may be depending on a
quick response by the air ambulance, the Communications Center loses valuable time
going through the list to find an available responder.
From the information gathered, it appears there is a lack of supervision by ICEMA
in governing the air ambulance contract.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 24 DEVELOP AN ACCEPTABLE RATE STRUCTURE FOR AIR AMBULANCE
PROVIDERS, INCLUDING BOTH 9- 1- 1 CALLS AND INTER- FACILITY
TRANSFERS.
06- 25 ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER IS
AWARE, AT ALL TIMES, OF THE STATUS OF ALL AIR AMBULANCE
EQUIPMENT BEING UTILIZED, WHETHER AVAILABLE OR REASON FOR
NON- AVAILABILITY.
06- 26 ESTABLISH UNANNOUNCED BASE INSPECTION PROCEDURES TO CONFIRM
EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL MEET CONTRACT REQUIRED STANDARDS
AND ARE AT THE ASSIGNED LOCATION.
human services
COMMITTEE
Catherine Meister, Chairman
Susan Brewster
Frank Browning
Betty Hornbrook
Elaine Marable
Melinda O’Connor
Kelly Potter
Frank Travis
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
36
HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE
The Human Services Committee had the responsibility of reviewing and
investigating all departments within the Human Services Group ( HSG). The committee
was also able to investigate the divisions and programs in the Administrative Support
Division of the Human Services Group.
The committee would like to thank each of these departments for their
cooperation:
Department of Aging and Adult Services
Child Support Services
Children’s Network
Department of Children’s Services
Performance, Education and Resource Centers
Preschool Services
Transitional Assistance
Veterans Affairs
HSG Administrative Support Division
Legislation, Research and Quality Support Services
Program Development Division
Program Integrity Unit
All department heads and staff we encountered were professional, dedicated and
cooperative.
The Human Services Committee submits the following findings and
recommendations.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
37
DEPARTMENT OF
AGING AND ADULT SERVICES
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The Adult Protective Services ( APS) division of the Department of Aging and Adult
Services is a State mandated program designated to investigate jointly with law
enforcement reports of abuse of elderly and dependent adults. APS provides crisis
intervention services to victims of abuse and/ or self- neglect alleging to have occurred
anywhere other than in a long- term care facility.
FINDINGS
Reports of abuse to Adult Protective Services ( APS) are classified as Emergency or
Non- emergency.
The State defines emergency as imminent danger or an immediate life- threatening
situation. Emergencies require a response by APS within 24 hours. One other criterion for
an emergency response is if law enforcement requests an APS worker on scene.
A non- emergency, by State definition, is self- neglecting, or is being neglected, or
physically, sexually, emotionally or financially abused by another person; the State allows
a response within 10 days. Based upon the serious nature of the State’s definition of a
“ non- emergency”, the Grand Jury finds reports of being abused “ sexually, emotionally or
financially” require a much faster response than 10 days. The department also believes
the State mandate of 10 days for a non- emergency is too long. The department provided
APS statistics that show their average response time to a non- emergency is five ( 5) days.
RECOMMENDATION
06- 27 THE DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND ADULT SERVICES ADOPT AS POLICY, A
REQUIREMENT THAT ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES RESPOND TO NON-EMERGENCY
REPORTS WITHIN FIVE ( 5) DAYS.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
38
LONG- TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
The Long- Term Care Ombudsman Program within the Department of Aging and
Adult Services is State and Federally funded. It is mandated by State and Federal law to
receive, investigate, and work to resolve problems and complaints on behalf of residents
in skilled nursing homes and residential care facilities. Ombudsman services are free and
confidential. The Ombudsmen are independent, neutral and objective. They are
responsible for identifying root causes of a problem and to resolve complaints and
concerns. They also observe, suggest, and monitor the care of the patient, and keep
them connected to the outside world.
California law requires that any Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care and
Advanced Directives executed by a resident of a skilled nursing facility must be signed in
the presence of an Ombudsman and a second witness. This is done to ensure that the
resident understands the meaning of a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, and is
not coerced into signing the document against his or her will.
FINDINGS
This program is very important. An Ombudsman is an advocate who gives a voice
to the resident and assures that his or her rights will be protected.
The Ombudsman Program has two full- contract workers, one full- time County
employee, four part- time contract workers, and 27 volunteer Ombudsmen. These 27
Ombudsmen are responsible for over 12,600 individuals living in long- term care facilities in
San Bernardino County.
The Ombudsmen visit the 56 skilled nursing homes and 241 residential care
facilities located throughout San Bernardino County. Visits are required once a quarter to
the skilled nursing facilities and twice a year for the residential care facilities. This
computes to 31 minutes a year that a volunteer is able to spend in each facility.
In addition, a report is required to be filled out on each visit covering the general
appearance of the facility, checking for license, food quality, activities, and quality of care
and staffing.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
39
Ombudsman volunteers must undergo 36 hours of training and 12 more hours
throughout each year. They must agree to donate at least 20 hours of service each
month. Volunteers receive mileage reimbursement for travel between their homes and
their assigned facilities. It is not enough to pay for the high cost of driving their own
vehicle. They must provide their own transportation. They receive no compensation for
meals or any per diem expense. If the County were to pay someone to do this job, even
at minimum wage, it would cost $ 135 a month per volunteer. That would be $ 3,645 per
month, based on 27 volunteers, for a yearly cost of $ 43,740. Offering per diem in the way
of a meal allowance or stipend would help the Ombudsmen offset their own personal
costs.
The department is currently recruiting Ombudsman volunteers; the response has
been poor. Aging and Adult Services hasn’t had much success in keeping volunteers, and
there is a large turnover. At this time they do not survey past volunteers to find out why
they left the program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 28 OFFER PER DIEM, IN ADDITION TO MILEAGE, AS AN INCENTIVE TO
ATTRACT MORE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM VOLUNTEERS.
06- 29 SURVEY PAST VOLUNTEERS TO ASCERTAIN WHY THEY LEFT THE
OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
40
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN’S SERVICES
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The mission of Child Protective Services ( CPS) is to protect endangered children,
preserve and strengthen families, and develop alternative family settings. CPS works to
prevent further harm to children from intentional physical or mental injury, sexual abuse,
exploitation or neglect by a person responsible for a child’s health or welfare. Foster Care
and Adoption services are available as support for these families. New legislation ( AB636)
and the mandated Self- Improvement Plan ( SIP) have been implemented since January of
2004. San Bernardino County currently has over 5,000 children in placement.
FINDINGS
There is a standardized method of risk assessment for children: Assess, determine
appropriate response, notify regional manager, assign worker, contact family, and start an
investigation. Calls to the Child Abuse Hotline ( CAHL) take approximately 24 hours to
process. If the child is not in immediate danger, the plan of action may take 3 to 4 days to
determine, although CPS states they have 10 days to make the first contact. The Intake
Staff, who handle emergency responses, average 18 referrals per month. A referral is
different than a case. A referral is the abuse/ neglect allegation that comes in from the
community to the hotline. A worker is assigned to investigate that referral. If an incident
is deemed critical, police and a social worker are dispatched to the home within two hours.
Children are always removed from the home in critical cases. A court order must be
obtained within 72 hours following removal.
The Carrier Staff, who handle the ongoing cases after they are adjudicated by
Juvenile Court, average 42 cases per worker. They monitor the children in placement and
help the birth parents with the service plan that will best help reunify the family. A family
is typically given 12 months to reunify. The Carrier Staff also carries the permanency
cases; those children who now have a permanent plan of adoption, guardianship or long-term
foster care. Every effort is made to keep a child in his or her environment. When a
child comes into the system and cannot stay in the home, family members are considered
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
41
first. These homes must meet the same standards as any other foster homes, and these
family members must meet the same standards as other foster care parents.
Family- to- Family is a test project in Rialto which brings the community, churches,
schools, and the CPS Department together to plan programs for the children, giving them
a broader sense of the community and all the help it has to offer. The department is
hoping to expand to the city of San Bernardino next. With the implementation of this and
other creative program and support services, the department expects to see an increase in
reunification rates and support for families of at- risk children.
Child Protective Services is currently in the process of developing a standardized
risk assessment tool for line staff. This will assess the risk level for potential caregivers
and identify early intervention that would benefit the family members. This is planned to
be in effect by the end of 2006.
The mandated Self- Improvement Plan gives the department statistics to work with
for a measurement of success or failure. The County is not inputting the data in a timely
manner. Therefore, the Quarterly Outcome and Accountability Data Reports are running
six months behind.
RECOMMENDATION
06- 30 INPUT THE DATA FROM EACH CONTACT FOR THE OUTCOME AND
ACCOUNTABILITY DATA REPORT WITHIN 24 HOURS, TO PROVIDE A MORE
TIMELY MEASURE OF DEPARTMENTAL PERFORMANCE.
FOSTER HOME SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The mission of Children’s Services is to protect endangered children, preserve and
strengthen their families, and develop alternative family settings. Services, as mandated
by law and regulation, are provided in the least intrusive manner with a family- centered
focus. This mission is accomplished in collaboration with the family, a wide variety of
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
42
public and private agencies, and members of the community. Children’s Services is State
and Federally funded, with some local matching funds.
In 2001 the California State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 636 ( AB636), the
Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act. AB636 replaces a process-driven
compliance review system with an outcome- driven system. It became effective in
San Bernardino County in January of 2004. The key issues that are measured are related
to the safety, permanency and well- being of children in the Foster Care System. Along
with AB636 came the Self- Improvement Plan ( SIP). This is the plan by which Children’s
Services plan to achieve measurable outcome improvements called for in AB636. The
Department of Children’s Services receives quarterly reports from the State, “ The
California Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability County Data Report”, derived from
continuous data supplied by the department.
FINDINGS
The County selection process to become foster parents includes a mandatory
Livescan ( background check), a health checkup, and a mandated 24- hour training course,
along with 20 additional hours per year; the State requires only 8 hours. Anyone
frequenting the home on a regular basis is required to have a background check to
determine if they may pose a threat to the child. Foster parents today are looked at more
and more as potential permanent parents.
Thirteen percent ( 13%) of children in the foster care system are not being seen in
a timely manner. According to the January 2006 “ Outcome and Accountability County
Data Report” only 86.3 percent of the children in foster care were seen in April 2005, 86.2
percent in May 2005, and 87 percent in June 2005. The caseload for Intake Workers is
15– 18 referrals per month. Social Workers, who carry cases after adjudication, have 35–
55 cases, depending on the contact and the court requirements for each case. Each
allegation of abuse or infraction in a foster care situation is evaluated on a case- by- case
situation. The action taken is determined by the severity of the allegation and the findings
by the County Licensing Investigator. A plan of correction for the foster parent may
involve retraining, followed up with visits by the licensing investigators to insure
compliance. There are some highly publicized cases of abuse; however, they make up a
very small percentage of cases the department handles. The State mandates that each
child is contacted or visited monthly, and a licensing worker make annual visits. Some
exemptions may apply for contact compliance.
The department does provide some services for undocumented children. At this
time there are approximately 20 undocumented children in the care of Children’s Services.
They are entitled to limited benefits for childcare, medical, and foster care. Childcare
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
43
services are limited to undocumented children born to legal residents, which is extremely
rare. Under medical, service is restricted to emergencies, such as the patient’s health in
serious jeopardy, impairment of bodily functions, or dysfunction of any body part or
organ. Under foster care, undocumented children placed under the jurisdiction of the
Juvenile Court and/ or considered a dependent of the Court are eligible for Permanent
Residence Under Color of the Law ( PRUCOL). There is an attempt to unite undocumented
children with relatives, or Children’s Services assists them in becoming citizens before they
reach the age of 18. The Grand Jury has received no evidence of systematic tracking of
the cost of services to the undocumented.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 31 ENFORCE THE PLAN BY WHICH EACH CHILD IN FOSTER CARE IS VISITED
IN THE TIME MANDATED.
06- 32 IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM TO TRACK THE COST TO THE COUNTY OF
SERVING THE UNDOCUMENTED.
INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
The Independent Living Program ( ILP) is a mostly Federally funded nationwide
program designed to provide life skills, career exploration, and job readiness preparation
for foster care youth. A small amount of funding comes from the State. Eligible youth, 16
to 21 years of age, learn skills to prepare them to transition to adulthood and live
independently. ILP services include workshops, conferences, training career counseling,
tutoring, and assistance with scholarships. The department contracts with community
groups for many of these services. Most former foster care youth are eligible for full Medi-
Cal benefits until their 21st birthday. The County Mission Statement is “ The goals of the
ILP are to enable eligible youth to achieve self- sufficiency prior to leaving the Foster Care
support system and through the continuum of emancipation. Providing independent living
skill assessments, basic services, and written Transitional Independent Living Plan for each
participating youth assists in achieving the goal.” It is a top priority of the California
Department of Social Services to make the Independent Living Program available and
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
44
accessible to all eligible youth in California. The Grand Jury met with representatives of
the County ILP on November 2 and November 16, 2005.
FINDINGS
All foster care youths are to be identified at 15- 1/ 2 years of age. Case workers and
foster families are to notify the youths of the Independent Living Program ( ILP). Fliers are
also sent to them. Some youths do not receive notification. The department believes this
happens because caseworkers quit or transfer to another position, and a lack of
information occurs. Youths are sometimes placed in another county.
ILP measures success by the youth being employed, having a place to live, and
having a “ life plan”. Currently, ILP is serving 4,191 youths. The program is voluntary.
The County offers incentives ( money) and transportation within the county for the youth
to attend various workshops or classes. The County offers ten week classes in skills
ranging from relationships and self- enhancement, computer skills, handling finances,
writing resumes, studying for the Standard Aptitude Tests, and passing the required high
school graduation tests. The ILP department believes every youth succeeds at his/ her
level, and no one fails. The youths evaluate themselves. They can repeat classes if they
wish. There are no set standards or measurement for achievement. The department
does send an annual program status report to the State.
ILP is a State mandated program, but there has been no requirement for tracking
success or failure. The recent Self- Improvement Plan ( SIP) calls for a system to enable
tracking. The department can retrieve data on an individual but cannot give statistics on
the program. Data can be found in the State Reports or Berkeley Reports. The
department is working with Loma Linda University to develop a system to track the
program’s success in the early stages ( ages 16 to 18). The department does not track
youths who have left the program. Sometimes youths who have left the program contact
ILP, and the department can note how those particular past participants are doing.
The department believes community involvement is not only helpful, but a
necessary component for the Independent Living Program. The new Family- to- Family
Program is promising, but it is only a first step in countywide implementation and is limited
to a small area of the County. The department stated a need for more mentors, especially
male mentors. ILP states they have a Speaker’s Bureau which, at present, consists of the
ILP Coordinator. The speaker will go into the community to encourage people to become
mentors.
ILP does serve the undocumented, but does not keep a record of financial costs.
Presently, the department has identified eight undocumented youth in the program.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
45
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 33 ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR MEASURING THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF
THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM.
06- 34 IMPLEMENT AN OVERALL DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL COUNTY TRACKING
SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE
INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM.
06- 35 ESTABLISH A COUNTYWIDE ONGOING PROGRAM TO ACTIVELY SEEK
MENTORS AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.
06- 36 TRACK THE COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE UNDOCUMENTED.
law and justice
COMMITTEE
J. Mark Taylor, Chairman
Gordon Bjorklund
Skip Burt
Tom Hale
Melinda O’Connor
Kelly Potter
Larry Rich
Frank Travis
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
46
LAW AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE
The Law and Justice Committee experienced a very active year of investigation.
Our term enabled us to focus on the following five areas:
• West Valley Detention Center
• District Attorney
• Probation
• Sheriff/ Coroner
• Public Defender
West Valley Detention Center – Early release of prisoners became the initial
subject of investigation, particularly after it was discovered San Bernardino County release
percentages were almost 40 percent higher than surrounding counties. Upon discovery of
capacity issues and laws imposing early release, the need for additional detention facilities
was evident. Due to our desire for this issue to be included in the County’s budget
planning process for 2006, an Interim Report was released in March.
District Attorney – This subcommittee was initially motivated by DUI repeaters,
failures to appear in court, and subsequent outstanding warrants. Ultimately it was
discovered there were over 144,000 warrants, including over 14,000 felony warrants.
Discussions ensued regarding formation of a “ warrant unit”, and the District Attorney’s
staff took ownership of this project and met with the Sheriff and local city police. The
groundwork has been accomplished and we will soon be hearing of results from the
warrant unit. Kudos to law enforcement personnel in San Bernardino County.
Sheriff/ Coroner – The Board of Supervisors in February 2006 authorized $ 2.6
million to the Sheriff to improve Coroner facilities. While this did address much needed
issues at their main facility, the satellite facility in the high desert was not addressed. Our
Final Report makes recommendations that would alleviate concerns that arose as a result
of our investigation.
Public Defender – With a new Public Defender appointed in mid- March, time
must be allowed for potential new policies to be put in place. However, the issues of
failing to identify illegitimate indigents and cost of defense of illegal immigrants were two
issues addressed in the Final Report.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
47
Probation – Because of the time required to make quality investigations into other
departments, Probation was given only a cursory investigation, with no concerns arising.
On behalf of all members of the Law and Justice Committee, we thank the Sheriff
and his staff, the District Attorney’s staff, and all department heads for their cooperation
and support during our term. What follows represents our findings and recommendations,
in detail.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
48
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT
BACKGROUND
The San Bernardino County District Attorney campaigned on the issue of restoring
public integrity to San Bernardino County. Within the first four months after being
elected, the District Attorney created the Public Integrity Unit ( PIU). He researched the
surrounding counties to help him set up the guidelines for this unit and found Los Angeles
to be the best to model his unit after. The Los Angeles District Attorney was very
approachable and their program was aggressive. Since their program was running
smoothly, the San Bernardino County District Attorney decided to adopt most of their
policies.
FINDINGS
The Public Integrity Unit ( PIU) is comprised of two attorneys, three investigators,
and a secretary. The unit handles complaints involving those holding public offices. Some
issues might involve the illegal use of campaign funds, residency violations, and open
meeting/ Brown Act violations. The unit is responsible for monitoring city councils and
elected boards and commissions. The District Attorney’s office is looking for violations of
the Brown Act, Election Code, or any criminal violations.
All actions by the PIU are initiated only upon the receipt of a written complaint by a
citizen, or by an investigation submitted by a law enforcement agency. They are willing to
accept and return telephone calls, but no investigation is initiated until a written complaint
is received. They are careful to protect the office from becoming involved in political
issues. Members of the Public Integrity Unit must not endorse any political candidates or
contribute to any campaigns.
Unlike the Grand Jury, the PIU will accept anonymous complaints. Many of the
complaints it receives are not criminal in nature. Although many of the complaints may be
unethical or morally wrong, it cannot proceed in the complaint without it being Brown Act,
Election Code, or criminal in nature. After it finds nothing that falls into its purview, the
PIU contacts the complainant to let them know of its findings. The Grand Jury suggested
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
49
the persons filing the complaint not fitting into the category of criminal, be advised of the
option of filling out a complaint form to the Grand Jury. This would give individuals
another avenue to pursue.
RECOMMENDATION
06- 37 THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
INFORM COMPLAINANTS OF THE OPTION OF FILING THEIR NON-CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT WITH THE COUNTY GRAND JURY.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
50
PUBLIC DEFENDER
BACKGROUND
The Constitution provides that all persons accused of a crime be defended; those
that do not have the financial means to hire an attorney will be assigned one by the Court.
The County Public Defender’s office has the responsibility of representing indigent clients.
The office of the Public Defender provides defense services to both adults and juveniles
accused of felonies, misdemeanors, and violations of probation.
FINDINGS
The Public Defender’s office has 103 Deputy Public Defender positions. There are
currently two ( 2) vacancies; however, candidates have been interviewed for the positions;
one has accepted and the other was rejected.
The Department of Justice’s National Advisory Commission adopted a caseload
standard of “ no more than 150 assigned felonies per attorney per year, or no more than
400 assigned misdemeanors per attorney, or no more than 242 assigned juvenile cases
per attorney per year.” Currently, San Bernardino County Deputy Public Defenders have
caseloads averaging 694 combined felonies and misdemeanors, with an additional 116
probation violation cases. Those working the Juvenile Division have average caseloads of
448. The Public Defender’s office is handling 69 percent of the District Attorney’s cases
with 47 percent comparative staffing.
Several neighboring counties ( Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, etc.) have programs
in place to determine the ability of an accused to pay legal fees prior to being assigned to
a public defender. San Bernardino County had such a program; however, it was
discontinued several years ago. At the present time, San Bernardino County does not
collect or review financial information from prospective Public Defender clients to
determine their ability to pay fees.
In May 2004 a meeting was held with the County Administrative Officer, Treasurer-
Tax Collector, Public Defender and then Presiding Judge of the Superior Court to discuss
the possibility of collecting indigent defense fees. It was decided that a program to do so
was feasible.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
51
The Public Defender’s office conducted a cost of service analysis and determined
the average cost for a misdemeanor case was $ 236, a felony case was $ 784, and a
juvenile case was $ 487. Research done by the Treasurer- Tax Collector suggests that with
accurate Social Security information, a 42 percent collection rate could be attained.
With the approval of the Courts, the Treasurer- Tax Collector developed a program
to determine the ability to pay, using the defendant’s credit scores. At arraignment, a
short questionnaire providing name, Social Security number, address, and place of
employment would be filled out. The defendant’s credit score and property ownership
would be checked, and depending on this information, a recommendation would be made
for the amount to be paid/ collected.
The 2004- 2005 Presiding Judge of the Superior Court instructed all judges of the
new procedures in Court- appointed counsel fees and the importance of making the
program work. This occurred in September of 2004. Thirty ( 30) days later the Presiding
Judge withdrew his support of the program, which caused the program to be
unsuccessful. The action of that Presiding Judge cost the County millions in lost revenue.
The Grand Jury’s quest to find the cost of services provided undocumented
immigrants has determined that during the past year approximately $ 9,120,000 of the
Public Defender’s budget has been used for this purpose. The Grand Jury does not
advocate withholding services.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 38 INCREASE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S STAFFING TO MEET THE GUIDELINES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION
CASELOAD STANDARD.
06- 39 INSURE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BE COMPLETED AND DEFENDANTS’
ABILITY TO PAY BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO BEING ASSIGNED A PUBLIC
DEFENDER.
06- 40 THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE NOT ACCEPT CLIENTS THAT ARE
KNOWN TO HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY.
06- 41 DIRECT THE TREASURER- TAX COLLECTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE
INDIGENT DEFENSE FEES COLLECTION PROGRAM.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
52
SHERIFF- CORONER
CORONER DIVISION
BACKGROUND
It is the responsibility of the Coroner to determine the cause and manner of death
of San Bernardino County residents. The Coroner’s office is also tasked with identifying
the deceased and notifying their families. The central Coroner’s facility is located in San
Bernardino and was built in 1987.
FINDINGS
The Coroner’s Division conducted 9,552 investigations in 2005. It receives
notification of about 26 deaths per day; of these, about five are actually transported to the
Coroner facility.
The Grand Jury applauds the Board of Supervisors for recently allocating $ 2.6
million for much needed improvements and 15 new positions. This includes seven
investigators, five autopsy assistants, two Sheriff’s service specialists, and one additional
part- time medical examiner. These authorizations were focused on improvements for the
central facility.
The Coroner’s central facility is now going through an overhaul. The Public
Administrator and Public Guardian offices have moved out of the south wing. The
Coroner’s administrative personnel will move into that area. The north wing will be
remodeled and expanded, enlarging the refrigeration area and adding a much- needed
freezer.
Although funds have been allocated for improvements at the central facility, the
High Desert facility remains a problem. This small, antiquated office serves 18,000 square
miles of San Bernardino County desert. The office is staffed with three investigators, one
clerical position, and one supervisor. The supervisor serves as an investigator 30 of 40
hours per week. The High Desert facility is under- staffed. There are currently no autopsy
or assessment areas in the High Desert facility. Having these services available would
eliminate the necessity of moving the deceased to the central facility and would reduce
transportation costs.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
53
The Victorville facility is located in a tri- plex strip mall. The neighbors on either side
are a martial arts studio and offices for a construction company. They are separated by
5/ 8” thick drywall. The garage door in the rear of the building isn’t large enough for a
vehicle. While they attempt to be as discreet as possible, body deliveries/ releases are
made in public view.
The evidence/ belongings room appears to have been a closet. There is a
refrigeration unit that was acquired in 1998. This unit has the capacity to hold 10 bodies
and is for short- term use. Often bodies found in the desert are badly decomposed and
odor becomes an issue for the Coroner’s office as well as their neighbors. There are no
back- up generators, so power loss would be critical. The facility is not open 24 hours a
day, and security is minimal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 42 RELOCATE THE CORONER’S HIGH DESERT FACILITY UNTIL A NEW
FACILITY CAN BE BUILT.
06- 43 BUILD A NEW CORONER’S FACILITY IN THE HIGH DESERT TO INCLUDE
AUTOPSY AND ASSESSMENT AREAS.
06- 44 INCREASE CORONER STAFFING IN THE HIGH DESERT.
SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION
BACKGROUND
The Sheriff’s Scientific Investigations Division provides support in the investigation
of crimes committed within the County of San Bernardino. Division personnel use state-of-
the- art procedures and equipment to assist in solving crimes. These procedures and
equipment include evidence monitoring, crime scene investigation, photos, evidence-gathering,
ballistics testing, and the testing and analysis of DNA. The Scientific
Investigations Division is currently located in a converted warehouse. Several members of
the Grand Jury visited the facility on March 23, 2006.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
54
FINDINGS
The facility does not provide adequate space for staff to fully accomplish their
mission. Analysts doing the same type of work are not located in common work areas,
but scattered throughout the facility. This requires workers to leave their work areas and
travel to another part of the facility to do testing because the sophisticated, one- of- a- kind
testing equipment is not located near them. In addition, the actual workspace for
criminalists is well below the recommended FBI standards which recommend 1,000 square
feet per employee. The current space allows for only 386 square feet per employee
( 17,000 square feet for 44 employees). There is not adequate indoor space to forensically
inspect more than one vehicle at a time. We were shown a car suspected of being used
in a robbery and murder several days earlier. The car could not be garaged to protect
possible evidence because the one garage stall was being occupied by another vehicle
also involved in a murder investigation. The outside evidence retention facility is a small
fenced area not protected from weather conditions, degrading possible evidence.
San Bernardino County is critically understaffed. The number of trained criminalists
and DNA analysts has not kept up with the growing County population. San Diego County
passed an ordinance requiring one DNA analyst for every 100,000 people, which has
resulted in their now having 20 DNA analysts. Based upon that formula, with the current
San Bernardino County population estimate at 1,990,000, we should also have a staffing
of 20 DNA analysts. Currently there are six DNA analysts, with four more in training.
There are only nine Crime Scene Investigators on staff. This has forced the Division to
respond predominantly to homicides, brutal rapes, and officer- involved shootings.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 45 PROVIDE ADEQUATE WORKSPACE FOR THE SHERIFF’S SCIENTIFIC
INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION, TO INCLUDE PLANS FOR FUTURE GROWTH
OF THE COUNTY.
06- 46 HIRE ADDITIONAL DNA ANALYSTS AND CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
55
INTERIM REPORT
( Released March 2, 2006)
AND YOU THOUGHT “ IN- N- OUT”
WAS A HAMBURGER!
BACKGROUND
For over 10 years, the County Board of Supervisors has been well aware of the
severe shortage of available jail space to house San Bernardino County criminals. In 1995
the Board of Supervisors authorized a Staffing Analysis Study completed by Liebert &
Associates from Boulder, Colorado. At that time it was recommended to not only increase
jail staffing, but emphasized that housing was precariously close to maximum capacity and
should be increased as well.
FINDINGS
In 2005 there were a total of 110,537 bookings made by law enforcement
agencies in San Bernardino County. Of those, 42,240 or nearly 40 percent of sentenced
and pre- sentenced criminals were quickly released back into our communities because our
jails were at capacity and their crimes were considered to be non- violent misdemeanors or
felonies; crimes such as driving under the influence, burglary, grand theft auto, just to
name a few. On average, one criminal was released every 13 minutes in 2005 due to a
lack of jail space. Therefore, in less than the amount of time it takes you to get a
hamburger at IN- N- OUT, another criminal who should be in custody has been released
from a San Bernardino County jail. IN- N- OUT!
Until the recent opening of the Adelanto Detention Center in January 2006, housing
capacity had not been increased, and staffing was only added to accommodate the
opening of the Adelanto facility itself. Even with this welcomed addition, it took less than
30 days to again reach capacity in San Bernardino County jails. In addition, the governor
currently has put forward a proposal that would house parole violators in county jails,
which will only exacerbate the problem in this County. During the past ten years, the
County population has increased well over 20 percent, and with the current housing
development taking place, it is estimated to increase by at least 15 percent in the next ten
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
56
years. There is not enough jail space in San Bernardino County and, as a result, the
Sheriff is forced to approve early release to many of those who are arrested or currently in
jail.
During just a 15 day span in December 2005, one individual was involved in grand
theft auto on five separate occasions, booked at the West Valley Detention Center and, in
the first four thefts, was released within 12 hours in each case. In the fifth incident there
was a high- speed pursuit which resulted in a collision, and the individual was finally held in
jail.
On July 24, 2005, another individual, arrested for his fourth DUI in four years, was
also booked and released at West Valley, but with very tragic results. Two innocent
Moreno Valley teenagers were killed by this individual as he drove on the 215 freeway in
the wrong direction, resulting in a head- on collision. This incident occurred less than 30
days after his last “ misdemeanor” release.
If you’re not yet moved to action, consider the 140,000 current outstanding
warrants in the County, over 14,000 of which are felony violations. Before the Sheriff
and District Attorney can join forces to get these bad guys off the street, they must have a
place to incarcerate them. Until then, these bad guys are OUT- N- NEVER IN!
An agreement with the United States Federal Marshal’s Service, approved by the
County Board of Supervisors in 1999, requires that the County house 320 Federal
prisoners. Presently, there are over 500 Federal prisoners in San Bernardino County jails.
In addition, on any given day, there are approximately 700 illegal aliens occupying space
in our County jails. In late 2005, nine ( 9) new positions were authorized by the Board of
Supervisors for the Sheriff to identify illegal aliens who are in custody. However, a delay
by Immigration & Customs Enforcement ( ICE) in providing the necessary computer
networking to interface with the Sheriff’s computer system has placed this project on hold.
Before you condemn the Sheriff for letting these criminals out, consider the
obstacles he faces daily. The four functioning jails in San Bernardino County ( West Valley
Detention Center, Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center, Central Detention Center and
Adelanto Detention Center) are capable of housing 5,840 inmates. These jail facilities are
full! Temporary housing ( 72 hours or less), utilized for booking and court appearances
ONLY, are available at the Victor Valley Sheriff’s Station ( 90), Barstow Sheriff’s Station
( 48), Morongo Valley Station ( 42), Colorado River Station ( 36) and the Big Bear Sheriff’s
Station ( 22).
Compounding the Sheriff’s problem is a 1998 Federal court ruling, referred to as
the “ Haas Decision”, which mandated that when the West Valley or Glen Helen facilities
reach 90 percent capacity, a release “ process” must begin to avoid overcrowding. The
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
57
current “ process” allows the early release of any arrestees not involved in a weapons
charge and some felony or violent crimes, and any who have a bail schedule of less than
$ 150,000. Thus, burglars, car thieves, DUI’s and many arrested for drugs are selectively
released to make room for felony and violent offenders. IN- N- OUT!
In 2001, the County purchased land in Apple Valley for the construction of a
juvenile detention facility and a 3,072 bed adult jail facility, similar to the West Valley
Detention Facility. As of today, no adult facility has been constructed!
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 47 EXPAND THE GLEN HELEN REHABILITATION CENTER TO ADD 500 BEDS.
06- 48 EXPAND THE ADELANTO DETENTION CENTER TO ADD 700 BEDS.
06- 49 REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FEDERAL PRISONERS IN COUNTY FACILITIES
TO 320 TO CONFORM TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES
FEDERAL MARSHAL’S SERVICE.
06- 50 DO NOT RENEW THE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL
MARSHAL’S SERVICE WHEN IT EXPIRES IN 2009.
06- 51 RETURN ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INMATES HELD IN COUNTY FACILITIES TO
THE IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT.
06- 52 IMMEDIATELY CONSTRUCT A NEW ADULT JAIL FACILITY ON THE LAND
PURCHASED IN APPLE VALLEY.
public & support services
COMMITTEE
Mel Abeyta, Chairman
Gordon Bjorklund
Frank Browning
Ken Dean
Arden Fritz
Tom Hale
Betty Hornbrook
Elaine Marable
Catherine Meister
Melinda O’Connor
Jenny Overton
Mark Taylor
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
58
PUBLIC & SUPPORT SERVICES
COMMITTEE
The Public and Support Services Group ( PSSG) was formed during a reorganization
of the County approved by the Board of Supervisors in April, 2005. The Public and
Support Services Committee was assigned the responsibility of investigating the 10
departments that provide services to the general public or internal support to other
County departments.
Subcommittees were formed and the following departments were investigated for
operational and functional efficiency:
Architecture and Engineering
County Fire
Office of Emergency Services
Facilities Management
Fleet Management
Real Estate Services
Redevelopment & Real Estate Ad Hoc Committee
Registrar of Voters
Special Districts
Findings and recommendations resulting from the investigations by the various
subcommittees are detailed in this final report for the following departments:
Architecture and Engineering
Fleet Management
Office of Emergency Services
Real Estate Services
Registrar of Voters
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
59
ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
Architecture and Engineering ( A& E) is responsible for planning and implementing
the quality design and construction of projects included in the County Capital
Improvement Program ( CIP), as well as other Regional Parks, Airports, and Community
Development and Housing Department projects. The department collaborates with other
County agencies, the County Administrative Office and the Board of Supervisors to
determine project scope, schedule and budget. A& E administers projects from conceptual
design through construction to completion. Staff issues Requests for Proposals to secure
consultant services, prepares bid packages, solicits competitive construction bids, obtains
the appropriate jurisdictional approvals, and provides inspection and construction
management services.
FINDINGS
Architecture and Engineering is currently undergoing a reorganization structure
change in order to streamline the current work process and to reduce the number of
capital project backlogs. Job titles have been changed to better reflect assigned duties
and responsibilities. Additional project managers have been added to more efficiently
handle the increasing workload. The project managers do not perform engineering on
any of the projects, even though some do have an engineering background. All
engineering and design projects are performed by outside engineering consultants on a
contract basis. The project managers handle projects from start to completion.
Evaluation of their performance is based on their ability to interface with clients, do the
necessary paperwork, and complete projects in a timely, cost- effective manner. Monthly
meetings are held with the project managers to review the status of ongoing projects
under their responsibility.
This department does not presently have a Policy and Procedures manual. Prior
Grand Jury recommendations in 2003- 2004 and 2004- 2005 recommended that a manual
be developed and put into practice to protect the best interests of the County. This task
was never accomplished. A manual would help to protect the department and the County
against questionable policies and procedures in the awarding of construction contracts.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
60
An administrative staff person was hired in fiscal year 2004- 2005 to specifically
develop this manual. However, that person was reassigned to the Accounting section due
to some major problems the department was experiencing in keeping track of the funding
and expenditures on projects. This person is now being transferred to another
department and a new person has been recruited to fill this position. The principal duty of
this new position is to develop the manual and to have it completed within three months.
A& E does not maintain any computerized bidders’ database to use when soliciting
bids for their construction projects. They advertise the bid notice in the local newspaper
and various construction trade papers, and post the bid notice on the County’s webpage.
In addition, the project manager who is in charge of the project will telephone contractors
that they know to inform them of the project that is going out to bid.
The department does not have any formal bid protest procedures in place. They
are guided by the State’s Public Contract Code when a contractor files a formal bid
protest. The director stated he does not maintain any suspension or debarment list of
contractors who were awarded construction contracts but did not perform according to bid
requirements.
The director stated the department does not utilize any of the standard industry
computerized software programs for keeping track of their construction projects. When
asked about computerizing their bidding process through the Internet, the director stated,
“ I don’t have any plans to do this; however, I will look into it”.
RECOMMENDATIONS
06- 53 DEVELOP A POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL TO INCLUDE A
SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT POLICY.
06- 54 PUT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES INTO PRACTICE WITHIN THREE
MONTHS OF THIS RECOMMENDATION.
06- 55 IMPLEMENT A COMPUTERIZED BIDDERS’ DATABASE TO INCREASE THE
OUTREACH EFFORTS TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE BIDS ON
COUNTY PROJECTS.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
61
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The Office of Emergency Services ( OES) operates under the auspices of the San
Bernardino County Fire Department. Its mission is to coordinate information, both internal
and external, during an emergency. The OES operates with a County budget of
approximately $ 1.1 million, plus Federal and State grants of $ 29 million.
Internally the office operates the Emergency Operations Center ( EOC), coordinates
with County departments, provides training, oversees the County Emergency Operations
Plan, and coordinates with the Disaster Council and key emergency personnel
transportation.
Externally the office operates the Inland Business Council for Emergency
Preparedness, Emergency Alert System, emergency communications service, and assists
in coordinating the Telephone Emergency Notification System ( TENS).
The office offers the following technology:
Internet Response Information Management System
Tri- net paging and network, along with CalTech United States
Geological Survey ( USGS) broadcasts of earthquakes
Emergency electronics and specialized vehicle
Telephone Emergency Notification System ( TENS)
Daily conference calls with the National Weather Service
FINDINGS
The OES building is located across the street from the Sheriff’s Aviation Division in
Rialto. It is fenced and entrance is obtained only by the use of an electronic device. The
inside of the building is neatly arranged according to tasks, but it is crowded.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
62
The Emergency Operations Center has over 200 EOC responders available to
respond 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The EOC does not directly manage field
operations but, rather, insures coordination of an event, such as the Old Fire and the more
recent Plunge Wildfire. When the EOC is activated, it provides situation summaries with
twice daily reports to a wide range of distribution. It provides coordination with the State
OES, the Red Cross, utility companies and others.
The present OES facility was adapted from a warehouse built by Special Districts in
1985 to serve as a food bank distribution center. For that use the building was
earthquake compliant. In 1991 the building was remodeled to serve as a temporary
facility for the Office of Emergency Services. The change of use resulted in a change in
the seismic requirements, as the building became an “ essential facility”, according to the
County’s Architecture and Engineering Department ( A& E). A& E reported that although
the remodel contained some structural elements, the building, in all likelihood, does not
meet current seismic requirements for an “ essential facility”. To make the building
earthquake compliant, an engineering study would need to be performed to determine the
modifications necessary to meet the current seismic requirements. According to
Architecture & Engineering, a pre- fabricated metal building reacts favorably in a seismic
event, but the foundation and structural members would require modification to meet
current codes.
The scope of the necessary modifications to this facility has not been determined;
there has not been an engineering study to develop a cost estimate for the upgrade.
In an emergency, the County will be relying on this center; therefore structural
integrity is essential.
RECOMMENDATION
06- 56 MOVE THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS CENTER TO AN EARTHQUAKE COMPLIANT FACILITY WITH
SUFFICIENT SPACE NEEDED FOR PERSONNEL TO FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
63
FLEET MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND
The Fleet Management Department provides vehicles, equipment, and services to
officials and employees in order to provide County services to its citizens. They operate
six repair/ maintenance facilities and 22 fuel sites throughout the County.
The County has three other fleets which are not controlled by the Fleet
Management Department: the Sheriff’s Department, County Fire Department, and Special
Districts. Each of these departments currently manages their own fleet of vehicles and
equipment.
FINDINGS
Alternative fuel vehicles within the Fleet Management Department’s inventory are
currently being phased out and only a few of them are in use. This is primarily due to lack
of interest, which diminishes the availability of fueling locations. The department currently
has 20 Toyota hybrid vehicles in their inventory. They feel these vehicles are the design
of the future.
While visiting the department on September 22, 2005, participating Grand Jurors
were each given safety goggles to wear during a walk- through of the Shop area. We
were told upon entering the building that it is a requirement that everyone must wear eye
protection. Once inside the Shop area one of the first observations we made was that
none of the employees we saw were wearing any eye protection. The only people with
proper eye protection were the visiting Grand Jurors and the Fleet Management
Department managers. It is clearly posted at the entrances/ exits of the Shop area that
protective eyewear is required.
At that same visitation we were initially informed of a consolidation study being
done by an outside consultant. The Board of Supervisors had ordered a study to consider
the issue of consolidating the four County fleets into one fleet. We were told that the
study began about two years ago and was 90- 95 percent complete. We were advised
that we could see the report when it was completed, sometime in December 2005.
2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report
64
On November 23, 2005 the Grand Jury contacted the Dire
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | County of San Bernardino Grand Jury final report |
| Subject | California. Grand Jury (San Bernardino County)--Periodicals.; San Bernardino County (Calif.)--Politics and government--Periodicals. |
| Description | Description based on: 2003/2004; title from opening screen of PDF.; Harvested from the web on 2/14/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (San Bernardino County) |
| Publisher | San Bernardino County Grand Jury] |
| Type | Text |
| Identifier | http://digitalarchive.oclc.org/request?id%3Doclcnum%3A144613424; http://www.sbcounty.gov/grandjury/splash.asp |
| Language | eng |
| Relation | http://worldcat.org/oclc/144613424/viewonline |
| Format-Extent | 1 web site : digital, HTML, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | Mode of access: Internet.; System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. |
| Transcript | COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT 2005- 2006 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Mel Abeyta, Chair Susan Brewster Tom Hale Betty Hornbrook Elaine Marable Mark Taylor The Editorial Committee would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their hard work and invaluable assistance in the preparation of the Final Report of the 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury. Graphic Arts Silvia Schreiber, Graphic Designer Cover Design Karizma Villafuerte, Graphic Designer Photograph Roddy Padilla, Graphic Arts Printing Services County Printing Services Personnel Typing/ Preparation Susan Shuey, Grand Jury Assistant 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, Room 200, Courthouse San Bernardino, CA 92415- 0243 • ( 909) 387- 3820 Fax ( 909) 387- 4170 GRAND JURY COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOREMAN’S STATEMENT The 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury is pleased to present this final report to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, and the citizens of San Bernardino County. This has been a very active year for the Grand Jury. Normally, the Grand Jury’s year starts out with 19 citizens who have to spend the first 4 or 5 months of their year just learning about the County operations through visitations by each of the department heads and their staff. It is not until those visits/ presentations are complete that the Grand Jury can proceed with its department investigations. This year we were fortunate to have six former Grand Jurors who applied and were selected to serve. This helped tremendously in getting us started with our investigations sooner and helped everyone have a better understanding of the Grand Jury process. I was one of the former Grand Jurors selected, and feel honored that I was chosen by the Presiding Judge to be the Foreman. This is a responsibility that I did not take lightly. I would like to thank all of the 18 other Grand Jurors who made my job so very easy this past year. Without them, nothing would have been accomplished. The Grand Jury’s goal is to complete a Final Report by the end of June and submit it to the Presiding Judge and the Board of Supervisors by July 1. The Board of Supervisors then has up to 90 days to respond. In many instances, the Grand Jury may have completed some of its investigations in October or November of the preceding year, but the report doesn’t go to the Board of Supervisors until July of the next year; and then they don’t respond until October, possibly 12 months after the completion of the investigation! At that point, the term of the Grand Jury who wrote the report has been over for three months and they have no opportunity to respond to the County’s response. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury felt it was critical that if an investigation turned up important issues that should not be held up until the Final Report, we should initiate the option of submitting an Interim Report. The Penal Code allows for such a report, but the Board of Supervisors is still not required to answer until it responds to the Final Report. But at least the information and the Grand Jury’s recommendations will be published for the citizens of the County and the Board to see and perhaps act upon. During the 2005- 2006 year, this Grand Jury released four ( 4) Interim Reports. The Grand Jury felt these issues were important enough that we did not want to wait until the end of our term to bring them out in the open. All four of these Interim Reports are included in this Final Report. I hope that future Grand Juries will give consideration to issuing more Interim Reports. If we truly find a problem that needs correcting now, the Grand Jury shouldn’t wait for a year to let the County know of this issue. The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Foreman discussed in his Statement in that Final Report the issue of the costs to the County and its citizens of services to illegal immigrants. At the beginning of the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury term, I requested all Grand Jury committee and sub- committee chairmen ask each and every department they investigated if: ( 1) They provided services to illegal immigrants; ( 2) If so, what services; ( 3) What is the County cost of these services to illegal immigrants; and ( 4) Has anyone told them that they cannot ask users of the service about their legal status? You will find a report on this subject contained in this Final Report. We believe you will find it quite disturbing when you see the dollar amounts illegal immigrants are costing the County and taxpayers from just six ( 6) departments. The Grand Jury has a difficult job. We are saddled with the role of investigating a government operation with almost 18,000 employees; all departments/ entities of the County government ( 58); plus special districts. It is impossible to do a thorough investigation of this massive operation. But, each and every year 19 dedicated citizens of the County attempt to accomplish this task. Even though the job is almost impossible, the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury made every effort to comply with their Charge. I again must give my thanks and congratulations to them for a job well done. I would also like to state that this Grand Jury believes that the majority of San Bernardino County employees are truly dedicated and want to do a good job. The department heads and department supervisors were very cooperative in helping the Grand Jury understand what their departments’ job was all about. There were a few times when we felt we were being “ stonewalled” in hopes we would go away, but not too often. I would especially like to thank Mark Uffer, County Administrative Officer. Mr. Uffer has been extremely cooperative with this Grand Jury. Finally, I take my hat off to the two people who make the Grand Jury’s job possible. Sue Shuey, Grand Jury Assistant, and Clark Hansen, Jr., Deputy District Attorney and Grand Jury Legal Advisor. These two individuals provide leadership, guidance and support throughout the year. They have been doing this for many, many years and are a tremendous asset to the Grand Jury, the Superior Court and the County of San Bernardino, both government and the citizenry. I thank them for making my job so much easier. BRADFORD L. KUIPER Foreman 2005- 2006 Grand Jury 2005- 2006 GRAND JURY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY Bradford L. Kuiper Foreman J. Mark Taylor Foreman Pro Tem Susan S. Brewster Secretary Lawrence E. Rich Assistant Secretary Allen D. ( Skip) Burt Sergeant- at- Arms Melvin E. Abeyta Highland Gordon G. Bjorklund Running Springs Susan S. Brewster Alta Loma Franklin J. Browning Bloomington Allen D. ( Skip) Burt Alta Loma Kenneth E. Dean Hesperia Arden C. Fritz Yucaipa Thomas H. Hale Redlands Betty Lou Hornbrook Yucaipa Bradford L. Kuiper Apple Valley Elaine M. Marable Apple Valley Catherine P. Meister Colton Melinda J. O’Connor Hesperia Jenny L. Overton San Bernardino M. A. “ Kelly” Potter Hesperia Lawrence E. Rich Rialto J. Mark Taylor Apple Valley Frank B. Travis Chino RESIGNATIONS: Joetta Lee Moore ( August 2005) Chino Hills Joe A. Diaz ( August 2005) Alta Loma Roberta F. Minor ( August 2005) Fontana Michael Martinez ( May 2006) Ontario Presiding Judge 2005 Peter H. Norell Presiding Judge 2006 Larry W. Allen Legal Advisor Clark A. Hansen, Jr. Grand Jury Assistant Susan L. Shuey 11 San Bernardino Mountains SB Government Center SB Architecture Front ( left to right): Susan L. Shuey ( Grand Jury Assistant), Catherine Meister, Clark A. Hansen, Jr. ( Grand Jury Legal Advisor), Kelly Potter, Frank Travis, Brad Kuiper ( Foreman), Presiding Judge Larry W. Allen, Gordon Bjorklund, Elaine Marable, Sue Shuey ( Assistant to the Grand Jury Assistant) Back ( left to right): Larry Rich, Mark Taylor, Susan Brewster, Tom Hale, Arden Fritz, Mel Abeyta, Frank Browning, Skip Burt, Betty Hornbrook, Jenny Overton, Ken Dean, Melinda O’Connor TABLE OF CONTENTS 2005- 2006 GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT Page ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE 1 County Administrative Office 2 Human Resources Department 4 Superintendent of Schools 6 Interim Report: Is Your Life At Risk? 8 Board of Supervisors Response 13 Interim Report: Why Isn’t There Competition? 18 COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE 23 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 24 Community Development & Housing 25 County Library 26 County Museum 28 Regional Parks 29 HEALTH CARE SERVICES COMMITTEE 32 Public Health Department Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency ( ICEMA) 34 Page HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE 36 Department of Aging and Adult Services Adult Protective Services 37 Long- Term Care Ombudsman 38 Department of Children’s Services Child Protective Services 40 Foster Home Services 41 Independent Living Program 43 LAW AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE 46 District Attorney Public Integrity Unit 48 Public Defender 50 Sheriff- Coroner Coroner Division 52 Scientific Investigations Division 53 Interim Report: And You Thought “ In- N- Out Was a Hamburger” 55 PUBLIC AND SUPPORT SERVICES COMMITTEE 58 Architecture and Engineering Department 59 County Fire Department Office of Emergency Services 61 Fleet Management Department 63 Real Estate Services Department 65 Registrar of Voters 67 AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Does San Bernardino County Have Untapped Resources? 69 Illegal Immigrants 72 ADMINISTRATIVE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE Arden Fritz, Chairman Mel Abeyta Gordon Bjorklund Susan Brewster Skip Burt Tom Hale Betty Hornbrook Melinda O’Connor Jenny Overton Larry Rich Mark Taylor 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 1 ADMINISTRATIVE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE The Administrative and Audit Committee investigated the following boards, departments and agencies: Assessor Auditor/ Controller- Recorder Board of Supervisors County Administrative Office Human Resources Purchasing Department Superintendent of Schools The departments under Administrative and Audit have been through a number of changes in the past two years. The new County Administrative Officer has endeavored to streamline operations and improve customer service. Two committee members attended all of the Board of Supervisors’ meetings, including those that were scheduled in other areas of the County. Two Interim Reports were prepared concerning air ambulance services, which were filed with the Board of Supervisors. The committee received one complaint, which resulted in a final report on the Human Resources Department. The actions of the Administrative and Audit Committee resulted in the following findings and recommendations. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 2 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BACKGROUND The County Administrative Office is responsible for developing and implementing budgets, policies and procedures, directing departmental activities in accordance with the County Charter and general laws, and carrying out the strategic goals adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The County Administrative Office is under the direction of the County Administrative Officer ( CAO) who is appointed by, and reports directly to, the Board of Supervisors. The CAO oversees the operations of County departments and assists in the coordination of activities of departments headed by elected officials. On September 8, 2005 the Board of Supervisors ratified a proclamation of a local emergency regarding Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. The County responded by providing medical, hospital, social services, public health, mental health, public safety, fire, public works, and other resources to aid in the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts both locally and to the incident. FINDINGS Fourteen ( 14) County personnel traveled by truck convoy to Gulfport, Mississippi to deliver the surplus goods and other donated items. In addition, eight high level County officials, three members of the Board of Supervisors, along with two Supervisors’ Chiefs of Staff, and 13 other elected officials and high level management staff from other local public agencies traveled together to Gulfport in one charter flight. This was in violation of County Travel Policy No. 12- 08. The trip was a fact- finding mission to give County officials the opportunity to see first- hand the effects of a major disaster and to learn lessons from Gulfport’s response to relief and recovery efforts. The County’s Administrative Officer stated “… the trip served as the impetus for the formation of a County Disaster Task Force to review the County’s Emergency Preparedness Plan and apply any lessons that were learned during the Gulfport mission.” 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 3 County Travel Policy 12- 08 states, in part, that “ No more than two members of the Board of Supervisors shall travel together on whatever transportation mode is utilized” and “ Department Heads and Assistant Department Heads or their immediate subordinates are strongly discouraged from traveling together on the same flights or other common carrier.” This is to ensure that the management of County government is not jeopardized by multiple injuries or fatalities to County executives traveling together on common carriers on County related business. If a serious accident with the chartered flight had occurred that resulted in major injuries or deaths, the ongoing management of County government and the other public agencies within the County, would have been jeopardized. The Grand Jury finds that even though this endeavor may be commendable and its humanitarian efforts applauded, public opinion appears to be mixed on the value of the trip and the costs incurred by the County. The type of disaster that Gulfport experienced ( flooding) is not one that this County would likely experience. A San Bernardino County major disaster would probably be an earthquake or a major fire calamity. The Grand Jury also found the County Administrative Officer does not currently do annual Work Performance Evaluations on department heads. He stated department heads know what they have to do and their job duties and responsibilities are listed in their job description. If a department head is not doing his/ her job, he gets rid of them. Currently, departmental evaluations are financially based. Departments are evaluated on their budgets, programs, and achievements accomplished. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 01 COUNTY POLICY 12- 08 BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH BY ALL COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES ON ALL COUNTY AUTHORIZED BUSINESS TRAVEL. 06- 02 ESTABLISH AND IMPLEMENT A POLICY FOR ANNUAL WORK PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF ALL COUNTY DEPARTMENT HEADS. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 4 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND During an investigation into allegations made against a San Bernardino County employee, several areas of concern came to our attention regarding the Human Resources Department’s policies. Members met with the Director of Human Resources for clarification of our concerns regarding job reclassification and/ or upgrading, job descriptions, and employee background checks. FINDINGS When a position is being considered for reclassification, Human Resources and the office of the County Administrative Office ( CAO) review the current duties and responsibilities of the position under consideration. Wording changes in the job title may be required due to changes in technology or technical requirements. If justified, a reclassification or an upgrade is recommended. The CAO’s office and the affected department approve the job title change. It is then recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the request for reclassification be approved, subject to final approval from the Human Resources Department. The job descriptions, in some cases, are not complete when submitted to the Board for approval. Writing a job description after the fact makes it appear the job description is being written around a person already holding the position. Most counties complete the job description first, obtain final approval from the appropriate administration, and then fill the position under the new job description. The County does background checks on most applicants being considered for employment. This is limited to a medical exam, drug testing, and a DMV check. If the position is for a high level post, or one that includes working with finances, a more thorough background check is done. The current policy on background checks is not consistent throughout the County, and they are not required for those hired for “ at will” ( appointed) positions. The Human Resources Department is working on a new background check policy that will set standards for positions from entry level ( level 1) to the highest positions requiring a more extensive background investigation ( level 4). This policy, if approved, will apply to any employees hired by the Board of Supervisors, new hires, and any promotional upgrades working for the County. Background checks cannot be done on present employees without just cause. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 5 Currently the County does not have a program in place with the Department of Motor Vehicles ( DMV) to automatically notify the County when a County employee has been charged with or convicted of any violations of the Vehicle Code. It is up to the employee to notify his or her supervisor of any such incidents. If an employee’s license has been suspended for any reason, it could be putting the County at risk, especially with employees who drive County vehicles or conduct County business using their own personal vehicles. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 03 REVISE THE RECLASSIFICATION AND/ OR UPGRADE PROCESS TO PROVIDE FOR A COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE FILLING THE POSITION. 06- 04 IMPLEMENT A STANDARD BACKGROUND CHECK POLICY FOR ALL NEW, UPGRADED, AND “ AT WILL” EMPLOYEES. 06- 05 IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ( DMV) THAT ALERTS THE COUNTY TO VIOLATIONS INVOLVING A COUNTY EMPLOYEE. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 6 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS BACKGROUND The County Superintendent of Schools ( CSS) employs a staff of 2,000 that includes five assistant superintendents and a management team of 30. Their office is located in San Bernardino, and was built by the County in 1984. By Contract Agreement 84- 552, the County is required to monetarily cover the costs of utilities and maintenance. What began as a $ 196,541 annual expenditure 21 years ago now has escalated to $ 1,200,000. FINDINGS Short of audit authority, the Grand Jury could determine little oversight or authority the Superintendent has over San Bernardino County’s school systems. Even with audits, their responsibility was limited to simply determining if each school district had sufficient money available to cover their budget. The County Superintendent of Schools had no input into budgeting items or procedures. Even though all County schools are on the CSS accounting system, abuse or mishandling of Associated Student Body funds ( as in the San Bernardino High School incident in November 2005) goes undetected. School districts are not required to report absences and truancies to CSS; districts must first request CSS assistance before they can become involved. The 129 San Bernardino County schools that were not meeting their Annual Yearly Progress goals are only accountable to themselves and the State, not the County Superintendent of Schools. When inquiries were made to determine the extent of illegal immigrant attendance, CSS chooses to interpret Plyler v. Doe as prohibition to identify, even though that court decision specifically applies to denial of services. Clearly, the Grand Jury only wanted to identify costs involving the 14,000 classrooms in the San Bernardino County school system, each with 20 or more non- English speaking students. The above assimilation of facts is in no way meant to suggest that the County Superintendent of Schools is denying or shirking responsibilities. It is to say that the time has come to recognize the benefit of the CSS to the County would not denigrate with the transfer of funding to the State. Currently, the State of California reduces financial support to CSS to the extent of county funding. We are the lowest State- funded County Superintendent of Schools in California, and one of only three that is not totally funded by the State. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 7 RECOMMENDATION 06- 06 THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OFFICE SEEK LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO BECOME FISCALLY INDEPENDENT, AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE WORK WITH THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT TO DEVELOP A PROCESS TO MOVE TOWARD FISCAL INDEPENDENCE WHILE SUSTAINING CURRENT AND FUTURE FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT FROM THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, TO ENSURE NO REDUCTION OF STATE REVENUES TO THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OFFICE. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 8 INTERIM REPORT Released November 10, 2005 IS YOUR LIFE AT RISK? On October 13, 2005, an unfortunate incident occurred in Apple Valley involving a young man on a bicycle, who was struck by a passing automobile. The Adelanto- based Mercy air ambulance was unavailable, and the Sheriff’s air rescue helicopter was on another incident in Victorville. The next Mercy air ambulance on the list was also unavailable. The third Mercy airship took the call, only to report back three minutes later that it was also unavailable. At that point, personnel at the scene decided to do a ground transport to Loma Linda University Medical Center. On October 6, 2005, there was another unfortunate incident involving a young motorcyclist and two vehicles, requiring three air transport helicopters. The Sheriff’s air rescue helicopter responded to the initial call. When the call came for the second air ambulance unit, Mercy’s first three air ambulances were unavailable, and it became necessary to go to the Mercy unit assigned in Banning. California City Air Ambulance was not called. In early 2004, unavailability was again the issue when there was a traffic accident on Highway 58 at the BNSF Railroad crossing west of Kramer Junction. The first two Mercy units were not available. While the third Mercy unit responded some 37 minutes later, California City Air Ambulance had an ETA of less than ten minutes. In spite of the restrictions imposed by giving priority to Mercy Air, California City Air Ambulance continued to provide “ last resort” services as a mutual aid provider to San Bernardino County on ten occasions during 2004. gold- en hour adj. That time period when most trauma patients, suffering from shock, can most likely be saved. Trauma begins the moment a person is involved in a serious accident. If trauma is severe enough, circulation becomes impaired or non- existent, and chemical changes in the body bring on shock. If bleeding can be stopped and blood pressure restored within that golden hour, the medical community contends that a patients’ chances of surviving are greatly increased. Some trauma patients in San Bernardino County may not have been afforded that increased chance for survival. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 9 In April, there was an accident involving three vehicles near Kramer Junction, resulting in seven patients, six of which had to be extricated, four needed immediate attention by a trauma unit, and one expired at the scene. Two Mercy units were dispatched rather than utilizing the services of California City Air Ambulance, who could have arrived at the scene approximately 30 minutes prior to arrival of Mercy’s second airship. ICEMA’s ( Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency) staff report to the Emergency Medical Care Committee ( EMCC) included this information, also noting there could potentially have been “ four fatalities”. Under authority of the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 9, Chapter 8, Section 100276, ICEMA is the governing body designated to recommend and approve EMS ( emergency medical service) aircraft policies, as well as recommend the integration of EMS aircraft into San Bernardino County’s transport system. The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors is also the ICEMA Board of Directors. In early 2004, ICEMA recognized inherent delays with San Bernardino County’s ALS ( Advanced Life Support) system due, in part, to there being only one permitted provider: Mercy Air. Having proven the need and necessity to increase emergency medical helicopter assistance in the Highway 395/ Highway 58 corridor in the High Desert of San Bernardino County, ICEMA approached California City Air Ambulance with a request for them to become qualified under ICEMA’s pre- hospital requirements. After completion of a study, ICEMA proposed to the EMCC in January 2005, that California City Air Ambulance be permitted to operate within San Bernardino County’s 20,000 square miles to improve response times in certain corridors. This proposal passed by EMCC 8- 0, with one abstention. California City Air Ambulance agreed to pursue the permitting process, and after an out- of- pocket expense of $ 48,500, passed all qualifications and signed an agreement with ICEMA on June 8, 2005 to become permitted to operate in San Bernardino County. On June 21, 2005, Item 130, “ Agreement with California City Fire Department to Authorize and Classify Advanced Life Support Air Ambulance Service” was placed on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors’ Consent Calendar for approval. The County Administrative Office, County Counsel and Department of Public Health supported this action. The First District Supervisor requested that Item 130 be continued until July 12, 2005. On July 12, 2005 the item again appeared on the Consent Calendar, and this time the First District Supervisor pulled it off calendar without explanation. As of the date of this report, the Board of Supervisors’ has never voted on this issue. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 10 This Grand Jury was sworn in July 1, 2005, and in August began an investigation into the status of this matter. San Bernardino County is divided into 18 HDZ’s ( helicopter demand zones) in order to cover emergency medical evacuation needs. While San Bernardino County air space is non- exclusive, Mercy Air is the only permitted company, aside from the Sheriff’s air rescue unit, operating within the County. Others, such as California City Air Ambulance, are not permitted and can only provide service within the County as a mutual aid provider. Being a “ non- permitted” or mutual aid provider means: 1. On- board medical equipment may not meet ICEMA standards and medical personnel on board may not have the required qualifications. 2. Because of infrequency of use in most areas of San Bernardino County, pilots and crews of mutual aid providers are not always current on flight routes, facilities and other associated issues with regard to critical timing issues. 3. The only permitted carrier ( Mercy Air) receives absolute priority over all mutual aid providers, even though response times may not be superior. Air ambulance dispatches increased from 1,382 in 2002 to 1,819 in 2004, an increase of 32 percent. As populations increase, it is likely that trauma incidents requiring air ambulance rescue will also increase. Of necessity, resources providing this service must also increase. After interviewing ICEMA personnel, as well as California City’s Fire Chief, inquiry was made of each member of the Board of Supervisors as to the status of the ICEMA recommendation that was pulled from the Board’s agenda. Of the five Supervisors, the Board Chairman took responsibility, advising that he was “… not convinced that providing a permit to California City Air Ambulance was the right thing to do.” He further stated “… the Board has to concern itself with the financial security and stability of its current provider”. Mercy Air’s business manager has also written several letters of objection to ICEMA, EMCC, and the Board of Supervisors. Inasmuch as ICEMA’s endorsement request had only recommended approval for California City Air Ambulance to be “ third on the list” in only three of the 18 HDZ’s, it was obvious that this, in itself, would not cause the insolvency of a major provider such as Mercy Air, whose parent company, Air Methods, reported second quarter 2005 results of a net income increase of 32 percent. The only “ financial issue” the County Board of Supervisors should have concern for is that they can ill afford not to provide additional emergency aircraft resources. ICEMA should be allowed to function in its intended 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 11 capacity. The Board of Supervisors should not discount ICEMA’s expertise and allow Mercy Air’s business manager to override the recommendation of its own designated authority. Further investigation revealed that 9- 1- 1 and emergency transport calls are not the greatest monetary provider to the air ambulance industry. The bigger picture is in “ after the fact inter- hospital transports.” In that regard, only those providers with a permit from ICEMA are allowed to provide such service. Therefore, Mercy Air is now the sole provider of inter- hospital service, and there is no restriction or cap on the amount that can be charged for this service. Indeed, if the Board of Supervisors desired to operate the County’s air ambulance service in the best financial interests of its citizens, they would consider the fact that California City Air Ambulance is a non- profit entity. The tendency might be to divert criticism toward Mercy Air; however, mechanical failures do occur, and an extraordinary sequence of events will sometimes preclude availability of equipment. Under FAA regulations, helicopters must be periodically grounded for necessary inspections and, in the free- enterprise system, companies will work hard to gain a competitive advantage. However, no provider of services should ever be allowed to position itself to dictate to the County. It is not cost effective or efficient to allow a single- source provider. If any company doing business in San Bernardino County is financially unstable, it is not the responsibility of the County Supervisors to protect them. The Board of Supervisors must be in the business of protecting the health and welfare of its citizens. A review of public records found that Mercy Air and its parent company, Air Methods, based in Colorado, have over a period of time, contributed thousands of dollars to the campaigns of several former and current members of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. When genuine concern for the safety of constituents gives way to politics, the public suffers! RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 07 THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SITTING AS THE GOVERNING BOARD OF INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY ( ICEMA) SHOULD APPROVE THE PERMITTING OF CALIFORNIA CITY AIR AMBULANCE AS AN ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT ( ALS) PROVIDER WITHIN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ITS CITIZENS WITH THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO REACH A TRAUMA CENTER WITHIN THAT CRITICAL “ GOLDEN HOUR.” 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 12 06- 08 INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY SHOULD REVISE THE HDZ ( HELICOPTER DEMAND ZONE) PROVIDER LIST. QUICKEST RESPONSE TIMES SHOULD BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN DECIDING WHICH PERMITTED PROVIDER IS FIRST CALLED TO RESPOND TO THE NEED. 06- 09 OTHER AIR AMBULANCE PROVIDERS WHO HAVE APPLIED AND BEEN DENIED IN THE PAST SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED. IF THEY COMPLY WITH ICEMA’S QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, THEY SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUALIFY AS A PERMITTED AIR AMBULANCE PROVIDER. 06- 10 THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHOULD NOT SERVE AS THE GOVERNING BOARD OF INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY ( ICEMA). IN ADDITION MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICEMA SHOULD NEVER BE IN A POSITION TO ACCEPT DONATIONS OR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY PERMITTED PROVIDER OR ITS PARENT COMPANY. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 13 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 10, 2005 INTERIM REPORT OF THE 2005- 2006 COUNTY GRAND JURY January 31, 2005 The County of San Bernardino welcomes the grand jury’s interest in the important subject of air ambulance Advanced Life Support services within the County. However, the grand jury’s interim report dated November 10, 2005, contains key inaccuracies and is not in the County’s view a balanced account of the current status of air ambulance service in the County. As an overall premise, the report erroneously states the public’s safety is at risk because California City Air Ambulance in Kern County has not been granted a permit to provide Advanced Life Support services within San Bernardino County. This conclusion creates the false impression that California City’s services are not available to accident victims in San Bernardino County and is based on the inaccurate notion that a permit would improve air ambulance response times and availability. In fact, California City has been and would continue to be utilized as a provider of emergency air services in the County regardless of whether it is granted a permit. It must be noted that a permit would not change the fact that California City has only one helicopter in its fleet, and that currently it has no helicopters at its disposal, compared to eight owned by Mercy serving the County and 15 total from all providers serving the County ( California City’s one helicopter has been removed from service, and the agency does not expect to have a replacement aircraft in operation until late April). Also, a permit would not move California City’s helicopter any further up on the priority call list. The grand jury’s interim report contains errors of fact and omission that call the report’s conclusions and recommendations into question. They include: The grand jury used an account of an October 13, 2005 emergency incident to support its conclusion that granting California City a permit would increase the availability of air ambulance service in San Bernardino County. The grand jury’s account of the incident omits the fact that California City was contacted to respond to the incident, but that its one helicopter was unavailable. The grand jury used an account of an October 6, 2005 emergency incident to support its conclusion that granting California City a permit would improve air ambulance response times. The grand jury’s account of the incident omits the 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 14 fact that the units that were contacted all responded in less than 40 minutes, and that a permit for California City would not have affected response times for that incident. The grand jury used an account of an April 18, 2004 emergency incident also to support its conclusion that granting California City a permit would improve air ambulance response times. The grand jury concluded that California City’s helicopter “ could have arrived at the scene approximately 30 minutes prior to arrival of Mercy’s second airship.” This would have been impossible given the fact that the Mercy helicopters arrived a respective 25 minutes and 27 minutes after they were dispatched. The grand jury reported that Mercy air “ receives absolute priority over all mutual aid providers, even though response times may not be superior.” This is false. In some regions, California City is higher in the dispatch order than some Mercy units. For instance, in Red Mountain, California City is third in the dispatch order, ahead of six Mercy units. In Barstow, California City is fifth in the dispatch order, ahead of seven Mercy units. In some of the more remote regions of the County, mutual aid providers are first in the dispatch order, ahead of all permitted units. The grand jury states “ California City Air Ambulance is a non- profit entity.” Although on its face this statement is true, it omits the fact that California City’s Air Ambulance provider, Tri- State Care Flight, is a private for- profit entity that may have a direct financial stake in whether California City is granted a permit. The grand jury concluded via a statement attributed to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors that the County should not concern itself with the financial viability of companies providing services to the County and its citizens and visitors. When appropriate, the County responsibly concerns itself with the financial security and stability of providers of vital public services to ensure that there is no interruption of service. This is why the County in contract situations often requires prospective providers of critical and/ or ongoing services to provide certified documentation of their fiscal health and stability. In the case of air ambulance service, the grand jury stated that inter- hospital transports are the greatest monetary provider to the air ambulance industry. Since the County has established that granting a permit to California City would have zero impact on air ambulance response times, California City’s entrance into the inter- hospital business in San Bernardino County becomes an issue. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 15 The County has received no indication from the customers of inter- hospital transports – hospitals within the county – that competition is needed to control rates, improve patient care, or achieve some other public benefit. While the County is not directly concerned with the financial state of Mercy Air, it would be highly irresponsible for the County not to concern itself with factors that might influence the level of service Mercy makes available to the County. While the grand jury is most likely correct in assuming that competition from California City’s one helicopter would probably not threaten Mercy’s existence, it may prompt Mercy to make a business decision to reduce the number of airships currently serving the County or to not add airships as need increases. Whereas the vast majority of air ambulance Advance Life Support service in the County is provided by Mercy, it seems questionable to grant a permit to California City when the only effect would be to create competition that serves no apparent benefit to the public and could compromise a vital life- saving public safety function. Finally, the County will keep the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury informed of any action or changes regarding this subject matter. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SITTING AS THE GOVERNING BOARD OF INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY ( ICEMA) SHOULD APPROVE THE PERMITTING OF CALIFORNIA CITY AIR AMBULANCE AS AN ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT ( ALS) PROVIDER WITHIN SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ITS CITIZENS WITH THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO REACH A TRAUMA CENTER WITHIN THAT CRITICAL “ GOLDEN HOUR.” County Response: Granting a permit to California City Air Ambulance would provide no increased opportunity to reduce air ambulance response times or otherwise provide County citizens or other injured persons a better opportunity to reach a trauma center within one hour of the onset of injuries. A permit provides ICEMA with the opportunity to exert medical supervision over an air ambulance provider’s operations, and allows the provider to transport stabilized patients from one hospital to another. If a recom-mendation can be made to the ICEMA governing board that granting a permit to California City Air Ambulance is in the best interests of the public, the board will reconsider the recommendation. 2. INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY SHOULD REVISE THE HDZ ( HELICOPTER DEMAND ZONE) PROVIDER LIST. QUICKEST RESPONSE TIMES SHOULD 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 16 BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN DECIDING WHICH PERMITTED PROVIDER IS FIRST CALLED TO RESPOND TO THE NEED. County Response: This recommendation has been implemented. During the summer, several months before the grand jury’s interim report was released, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors’ office requested that California City be moved higher in the dispatch order in the Red Mountain, Barstow, and Kramer Junction areas. The request apparently never reached ICEMA staff, so the request was renewed following the appearance of the grand jury interim report. The dispatch order is set based upon recommendations by the Emergency Medical System Aircraft Providers Task Force, which includes all providers, including Mercy and California City. ICEMA staff brought the issue before the Task Force on January 18, 2006. California City did not attend meeting, at which the Task Force unanimously recommended moving California City from third to second in the dispatch order in the Red Mountain area, from fifth to third in the Barstow area, from seventh to fifth in the Victorville area, and from third to second in the Kramer Junction area. This recommendation will be implemented when California City resumes air ambulance service. 3. OTHER AIR AMBULANCE PROVIDERS WHO HAVE APPLIED AND BEEN DENIED IN THE PAST SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED. IF THEY COMPLY WITH ICEMA’S QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, THEY SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUALIFY AS A PERMITTED AIR AMBULANCE PROVIDER. County Response: This recommendation cannot be implemented because the ICEMA Executive Director is aware of no other provider besides California City that has applied for a permit. 4. THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHOULD NOT SERVE AS THE GOVERNING BOARD OF INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY ( ICEMA). IN ADDITION, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ICEMA SHOULD NEVER BE IN A POSITION TO ACCEPT DONATIONS OR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANY PERMITTED PROVIDER OR ITS PARENT COMPANY. County Response: The County will not implement this recommendation. As representatives directly accountable to the people of San Bernardino County, the Board of Supervisors is ideal to serve as the governing board members overseeing an agency charged with such an important public safety mission. Also, having the Board of Supervisors serve as directors of ICEMA ensures that all matters involving the agency are deliberated during public meetings of the Board of Supervisors. Assigning this task to an appointed board would result in ICEMA matters being considered during meetings of that appointed board, which would most likely be sparsely attended and receive 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 17 much less news media coverage than meetings of the Board of Supervisors. Clearly, the public is best served by having the Board of Supervisors act as the ICEMA governing board. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 18 INTERIM REPORT Released May 11, 2006 WHY ISN’T THERE COMPETITION? BACKGROUND In February of 2004, the Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency ( ICEMA), which includes authority over air ambulance service, approached California City Air Ambulance ( CCAA) with a request to qualify to meet ICEMA standards in order to become “ permitted” within San Bernardino County. CCAA agreed to do so, completing all requirements by April of 2004, after expending $ 48,500 to do so. After considerable investigation, ICEMA substantiated it to be in the best interests of the public to add “ permitted” air ambulance resources. Before proceeding with any recommendations to its governing board ( Board of Supervisors), ICEMA followed protocol, bringing the issue before the Emergency Medical Care Committee ( EMCC) to secure their approval. This Committee is comprised of physicians, law enforcement personnel and hospital administrators, as well as nurses and Emergency Medical Technician ( EMT) personnel. At their January 2005 meeting, the EMCC voted 8- 0 in favor of ICEMA’s recommendation to request the governing board ( Board of Supervisors) to permit CCAA. ICEMA then submitted the recommendation to County staff, and it was placed on the June 21, 2005 Board of Supervisors’ agenda. On June 13, 2005 the Chairman of the Board received a $ 1,000 donation from Mercy Air Ambulance. Eight days later, at the June 21st meeting, the Chairman deferred the ICEMA agenda item until July 12, 2005. At the July 12th meeting, the Chairman then pulled the item from the agenda. After investigation, the Grand Jury released an Interim Report dated November 15, 2005, recommending the Board of Supervisors grant California City Air Ambulance a permit. On January 31, 2006 the Board responded regarding their denial to do so stating, “ If a recommendation can be made to the ICEMA governing board that granting a permit to California City Air Ambulance is in the best interest of the public, the board will consider the recommendation.” 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 19 FINDINGS In response to the aforementioned Interim Report, the Board’s Chairman stated he had instructed the ICEMA staff to revise the calling order of air ambulance providers, “… in the summer, several months before the Grand Jury’s interim report was released.” The Director of Public Health recalled a discussion took place, but did not interpret it as a directive. The Public Health Officer, who was also at the meeting, did not recall such a statement. The Director of ICEMA, who would have enacted such instructions, never received such an order. What the Grand Jury has found is the following: 1. San Bernardino County has a reputation that its top officials accept contributions from people it does business with, and grants favors in return. 2. Mercy Air Ambulance’s parent company donates to members of the Board of Supervisors. 3. June of 2005 the proposal of permitting CCAA to be a provider of air ambulance service, in addition to Mercy Air, was placed on the Boards’ calendar. 4. June 13, 2005, Mercy Air contributed $ 1,000 to the Chairman of the Board. 5. Eight days later, on June 21, 2005, the item was continued until July 12, 2005. 6. July 12, 2005, the Chairman pulled the item from the Consent Calendar. 7. November 15, 2005, the Grand Jury released its Interim Report criticizing the Boards’ actions. 8. Board of Supervisors then requests “ an objective view” of the proposal from someone not involved; a Deputy County Administrative Officer. 9. November 21, 2005, the report from the Administrative Officer was returned to the Board of Supervisors. This “ study” was accomplished by reviewing ICEMA’s original recommendation and analysis, and no new data was obtained. The study recommended that ICEMA reconsider several issues and resubmit the proposal to the Emergency Medical Care Committee ( EMCC) for another vote. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 20 10. January of 2006, ICEMA did reconsider these issues as outlined in the November recommendations from the Administrative Officer and, once again, presented it to the EMCC. The vote was again 8- 0 in favor of allowing California City Air Ambulance to be permitted. 11. Board of Supervisors’ responded in January of 2006 to the Grand Jury report, stating it is “ inaccurate, offensive, and the reported risk to the public’s safety is erroneous”. However, the Town of Apple Valley has subsequently requested ICEMA to undertake a study to evaluate automatic air ambulance dispatching to improve air ambulance response. Apparently, Apple Valley did not feel the stated issues were “ erroneous”. The delay since this issue initially surfaced has taken its toll. California City Air Ambulance has apparently been discouraged from becoming a competitive asset to the County. The Fire Chief in California City, who established their air ambulance service, has since accepted another position. The helicopter has been placed out of service for major equipment upgrades, and we have now been informed CCAA will no longer pursue the “ permitting” process in San Bernardino County. In a letter from the State Director of Emergency Medical Services Authority, the State has concluded that, in spite of allowing Mercy Air an exclusively “ permitted” air ambulance contract, San Bernardino County has never applied at the State level for approval of an Exclusive Operating Area ( EOA). If nothing changes, the County is subject to anti- trust litigation. This applies not only to the County, but the local EMS agency ( ICEMA) as well, in spite of their recommendation to the Board. Such exposure to litigation is totally unnecessary. Any successful litigation would drain precious funds from critically needed projects. Lack of competition has also taken its toll. There are a total of 18 helicopter “ calling zones” within San Bernardino County. Of these, Mercy Air is first on the list to be called in 15 of these zones, with our County Sheriff’s rescue copter being listed first in two other zones. The one remaining zone, on the Arizona border, is protected with resources from Mercy Air in Nevada, and Native and Guardian Air from Arizona who, like California City, are mutual aid non- permitted providers. Aside from safety, what better “ interest of the public” could there be than cost? Below is a reproduction of an actual invoice received from Mercy Air, covering less than 90 minutes service time, from dispatch to return to base, a 28 mile flight. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 21 While Mercy Air received $ 3,500 from the recipient’s insurance carrier as payment, the patient was billed for the additional $ 7,220. This is not an issue with which the Grand Jury faults Mercy Air – they are exercising the freedom provided them by the County. Without competition and an operating agreement that places a cap on charges, Mercy Air is simply participating in a perfect business world. The issue lies with those responsible for making governmental decisions. Justification for alternative resources cannot be better exemplified than the results of a comparison of fees charged in San Bernardino County with other counties. Calstar provided air ambulance service, alongside Mercy Air, in Santa Barbara County and adjoining Ventura County. Mercy Air’s “ liftoff” rate ( Helicopter Base Rate) in Ventura County was $ 7,897, or $ 1,200 less than San Bernardino County. Also, the mileage charge was $ 49.50, or $ 7.43 per mile less than San Bernardino County. Approximately 90 days following completion of a new contract with Ventura’s Board of Supervisors, Mercy Air stopped serving both Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 22 Mercy Air moved that equipment to the Marine Base at Twentynine Palms. During this process, unauthorized Mercy Air equipment operated in San Bernardino County. Mercy Air’s departure from Santa Barbara and Ventura counties points out the severe need for an alternative, competitive air ambulance resource in San Bernardino County. The Board of Supervisors needs to revisit this entire issue. ICEMA is mandated to make recommendations on behalf of the health and well being of the citizens of San Bernardino County. It is ill advised, at best, to allow a political board to have veto power over a medical panel such as ICEMA and the EMCC. Because of the Board’s response citing concern for the “ stability” of Mercy Air, the citizens of San Bernardino County are benefactors of a governmental system that has responded to “ special interests” and not the “ public’s interest.” When the Board of Supervisors sits as the governing board of ICEMA, they are subject to California Government Code Section 84308, that " Prohibits any public official acting in a non- elected or appointed capacity from being involved in a decision that affects anyone who has donated more than $ 250.00 in the preceding 12 months to his or her campaign”. This Code is not currently being complied with. ICEMA is one of eight EMS agencies in the State with multiple county jurisdictions. Unlike the other seven counties, our Board of Supervisors serves as ICEMA’s governing board. San Bernardino County Supervisors, in response to an earlier Interim Report, insist on serving as ICEMA’s governing board because it “… ensures that all matters involving the agency are deliberated during public meetings...” In this case, however, “ deliberations” consisted of pulling the item from the agenda, and San Bernardino County is now vulnerable to anti- trust litigation. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 11 ADVERTISE AN IMMEDIATE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ( RFP) IN AN ATTEMPT TO SECURE ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE AIR AMBULANCE RESOURCES. 06- 12 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CEASE FUNCTIONING AS THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY ( ICEMA) TO AVOID EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. 06- 13 THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CEASE ACCEPTING CAMPAIGN DONATIONS FROM ALL EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROVIDERS, GROUND AND AIR. complaints COMMITTEE Allen ( Skip) Burt, Chairman Ken Dean Kelly Potter Mark Taylor Frank Travis 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 23 COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE The Grand Jury receives complaints from throughout the County. It is the duty of the Complaints Committee to evaluate these complaints and determine if the Grand Jury has jurisdiction and, if so, does the complaint actually have merit. When it is determined that a complaint is valid, it is given to the appropriate existing committee or an ad hoc committee may be formed. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury received 15 complaints, of which three were investigated. economic development COMMITTEE Tom Hale, Chairman Mel Abeyta Gordon Bjorklund Frank Browning Skip Burt Ken Dean Arden Fritz Elaine Marable Catherine Meister Jenny Overton 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 24 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The Economic Development Committee had the responsibility to investigate the following County departments: Agriculture, Weights & Measures Airports Community Development and Housing County Library County Museums Redevelopment Regional Parks Workforce Development Subcommittees were established to review the function and operation of each department. The committee carefully reviewed prior Grand Jury reports and Board of Supervisors’ responses regarding the departments, back to 1995. Visitations were made to all departments. Findings and recommendations from the investigations are detailed in this final report for the following departments: Community Development and Housing County Library County Museums Regional Parks 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 25 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING ( Report jointly submitted by the Community Development & Housing and Administrative and Audit’s Audit/ Fiscal Subcommittees) BACKGROUND The Department of Community Development and Housing ( CDH) is responsible for administering Federal, State and local grant funds allocated to the County of San Bernardino for housing and community development programs. CDH obtains grants from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) to fund construction, housing rehabilitation, economic development, public service, and community revitalization projects throughout the County. Other sources that provide funds for CDH are Community Development Block Grants, Emergency Shelter Grants, Home Investment Partnership Act Grants, Neighborhood Initiative Grants, the Economic Development Initiative Program, and administrative fees written into State of California housing bond issues. FINDINGS The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury became aware of the existence of the Housing Trust Fund administered by CDH at the end of its term. The 2005- 2006 Grand Jury was alerted to this fund from reports of the previous Grand Jury and decided to reinvestigate this issue. The source of the funds in the Housing Trust Fund is an administrative fee written into each of the State of California housing bond issues. During a visitation in September 2005 with the prior director of CDH, the existence of this fund was acknowledged. All the monies provided by Federal and State sources are audited annually. However, the Housing Trust Fund has never been audited. At the suggestion of the Audit/ Fiscal Subcommittee, the director agreed that an audit of the fund was in order and asked his staff to implement such an audit with the office of the County Auditor/ Controller- Recorder ( ACR). To date, this request has not been received by the ACR. The amount of money in the fund varies, but at present is approximately $ 1.2 million. The Grand Jury feels that, given the size of this fund, it should be audited. CDH and the Auditor/ Controller would need to establish the basis and scope of the audit. RECOMMENDATION 06- 14 CONDUCT AN IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL AUDIT OF THE HOUSING TRUST FUND. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 26 COUNTY LIBRARY BACKGROUND The County Library serves 30 branches in the unincorporated areas and 18 cities in the County of San Bernardino. In addition, there are two new joint- use branches, Carter High School, now open in Rialto, and Summit High School, opening in September 2006 in North Fontana. The County Library is working with the City of Victorville in its efforts to establish a city library. Victorville is considering using Development Impact Fees to build a library. It is anticipated that they will build another library in the west end of the city in five to seven years, also using Development Impact funds. Victorville city officials believe by taking over the library, they could use Development Impact Fees to improve library services to the community. The County will turn over its operation to the city in July 2006. Building a new County library in Hesperia will currently meet the needs of that city, but the County Librarian predicts another library will soon be needed in Hesperia to meet future needs. The County Library has a budget of $ 13 million, with 80 percent of that coming from special district taxes. The rest of the funds come from the County and fund raising efforts of the various Friends of the Library organizations. The County Library has a total of 370 employees, which includes 215 part- time employees. Upgrading of their computer system and refurbishing of the main Library headquarters facility in San Bernardino are currently in progress. The County Librarian is projecting a minimum space increase of 20 percent over the approximate 200,000 square feet currently available; a 15 percent increase over the 395 personal computers currently available; and a ten percent increase over the 175,000 current transactions through the next two years. FINDINGS The Library’s biggest challenge is finding the funds to increase the $ 1,390,000 book budget. Over the last 12 years, the County’s book budget has decreased from $ 1.98 per patron to $ 1.00 per patron, while the State’s budget has increased to $ 2.81. The Friends 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 27 of the Library have raised over $ 500,000 for books, but it still does not meet the book budget needs. The County Library System does not have access to Development Impact Fees; San Bernardino County does not impose such fees. Victorville is an example of how Development Impact Fees are used to improve the library system in its city. Many libraries in the System are old and outdated and in need of enlargement or new construction. The County Library System needs to find new sources of revenue. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 15 ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO THE LIBRARY TO BRING FUNDING IN LINE WITH THE $ 2.81 PER PATRON STATE AVERAGE. 06- 16 IMPOSE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO ASSIST THE FUNDING OF THE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPANSION. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 28 COUNTY MUSEUM BACKGROUND The San Bernardino County Museum maintains and develops cultural as well as natural science collections. The Museum hopes to inspire the public to learn more about the cultural and natural history of this region and the greater Southwest, attempting to accomplish this goal through responsible collection, preservation, exhibition and education. The Museum provides educational and cultural programs at its main facility in Redlands and seven other regional sites: the Agua Mansa Cemetery in Colton, Casa de Rancho Cucamonga ( Rains House) in Cucamonga, the Daggett Stone Hotel in Daggett, the Asistencia Mission in Redlands, the Mousley Museum in Yucaipa, the Yucaipa Adobe also in Yucaipa, and the Yorba- Slaughter Adobe in Chino. FINDINGS The Museum director addressed issues regarding inadequate fire protection in their document and artifacts storage areas, which was a concern of a previous Grand Jury. We observed that this fire protection upgrade was nearing completion. Our discussion and visual observations indicated that some of the storage and filing cabinets were obviously secured to prevent loss or damage in the event of an earthquake. Others appeared not to have any earthquake preventive aspects or precautions. RECOMMENDATION 06- 17 BRING MUSEUM FACILITIES UP TO CURRENT SAFETY STANDARDS. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 29 REGIONAL PARKS DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The San Bernardino County Regional Parks Department has responsibility for ten regional parks with a full range of activities, from camping with full hook- ups, to waterslides and picnic facilities. Grand Jurors visited the parks at Glen Helen, Cucamonga- Guasti, Prado, Lake Gregory, Calico and Mojave Narrows. The director has an ambitious program for expansion of the parks’ facilities and improvement of existing facilities. Much of the money for expansion comes from State Parks and other grants. New programs in partnership with the Wildlands Conservancy at Bluff Lake in Big Bear and Bear Paw in Forest Falls are primarily designed for youth education. FINDINGS Glen Helen Regional Park has two 300- foot waterslides and one half- acre swim lagoon. There is a need for lifeguards at all parks where swimming facilities are provided. The director indicated that they have difficulty in recruiting lifeguards because the pay scale is not adequate to attract qualified applicants. Lake Gregory Regional Park sponsored a Red Cross lifeguard training program recently to attract lifeguards. Although the training was successful, it was not enough to prevent the lifeguards from accepting positions where the pay scale exceeded the $ 10 per hour paid by the County. Without adequate lifeguards, swimming facilities at the parks cannot be opened. At Prado Regional Park, mud hens routinely cross the walkways and the children’s playground, leaving mounds of slippery droppings. The children’s playground is not fenced and the mud hen droppings present a hazard. At Mojave Narrows Regional Park there was evidence of dry rot on the beams around one of the snack bar areas. Several of the park benches and picnic tables should be replaced or restored. The restrooms and other facilities are being rehabilitated, but these are done on a piecemeal basis whenever funds are available. The park offers fishing on Horseshoe Lake, with picnic facilities and barbecue grills. Lake Gregory Regional Park was clean and well maintained. They are currently adding a skateboard park. The St. Mortiz clubhouse is under utilized for weekday 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 30 activities. It temporarily houses the senior center. The restroom facilities at the baseball fields are portable toilets, and are located close to an existing sewer line. The use of Sheriff’s Work Release personnel was seen in all the parks visited. Using these workers has helped keep costs from increasing. Funds for replacing barbecues, tables, trash cans and benches, etc., come from the operating budget. If there is not enough money, then the replacement is not done. The director estimated an additional $ 153,000 annual budget allocation for a period of three years would be enough to catch up with needed replacement of barbecues, tables, benches and trash cans. Most of the ten parks do not have an assigned permanent superintendent to oversee the day- to- day activities, supervise maintenance, and control vandalism. As an example, the superintendent at Lake Gregory divides his time between there and Mojave Narrows in Victorville. San Bernardino County does not have development impact fees. Other counties have developer fees tied to their regional parks, which are then able to fund expansion and capital improvements. Many cities have developer fees to pay for parks and other public services. Due to the variety and diversity of the Regional Parks system, the department needs more coordination of information between its facilities. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 18 INCREASE THE HOURLY PAY RATE FOR LIFEGUARDS AT COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS TO A COMPETITIVE LEVEL. 06- 19 FENCE THE CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUND AT PRADO REGIONAL PARK TO KEEP THE MUD HENS OUT OF THAT AREA. 06- 20 CONSTRUCT PERMANENT RESTROOM FACILITIES AT THE BASEBALL PARK AT LAKE GREGORY REGIONAL PARK. 06- 21 INCREASE THE BUDGET BY $ 153,000 ANNUALLY TO PAY FOR REPLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT AT REGIONAL PARKS FACILITIES. 06- 22 IMPLEMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO PROVIDE FOR A PORTION OF FUTURE FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OF REGIONAL PARKS. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 31 06- 23 ESTABLISH A REGIONAL PARKS INTER- DEPARTMENTAL NEWSLETTER. COMMENDATION The committee was extremely impressed with the efforts by the Director of Regional Parks to establish working partnerships with outside agencies and businesses/ corporations to enhance the opportunities for County residents to enjoy the benefits that the Regional Parks provide. This includes partnerships with the Wildlands Conservancy involving Bluff Lake, Bear Paw Camp and the Santa Ana River Trails; Turner’s Sporting Goods, and their associated vendors, to promote the fishing derbies; and various County service districts to coordinate the use of the Regional Parks to support programs for the youth of the County. This vision toward the future, and the passion of the director and his staff, can be used as a model for other County departments. THE GRAND JURY COMMENDS THE DIRECTOR OF REGIONAL PARKS AND HIS STAFF FOR THEIR VISION, DEDICATION AND CREATIVITY IN PROVIDING OUTSTANDING SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. health care services COMMITTEE Susan Brewster, Chairman Arden Fritz Betty Hornbrook Elaine Marable Melinda O’Connor Jenny Overton Kelly Potter Larry Rich Frank Travis 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 32 HEALTH CARE SERVICES COMMITTEE The Health Care Services Committee was given the responsibility of investigating the Arrowhead Regional Medical Center and the departments of Behavioral Health and Public Health. Our meetings with department personnel not only focused on the functions of the department, but also concerns such as current policies and procedures manuals, accountability measures, performance reviews, and the cost to the County of services to undocumented immigrants. The committee selected the following specific areas for its review and research: Arrowhead Regional Medical Center Disaster Preparedness Plan Emergency Room Overcrowding – Ambulance Wait Time Facility Security Fiscal Services – Certificates of Participation Satellite Clinics Department of Behavioral Health Adult System of Care Alcohol and Drug Programs Disaster Preparedness Plan Mental Health Services Act – Prop. 63 Patients Rights Department of Public Health Animal Care and Control Disaster Preparedness Plan Disease Control and Prevention Environmental Health Services Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency Vector Control 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 33 The committee was gratified to find all department personnel with whom we spoke to be knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and most cooperative with the committee. They were professional, caring, forward thinking, and committed to providing excellent services to San Bernardino County. The Health Care Services Committee submits the following findings and recommendations detailed in this final report for the following department: Department of Public Health Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency ( ICEMA) 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 34 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY ( ICEMA) BACKGROUND Under authority of the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division, 9, Chapter 8, the Inland Counties Emergency Medical Agency ( ICEMA) is the governing body to recommend and approve emergency medical service ( EMS) aircraft policies, as well as recommend the integration of EMS aircraft into San Bernardino County’s transport system. There are 18 Helicopter Air Ambulance Zones in San Bernardino County. Being a “ permitted” air ambulance service provider means that it has qualified to meet ICEMA’s standards. After meeting ICEMA’s standards, the contract is approved by ICEMA’s governing board, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. A “ permitted” air ambulance is the only one that can do inter- facility transfers, which is more financially lucrative than responding to 9- 1- 1 calls. Other air ambulance services can operate within the County to respond to 9- 1- 1 calls; they are mutual aid providers only. FINDINGS Currently there is only one “ permitted” air ambulance service provider under contract with ICEMA to use County air space. This service has several helicopters in its fleet. Even though ICEMA has sought to have other air ambulance service providers permitted, having proven both need and necessity, the governing board ( County Board of Supervisors) has not heeded that request. By allowing air ambulance exclusivity in San Bernardino County, there is no competition to keep the costs down. An actual invoice received by a patient’s family from the “ permitted” air ambulance provider totaled $ 10,720.59 for a run covering less than 90 minutes, and flying only 28 miles. When ICEMA was asked if they knew what the one “ permitted” air ambulance service was charging patients, they stated they did not. A definite rate structure should be developed, based upon documented costs and acceptable profit margins. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 35 When asked if they make unannounced visits to the bases where “ permitted” air ambulances are stationed, ICEMA responded they do not. Regular base inspections should be made to ensure that equipment and personnel meet the contract’s required standards. The present “ permitted” provider is not required to explain to ICEMA or the Communications Center why a helicopter is not available for emergency service. When the Communications Center calls, only then, in some cases, are they notified the helicopter is “ out of service”. The Communications Center should be informed of the absolute status of all resources at all times. When someone’s life may be depending on a quick response by the air ambulance, the Communications Center loses valuable time going through the list to find an available responder. From the information gathered, it appears there is a lack of supervision by ICEMA in governing the air ambulance contract. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 24 DEVELOP AN ACCEPTABLE RATE STRUCTURE FOR AIR AMBULANCE PROVIDERS, INCLUDING BOTH 9- 1- 1 CALLS AND INTER- FACILITY TRANSFERS. 06- 25 ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER IS AWARE, AT ALL TIMES, OF THE STATUS OF ALL AIR AMBULANCE EQUIPMENT BEING UTILIZED, WHETHER AVAILABLE OR REASON FOR NON- AVAILABILITY. 06- 26 ESTABLISH UNANNOUNCED BASE INSPECTION PROCEDURES TO CONFIRM EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL MEET CONTRACT REQUIRED STANDARDS AND ARE AT THE ASSIGNED LOCATION. human services COMMITTEE Catherine Meister, Chairman Susan Brewster Frank Browning Betty Hornbrook Elaine Marable Melinda O’Connor Kelly Potter Frank Travis 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 36 HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE The Human Services Committee had the responsibility of reviewing and investigating all departments within the Human Services Group ( HSG). The committee was also able to investigate the divisions and programs in the Administrative Support Division of the Human Services Group. The committee would like to thank each of these departments for their cooperation: Department of Aging and Adult Services Child Support Services Children’s Network Department of Children’s Services Performance, Education and Resource Centers Preschool Services Transitional Assistance Veterans Affairs HSG Administrative Support Division Legislation, Research and Quality Support Services Program Development Division Program Integrity Unit All department heads and staff we encountered were professional, dedicated and cooperative. The Human Services Committee submits the following findings and recommendations. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 37 DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND ADULT SERVICES ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES BACKGROUND The Adult Protective Services ( APS) division of the Department of Aging and Adult Services is a State mandated program designated to investigate jointly with law enforcement reports of abuse of elderly and dependent adults. APS provides crisis intervention services to victims of abuse and/ or self- neglect alleging to have occurred anywhere other than in a long- term care facility. FINDINGS Reports of abuse to Adult Protective Services ( APS) are classified as Emergency or Non- emergency. The State defines emergency as imminent danger or an immediate life- threatening situation. Emergencies require a response by APS within 24 hours. One other criterion for an emergency response is if law enforcement requests an APS worker on scene. A non- emergency, by State definition, is self- neglecting, or is being neglected, or physically, sexually, emotionally or financially abused by another person; the State allows a response within 10 days. Based upon the serious nature of the State’s definition of a “ non- emergency”, the Grand Jury finds reports of being abused “ sexually, emotionally or financially” require a much faster response than 10 days. The department also believes the State mandate of 10 days for a non- emergency is too long. The department provided APS statistics that show their average response time to a non- emergency is five ( 5) days. RECOMMENDATION 06- 27 THE DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND ADULT SERVICES ADOPT AS POLICY, A REQUIREMENT THAT ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES RESPOND TO NON-EMERGENCY REPORTS WITHIN FIVE ( 5) DAYS. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 38 LONG- TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM BACKGROUND The Long- Term Care Ombudsman Program within the Department of Aging and Adult Services is State and Federally funded. It is mandated by State and Federal law to receive, investigate, and work to resolve problems and complaints on behalf of residents in skilled nursing homes and residential care facilities. Ombudsman services are free and confidential. The Ombudsmen are independent, neutral and objective. They are responsible for identifying root causes of a problem and to resolve complaints and concerns. They also observe, suggest, and monitor the care of the patient, and keep them connected to the outside world. California law requires that any Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care and Advanced Directives executed by a resident of a skilled nursing facility must be signed in the presence of an Ombudsman and a second witness. This is done to ensure that the resident understands the meaning of a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care, and is not coerced into signing the document against his or her will. FINDINGS This program is very important. An Ombudsman is an advocate who gives a voice to the resident and assures that his or her rights will be protected. The Ombudsman Program has two full- contract workers, one full- time County employee, four part- time contract workers, and 27 volunteer Ombudsmen. These 27 Ombudsmen are responsible for over 12,600 individuals living in long- term care facilities in San Bernardino County. The Ombudsmen visit the 56 skilled nursing homes and 241 residential care facilities located throughout San Bernardino County. Visits are required once a quarter to the skilled nursing facilities and twice a year for the residential care facilities. This computes to 31 minutes a year that a volunteer is able to spend in each facility. In addition, a report is required to be filled out on each visit covering the general appearance of the facility, checking for license, food quality, activities, and quality of care and staffing. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 39 Ombudsman volunteers must undergo 36 hours of training and 12 more hours throughout each year. They must agree to donate at least 20 hours of service each month. Volunteers receive mileage reimbursement for travel between their homes and their assigned facilities. It is not enough to pay for the high cost of driving their own vehicle. They must provide their own transportation. They receive no compensation for meals or any per diem expense. If the County were to pay someone to do this job, even at minimum wage, it would cost $ 135 a month per volunteer. That would be $ 3,645 per month, based on 27 volunteers, for a yearly cost of $ 43,740. Offering per diem in the way of a meal allowance or stipend would help the Ombudsmen offset their own personal costs. The department is currently recruiting Ombudsman volunteers; the response has been poor. Aging and Adult Services hasn’t had much success in keeping volunteers, and there is a large turnover. At this time they do not survey past volunteers to find out why they left the program. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 28 OFFER PER DIEM, IN ADDITION TO MILEAGE, AS AN INCENTIVE TO ATTRACT MORE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM VOLUNTEERS. 06- 29 SURVEY PAST VOLUNTEERS TO ASCERTAIN WHY THEY LEFT THE OMBUDSMAN PROGRAM. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 40 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES BACKGROUND The mission of Child Protective Services ( CPS) is to protect endangered children, preserve and strengthen families, and develop alternative family settings. CPS works to prevent further harm to children from intentional physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, exploitation or neglect by a person responsible for a child’s health or welfare. Foster Care and Adoption services are available as support for these families. New legislation ( AB636) and the mandated Self- Improvement Plan ( SIP) have been implemented since January of 2004. San Bernardino County currently has over 5,000 children in placement. FINDINGS There is a standardized method of risk assessment for children: Assess, determine appropriate response, notify regional manager, assign worker, contact family, and start an investigation. Calls to the Child Abuse Hotline ( CAHL) take approximately 24 hours to process. If the child is not in immediate danger, the plan of action may take 3 to 4 days to determine, although CPS states they have 10 days to make the first contact. The Intake Staff, who handle emergency responses, average 18 referrals per month. A referral is different than a case. A referral is the abuse/ neglect allegation that comes in from the community to the hotline. A worker is assigned to investigate that referral. If an incident is deemed critical, police and a social worker are dispatched to the home within two hours. Children are always removed from the home in critical cases. A court order must be obtained within 72 hours following removal. The Carrier Staff, who handle the ongoing cases after they are adjudicated by Juvenile Court, average 42 cases per worker. They monitor the children in placement and help the birth parents with the service plan that will best help reunify the family. A family is typically given 12 months to reunify. The Carrier Staff also carries the permanency cases; those children who now have a permanent plan of adoption, guardianship or long-term foster care. Every effort is made to keep a child in his or her environment. When a child comes into the system and cannot stay in the home, family members are considered 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 41 first. These homes must meet the same standards as any other foster homes, and these family members must meet the same standards as other foster care parents. Family- to- Family is a test project in Rialto which brings the community, churches, schools, and the CPS Department together to plan programs for the children, giving them a broader sense of the community and all the help it has to offer. The department is hoping to expand to the city of San Bernardino next. With the implementation of this and other creative program and support services, the department expects to see an increase in reunification rates and support for families of at- risk children. Child Protective Services is currently in the process of developing a standardized risk assessment tool for line staff. This will assess the risk level for potential caregivers and identify early intervention that would benefit the family members. This is planned to be in effect by the end of 2006. The mandated Self- Improvement Plan gives the department statistics to work with for a measurement of success or failure. The County is not inputting the data in a timely manner. Therefore, the Quarterly Outcome and Accountability Data Reports are running six months behind. RECOMMENDATION 06- 30 INPUT THE DATA FROM EACH CONTACT FOR THE OUTCOME AND ACCOUNTABILITY DATA REPORT WITHIN 24 HOURS, TO PROVIDE A MORE TIMELY MEASURE OF DEPARTMENTAL PERFORMANCE. FOSTER HOME SERVICES BACKGROUND The mission of Children’s Services is to protect endangered children, preserve and strengthen their families, and develop alternative family settings. Services, as mandated by law and regulation, are provided in the least intrusive manner with a family- centered focus. This mission is accomplished in collaboration with the family, a wide variety of 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 42 public and private agencies, and members of the community. Children’s Services is State and Federally funded, with some local matching funds. In 2001 the California State Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 636 ( AB636), the Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act. AB636 replaces a process-driven compliance review system with an outcome- driven system. It became effective in San Bernardino County in January of 2004. The key issues that are measured are related to the safety, permanency and well- being of children in the Foster Care System. Along with AB636 came the Self- Improvement Plan ( SIP). This is the plan by which Children’s Services plan to achieve measurable outcome improvements called for in AB636. The Department of Children’s Services receives quarterly reports from the State, “ The California Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability County Data Report”, derived from continuous data supplied by the department. FINDINGS The County selection process to become foster parents includes a mandatory Livescan ( background check), a health checkup, and a mandated 24- hour training course, along with 20 additional hours per year; the State requires only 8 hours. Anyone frequenting the home on a regular basis is required to have a background check to determine if they may pose a threat to the child. Foster parents today are looked at more and more as potential permanent parents. Thirteen percent ( 13%) of children in the foster care system are not being seen in a timely manner. According to the January 2006 “ Outcome and Accountability County Data Report” only 86.3 percent of the children in foster care were seen in April 2005, 86.2 percent in May 2005, and 87 percent in June 2005. The caseload for Intake Workers is 15– 18 referrals per month. Social Workers, who carry cases after adjudication, have 35– 55 cases, depending on the contact and the court requirements for each case. Each allegation of abuse or infraction in a foster care situation is evaluated on a case- by- case situation. The action taken is determined by the severity of the allegation and the findings by the County Licensing Investigator. A plan of correction for the foster parent may involve retraining, followed up with visits by the licensing investigators to insure compliance. There are some highly publicized cases of abuse; however, they make up a very small percentage of cases the department handles. The State mandates that each child is contacted or visited monthly, and a licensing worker make annual visits. Some exemptions may apply for contact compliance. The department does provide some services for undocumented children. At this time there are approximately 20 undocumented children in the care of Children’s Services. They are entitled to limited benefits for childcare, medical, and foster care. Childcare 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 43 services are limited to undocumented children born to legal residents, which is extremely rare. Under medical, service is restricted to emergencies, such as the patient’s health in serious jeopardy, impairment of bodily functions, or dysfunction of any body part or organ. Under foster care, undocumented children placed under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court and/ or considered a dependent of the Court are eligible for Permanent Residence Under Color of the Law ( PRUCOL). There is an attempt to unite undocumented children with relatives, or Children’s Services assists them in becoming citizens before they reach the age of 18. The Grand Jury has received no evidence of systematic tracking of the cost of services to the undocumented. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 31 ENFORCE THE PLAN BY WHICH EACH CHILD IN FOSTER CARE IS VISITED IN THE TIME MANDATED. 06- 32 IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM TO TRACK THE COST TO THE COUNTY OF SERVING THE UNDOCUMENTED. INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM BACKGROUND The Independent Living Program ( ILP) is a mostly Federally funded nationwide program designed to provide life skills, career exploration, and job readiness preparation for foster care youth. A small amount of funding comes from the State. Eligible youth, 16 to 21 years of age, learn skills to prepare them to transition to adulthood and live independently. ILP services include workshops, conferences, training career counseling, tutoring, and assistance with scholarships. The department contracts with community groups for many of these services. Most former foster care youth are eligible for full Medi- Cal benefits until their 21st birthday. The County Mission Statement is “ The goals of the ILP are to enable eligible youth to achieve self- sufficiency prior to leaving the Foster Care support system and through the continuum of emancipation. Providing independent living skill assessments, basic services, and written Transitional Independent Living Plan for each participating youth assists in achieving the goal.” It is a top priority of the California Department of Social Services to make the Independent Living Program available and 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 44 accessible to all eligible youth in California. The Grand Jury met with representatives of the County ILP on November 2 and November 16, 2005. FINDINGS All foster care youths are to be identified at 15- 1/ 2 years of age. Case workers and foster families are to notify the youths of the Independent Living Program ( ILP). Fliers are also sent to them. Some youths do not receive notification. The department believes this happens because caseworkers quit or transfer to another position, and a lack of information occurs. Youths are sometimes placed in another county. ILP measures success by the youth being employed, having a place to live, and having a “ life plan”. Currently, ILP is serving 4,191 youths. The program is voluntary. The County offers incentives ( money) and transportation within the county for the youth to attend various workshops or classes. The County offers ten week classes in skills ranging from relationships and self- enhancement, computer skills, handling finances, writing resumes, studying for the Standard Aptitude Tests, and passing the required high school graduation tests. The ILP department believes every youth succeeds at his/ her level, and no one fails. The youths evaluate themselves. They can repeat classes if they wish. There are no set standards or measurement for achievement. The department does send an annual program status report to the State. ILP is a State mandated program, but there has been no requirement for tracking success or failure. The recent Self- Improvement Plan ( SIP) calls for a system to enable tracking. The department can retrieve data on an individual but cannot give statistics on the program. Data can be found in the State Reports or Berkeley Reports. The department is working with Loma Linda University to develop a system to track the program’s success in the early stages ( ages 16 to 18). The department does not track youths who have left the program. Sometimes youths who have left the program contact ILP, and the department can note how those particular past participants are doing. The department believes community involvement is not only helpful, but a necessary component for the Independent Living Program. The new Family- to- Family Program is promising, but it is only a first step in countywide implementation and is limited to a small area of the County. The department stated a need for more mentors, especially male mentors. ILP states they have a Speaker’s Bureau which, at present, consists of the ILP Coordinator. The speaker will go into the community to encourage people to become mentors. ILP does serve the undocumented, but does not keep a record of financial costs. Presently, the department has identified eight undocumented youth in the program. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 45 RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 33 ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR MEASURING THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM. 06- 34 IMPLEMENT AN OVERALL DOCUMENTED STATISTICAL COUNTY TRACKING SYSTEM TO IDENTIFY THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM. 06- 35 ESTABLISH A COUNTYWIDE ONGOING PROGRAM TO ACTIVELY SEEK MENTORS AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. 06- 36 TRACK THE COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE UNDOCUMENTED. law and justice COMMITTEE J. Mark Taylor, Chairman Gordon Bjorklund Skip Burt Tom Hale Melinda O’Connor Kelly Potter Larry Rich Frank Travis 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 46 LAW AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE The Law and Justice Committee experienced a very active year of investigation. Our term enabled us to focus on the following five areas: • West Valley Detention Center • District Attorney • Probation • Sheriff/ Coroner • Public Defender West Valley Detention Center – Early release of prisoners became the initial subject of investigation, particularly after it was discovered San Bernardino County release percentages were almost 40 percent higher than surrounding counties. Upon discovery of capacity issues and laws imposing early release, the need for additional detention facilities was evident. Due to our desire for this issue to be included in the County’s budget planning process for 2006, an Interim Report was released in March. District Attorney – This subcommittee was initially motivated by DUI repeaters, failures to appear in court, and subsequent outstanding warrants. Ultimately it was discovered there were over 144,000 warrants, including over 14,000 felony warrants. Discussions ensued regarding formation of a “ warrant unit”, and the District Attorney’s staff took ownership of this project and met with the Sheriff and local city police. The groundwork has been accomplished and we will soon be hearing of results from the warrant unit. Kudos to law enforcement personnel in San Bernardino County. Sheriff/ Coroner – The Board of Supervisors in February 2006 authorized $ 2.6 million to the Sheriff to improve Coroner facilities. While this did address much needed issues at their main facility, the satellite facility in the high desert was not addressed. Our Final Report makes recommendations that would alleviate concerns that arose as a result of our investigation. Public Defender – With a new Public Defender appointed in mid- March, time must be allowed for potential new policies to be put in place. However, the issues of failing to identify illegitimate indigents and cost of defense of illegal immigrants were two issues addressed in the Final Report. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 47 Probation – Because of the time required to make quality investigations into other departments, Probation was given only a cursory investigation, with no concerns arising. On behalf of all members of the Law and Justice Committee, we thank the Sheriff and his staff, the District Attorney’s staff, and all department heads for their cooperation and support during our term. What follows represents our findings and recommendations, in detail. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 48 DISTRICT ATTORNEY PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT BACKGROUND The San Bernardino County District Attorney campaigned on the issue of restoring public integrity to San Bernardino County. Within the first four months after being elected, the District Attorney created the Public Integrity Unit ( PIU). He researched the surrounding counties to help him set up the guidelines for this unit and found Los Angeles to be the best to model his unit after. The Los Angeles District Attorney was very approachable and their program was aggressive. Since their program was running smoothly, the San Bernardino County District Attorney decided to adopt most of their policies. FINDINGS The Public Integrity Unit ( PIU) is comprised of two attorneys, three investigators, and a secretary. The unit handles complaints involving those holding public offices. Some issues might involve the illegal use of campaign funds, residency violations, and open meeting/ Brown Act violations. The unit is responsible for monitoring city councils and elected boards and commissions. The District Attorney’s office is looking for violations of the Brown Act, Election Code, or any criminal violations. All actions by the PIU are initiated only upon the receipt of a written complaint by a citizen, or by an investigation submitted by a law enforcement agency. They are willing to accept and return telephone calls, but no investigation is initiated until a written complaint is received. They are careful to protect the office from becoming involved in political issues. Members of the Public Integrity Unit must not endorse any political candidates or contribute to any campaigns. Unlike the Grand Jury, the PIU will accept anonymous complaints. Many of the complaints it receives are not criminal in nature. Although many of the complaints may be unethical or morally wrong, it cannot proceed in the complaint without it being Brown Act, Election Code, or criminal in nature. After it finds nothing that falls into its purview, the PIU contacts the complainant to let them know of its findings. The Grand Jury suggested 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 49 the persons filing the complaint not fitting into the category of criminal, be advised of the option of filling out a complaint form to the Grand Jury. This would give individuals another avenue to pursue. RECOMMENDATION 06- 37 THE PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNIT OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE INFORM COMPLAINANTS OF THE OPTION OF FILING THEIR NON-CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WITH THE COUNTY GRAND JURY. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 50 PUBLIC DEFENDER BACKGROUND The Constitution provides that all persons accused of a crime be defended; those that do not have the financial means to hire an attorney will be assigned one by the Court. The County Public Defender’s office has the responsibility of representing indigent clients. The office of the Public Defender provides defense services to both adults and juveniles accused of felonies, misdemeanors, and violations of probation. FINDINGS The Public Defender’s office has 103 Deputy Public Defender positions. There are currently two ( 2) vacancies; however, candidates have been interviewed for the positions; one has accepted and the other was rejected. The Department of Justice’s National Advisory Commission adopted a caseload standard of “ no more than 150 assigned felonies per attorney per year, or no more than 400 assigned misdemeanors per attorney, or no more than 242 assigned juvenile cases per attorney per year.” Currently, San Bernardino County Deputy Public Defenders have caseloads averaging 694 combined felonies and misdemeanors, with an additional 116 probation violation cases. Those working the Juvenile Division have average caseloads of 448. The Public Defender’s office is handling 69 percent of the District Attorney’s cases with 47 percent comparative staffing. Several neighboring counties ( Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, etc.) have programs in place to determine the ability of an accused to pay legal fees prior to being assigned to a public defender. San Bernardino County had such a program; however, it was discontinued several years ago. At the present time, San Bernardino County does not collect or review financial information from prospective Public Defender clients to determine their ability to pay fees. In May 2004 a meeting was held with the County Administrative Officer, Treasurer- Tax Collector, Public Defender and then Presiding Judge of the Superior Court to discuss the possibility of collecting indigent defense fees. It was decided that a program to do so was feasible. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 51 The Public Defender’s office conducted a cost of service analysis and determined the average cost for a misdemeanor case was $ 236, a felony case was $ 784, and a juvenile case was $ 487. Research done by the Treasurer- Tax Collector suggests that with accurate Social Security information, a 42 percent collection rate could be attained. With the approval of the Courts, the Treasurer- Tax Collector developed a program to determine the ability to pay, using the defendant’s credit scores. At arraignment, a short questionnaire providing name, Social Security number, address, and place of employment would be filled out. The defendant’s credit score and property ownership would be checked, and depending on this information, a recommendation would be made for the amount to be paid/ collected. The 2004- 2005 Presiding Judge of the Superior Court instructed all judges of the new procedures in Court- appointed counsel fees and the importance of making the program work. This occurred in September of 2004. Thirty ( 30) days later the Presiding Judge withdrew his support of the program, which caused the program to be unsuccessful. The action of that Presiding Judge cost the County millions in lost revenue. The Grand Jury’s quest to find the cost of services provided undocumented immigrants has determined that during the past year approximately $ 9,120,000 of the Public Defender’s budget has been used for this purpose. The Grand Jury does not advocate withholding services. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 38 INCREASE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S STAFFING TO MEET THE GUIDELINES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION CASELOAD STANDARD. 06- 39 INSURE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BE COMPLETED AND DEFENDANTS’ ABILITY TO PAY BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO BEING ASSIGNED A PUBLIC DEFENDER. 06- 40 THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE NOT ACCEPT CLIENTS THAT ARE KNOWN TO HAVE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY. 06- 41 DIRECT THE TREASURER- TAX COLLECTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE INDIGENT DEFENSE FEES COLLECTION PROGRAM. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 52 SHERIFF- CORONER CORONER DIVISION BACKGROUND It is the responsibility of the Coroner to determine the cause and manner of death of San Bernardino County residents. The Coroner’s office is also tasked with identifying the deceased and notifying their families. The central Coroner’s facility is located in San Bernardino and was built in 1987. FINDINGS The Coroner’s Division conducted 9,552 investigations in 2005. It receives notification of about 26 deaths per day; of these, about five are actually transported to the Coroner facility. The Grand Jury applauds the Board of Supervisors for recently allocating $ 2.6 million for much needed improvements and 15 new positions. This includes seven investigators, five autopsy assistants, two Sheriff’s service specialists, and one additional part- time medical examiner. These authorizations were focused on improvements for the central facility. The Coroner’s central facility is now going through an overhaul. The Public Administrator and Public Guardian offices have moved out of the south wing. The Coroner’s administrative personnel will move into that area. The north wing will be remodeled and expanded, enlarging the refrigeration area and adding a much- needed freezer. Although funds have been allocated for improvements at the central facility, the High Desert facility remains a problem. This small, antiquated office serves 18,000 square miles of San Bernardino County desert. The office is staffed with three investigators, one clerical position, and one supervisor. The supervisor serves as an investigator 30 of 40 hours per week. The High Desert facility is under- staffed. There are currently no autopsy or assessment areas in the High Desert facility. Having these services available would eliminate the necessity of moving the deceased to the central facility and would reduce transportation costs. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 53 The Victorville facility is located in a tri- plex strip mall. The neighbors on either side are a martial arts studio and offices for a construction company. They are separated by 5/ 8” thick drywall. The garage door in the rear of the building isn’t large enough for a vehicle. While they attempt to be as discreet as possible, body deliveries/ releases are made in public view. The evidence/ belongings room appears to have been a closet. There is a refrigeration unit that was acquired in 1998. This unit has the capacity to hold 10 bodies and is for short- term use. Often bodies found in the desert are badly decomposed and odor becomes an issue for the Coroner’s office as well as their neighbors. There are no back- up generators, so power loss would be critical. The facility is not open 24 hours a day, and security is minimal. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 42 RELOCATE THE CORONER’S HIGH DESERT FACILITY UNTIL A NEW FACILITY CAN BE BUILT. 06- 43 BUILD A NEW CORONER’S FACILITY IN THE HIGH DESERT TO INCLUDE AUTOPSY AND ASSESSMENT AREAS. 06- 44 INCREASE CORONER STAFFING IN THE HIGH DESERT. SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION BACKGROUND The Sheriff’s Scientific Investigations Division provides support in the investigation of crimes committed within the County of San Bernardino. Division personnel use state-of- the- art procedures and equipment to assist in solving crimes. These procedures and equipment include evidence monitoring, crime scene investigation, photos, evidence-gathering, ballistics testing, and the testing and analysis of DNA. The Scientific Investigations Division is currently located in a converted warehouse. Several members of the Grand Jury visited the facility on March 23, 2006. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 54 FINDINGS The facility does not provide adequate space for staff to fully accomplish their mission. Analysts doing the same type of work are not located in common work areas, but scattered throughout the facility. This requires workers to leave their work areas and travel to another part of the facility to do testing because the sophisticated, one- of- a- kind testing equipment is not located near them. In addition, the actual workspace for criminalists is well below the recommended FBI standards which recommend 1,000 square feet per employee. The current space allows for only 386 square feet per employee ( 17,000 square feet for 44 employees). There is not adequate indoor space to forensically inspect more than one vehicle at a time. We were shown a car suspected of being used in a robbery and murder several days earlier. The car could not be garaged to protect possible evidence because the one garage stall was being occupied by another vehicle also involved in a murder investigation. The outside evidence retention facility is a small fenced area not protected from weather conditions, degrading possible evidence. San Bernardino County is critically understaffed. The number of trained criminalists and DNA analysts has not kept up with the growing County population. San Diego County passed an ordinance requiring one DNA analyst for every 100,000 people, which has resulted in their now having 20 DNA analysts. Based upon that formula, with the current San Bernardino County population estimate at 1,990,000, we should also have a staffing of 20 DNA analysts. Currently there are six DNA analysts, with four more in training. There are only nine Crime Scene Investigators on staff. This has forced the Division to respond predominantly to homicides, brutal rapes, and officer- involved shootings. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 45 PROVIDE ADEQUATE WORKSPACE FOR THE SHERIFF’S SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION, TO INCLUDE PLANS FOR FUTURE GROWTH OF THE COUNTY. 06- 46 HIRE ADDITIONAL DNA ANALYSTS AND CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 55 INTERIM REPORT ( Released March 2, 2006) AND YOU THOUGHT “ IN- N- OUT” WAS A HAMBURGER! BACKGROUND For over 10 years, the County Board of Supervisors has been well aware of the severe shortage of available jail space to house San Bernardino County criminals. In 1995 the Board of Supervisors authorized a Staffing Analysis Study completed by Liebert & Associates from Boulder, Colorado. At that time it was recommended to not only increase jail staffing, but emphasized that housing was precariously close to maximum capacity and should be increased as well. FINDINGS In 2005 there were a total of 110,537 bookings made by law enforcement agencies in San Bernardino County. Of those, 42,240 or nearly 40 percent of sentenced and pre- sentenced criminals were quickly released back into our communities because our jails were at capacity and their crimes were considered to be non- violent misdemeanors or felonies; crimes such as driving under the influence, burglary, grand theft auto, just to name a few. On average, one criminal was released every 13 minutes in 2005 due to a lack of jail space. Therefore, in less than the amount of time it takes you to get a hamburger at IN- N- OUT, another criminal who should be in custody has been released from a San Bernardino County jail. IN- N- OUT! Until the recent opening of the Adelanto Detention Center in January 2006, housing capacity had not been increased, and staffing was only added to accommodate the opening of the Adelanto facility itself. Even with this welcomed addition, it took less than 30 days to again reach capacity in San Bernardino County jails. In addition, the governor currently has put forward a proposal that would house parole violators in county jails, which will only exacerbate the problem in this County. During the past ten years, the County population has increased well over 20 percent, and with the current housing development taking place, it is estimated to increase by at least 15 percent in the next ten 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 56 years. There is not enough jail space in San Bernardino County and, as a result, the Sheriff is forced to approve early release to many of those who are arrested or currently in jail. During just a 15 day span in December 2005, one individual was involved in grand theft auto on five separate occasions, booked at the West Valley Detention Center and, in the first four thefts, was released within 12 hours in each case. In the fifth incident there was a high- speed pursuit which resulted in a collision, and the individual was finally held in jail. On July 24, 2005, another individual, arrested for his fourth DUI in four years, was also booked and released at West Valley, but with very tragic results. Two innocent Moreno Valley teenagers were killed by this individual as he drove on the 215 freeway in the wrong direction, resulting in a head- on collision. This incident occurred less than 30 days after his last “ misdemeanor” release. If you’re not yet moved to action, consider the 140,000 current outstanding warrants in the County, over 14,000 of which are felony violations. Before the Sheriff and District Attorney can join forces to get these bad guys off the street, they must have a place to incarcerate them. Until then, these bad guys are OUT- N- NEVER IN! An agreement with the United States Federal Marshal’s Service, approved by the County Board of Supervisors in 1999, requires that the County house 320 Federal prisoners. Presently, there are over 500 Federal prisoners in San Bernardino County jails. In addition, on any given day, there are approximately 700 illegal aliens occupying space in our County jails. In late 2005, nine ( 9) new positions were authorized by the Board of Supervisors for the Sheriff to identify illegal aliens who are in custody. However, a delay by Immigration & Customs Enforcement ( ICE) in providing the necessary computer networking to interface with the Sheriff’s computer system has placed this project on hold. Before you condemn the Sheriff for letting these criminals out, consider the obstacles he faces daily. The four functioning jails in San Bernardino County ( West Valley Detention Center, Glen Helen Rehabilitation Center, Central Detention Center and Adelanto Detention Center) are capable of housing 5,840 inmates. These jail facilities are full! Temporary housing ( 72 hours or less), utilized for booking and court appearances ONLY, are available at the Victor Valley Sheriff’s Station ( 90), Barstow Sheriff’s Station ( 48), Morongo Valley Station ( 42), Colorado River Station ( 36) and the Big Bear Sheriff’s Station ( 22). Compounding the Sheriff’s problem is a 1998 Federal court ruling, referred to as the “ Haas Decision”, which mandated that when the West Valley or Glen Helen facilities reach 90 percent capacity, a release “ process” must begin to avoid overcrowding. The 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 57 current “ process” allows the early release of any arrestees not involved in a weapons charge and some felony or violent crimes, and any who have a bail schedule of less than $ 150,000. Thus, burglars, car thieves, DUI’s and many arrested for drugs are selectively released to make room for felony and violent offenders. IN- N- OUT! In 2001, the County purchased land in Apple Valley for the construction of a juvenile detention facility and a 3,072 bed adult jail facility, similar to the West Valley Detention Facility. As of today, no adult facility has been constructed! RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 47 EXPAND THE GLEN HELEN REHABILITATION CENTER TO ADD 500 BEDS. 06- 48 EXPAND THE ADELANTO DETENTION CENTER TO ADD 700 BEDS. 06- 49 REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FEDERAL PRISONERS IN COUNTY FACILITIES TO 320 TO CONFORM TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL MARSHAL’S SERVICE. 06- 50 DO NOT RENEW THE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL MARSHAL’S SERVICE WHEN IT EXPIRES IN 2009. 06- 51 RETURN ALL ILLEGAL ALIEN INMATES HELD IN COUNTY FACILITIES TO THE IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. 06- 52 IMMEDIATELY CONSTRUCT A NEW ADULT JAIL FACILITY ON THE LAND PURCHASED IN APPLE VALLEY. public & support services COMMITTEE Mel Abeyta, Chairman Gordon Bjorklund Frank Browning Ken Dean Arden Fritz Tom Hale Betty Hornbrook Elaine Marable Catherine Meister Melinda O’Connor Jenny Overton Mark Taylor 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 58 PUBLIC & SUPPORT SERVICES COMMITTEE The Public and Support Services Group ( PSSG) was formed during a reorganization of the County approved by the Board of Supervisors in April, 2005. The Public and Support Services Committee was assigned the responsibility of investigating the 10 departments that provide services to the general public or internal support to other County departments. Subcommittees were formed and the following departments were investigated for operational and functional efficiency: Architecture and Engineering County Fire Office of Emergency Services Facilities Management Fleet Management Real Estate Services Redevelopment & Real Estate Ad Hoc Committee Registrar of Voters Special Districts Findings and recommendations resulting from the investigations by the various subcommittees are detailed in this final report for the following departments: Architecture and Engineering Fleet Management Office of Emergency Services Real Estate Services Registrar of Voters 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 59 ARCHITECTURE & ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND Architecture and Engineering ( A& E) is responsible for planning and implementing the quality design and construction of projects included in the County Capital Improvement Program ( CIP), as well as other Regional Parks, Airports, and Community Development and Housing Department projects. The department collaborates with other County agencies, the County Administrative Office and the Board of Supervisors to determine project scope, schedule and budget. A& E administers projects from conceptual design through construction to completion. Staff issues Requests for Proposals to secure consultant services, prepares bid packages, solicits competitive construction bids, obtains the appropriate jurisdictional approvals, and provides inspection and construction management services. FINDINGS Architecture and Engineering is currently undergoing a reorganization structure change in order to streamline the current work process and to reduce the number of capital project backlogs. Job titles have been changed to better reflect assigned duties and responsibilities. Additional project managers have been added to more efficiently handle the increasing workload. The project managers do not perform engineering on any of the projects, even though some do have an engineering background. All engineering and design projects are performed by outside engineering consultants on a contract basis. The project managers handle projects from start to completion. Evaluation of their performance is based on their ability to interface with clients, do the necessary paperwork, and complete projects in a timely, cost- effective manner. Monthly meetings are held with the project managers to review the status of ongoing projects under their responsibility. This department does not presently have a Policy and Procedures manual. Prior Grand Jury recommendations in 2003- 2004 and 2004- 2005 recommended that a manual be developed and put into practice to protect the best interests of the County. This task was never accomplished. A manual would help to protect the department and the County against questionable policies and procedures in the awarding of construction contracts. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 60 An administrative staff person was hired in fiscal year 2004- 2005 to specifically develop this manual. However, that person was reassigned to the Accounting section due to some major problems the department was experiencing in keeping track of the funding and expenditures on projects. This person is now being transferred to another department and a new person has been recruited to fill this position. The principal duty of this new position is to develop the manual and to have it completed within three months. A& E does not maintain any computerized bidders’ database to use when soliciting bids for their construction projects. They advertise the bid notice in the local newspaper and various construction trade papers, and post the bid notice on the County’s webpage. In addition, the project manager who is in charge of the project will telephone contractors that they know to inform them of the project that is going out to bid. The department does not have any formal bid protest procedures in place. They are guided by the State’s Public Contract Code when a contractor files a formal bid protest. The director stated he does not maintain any suspension or debarment list of contractors who were awarded construction contracts but did not perform according to bid requirements. The director stated the department does not utilize any of the standard industry computerized software programs for keeping track of their construction projects. When asked about computerizing their bidding process through the Internet, the director stated, “ I don’t have any plans to do this; however, I will look into it”. RECOMMENDATIONS 06- 53 DEVELOP A POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL TO INCLUDE A SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT POLICY. 06- 54 PUT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES INTO PRACTICE WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THIS RECOMMENDATION. 06- 55 IMPLEMENT A COMPUTERIZED BIDDERS’ DATABASE TO INCREASE THE OUTREACH EFFORTS TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COMPETITIVE BIDS ON COUNTY PROJECTS. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 61 COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES BACKGROUND The Office of Emergency Services ( OES) operates under the auspices of the San Bernardino County Fire Department. Its mission is to coordinate information, both internal and external, during an emergency. The OES operates with a County budget of approximately $ 1.1 million, plus Federal and State grants of $ 29 million. Internally the office operates the Emergency Operations Center ( EOC), coordinates with County departments, provides training, oversees the County Emergency Operations Plan, and coordinates with the Disaster Council and key emergency personnel transportation. Externally the office operates the Inland Business Council for Emergency Preparedness, Emergency Alert System, emergency communications service, and assists in coordinating the Telephone Emergency Notification System ( TENS). The office offers the following technology: Internet Response Information Management System Tri- net paging and network, along with CalTech United States Geological Survey ( USGS) broadcasts of earthquakes Emergency electronics and specialized vehicle Telephone Emergency Notification System ( TENS) Daily conference calls with the National Weather Service FINDINGS The OES building is located across the street from the Sheriff’s Aviation Division in Rialto. It is fenced and entrance is obtained only by the use of an electronic device. The inside of the building is neatly arranged according to tasks, but it is crowded. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 62 The Emergency Operations Center has over 200 EOC responders available to respond 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The EOC does not directly manage field operations but, rather, insures coordination of an event, such as the Old Fire and the more recent Plunge Wildfire. When the EOC is activated, it provides situation summaries with twice daily reports to a wide range of distribution. It provides coordination with the State OES, the Red Cross, utility companies and others. The present OES facility was adapted from a warehouse built by Special Districts in 1985 to serve as a food bank distribution center. For that use the building was earthquake compliant. In 1991 the building was remodeled to serve as a temporary facility for the Office of Emergency Services. The change of use resulted in a change in the seismic requirements, as the building became an “ essential facility”, according to the County’s Architecture and Engineering Department ( A& E). A& E reported that although the remodel contained some structural elements, the building, in all likelihood, does not meet current seismic requirements for an “ essential facility”. To make the building earthquake compliant, an engineering study would need to be performed to determine the modifications necessary to meet the current seismic requirements. According to Architecture & Engineering, a pre- fabricated metal building reacts favorably in a seismic event, but the foundation and structural members would require modification to meet current codes. The scope of the necessary modifications to this facility has not been determined; there has not been an engineering study to develop a cost estimate for the upgrade. In an emergency, the County will be relying on this center; therefore structural integrity is essential. RECOMMENDATION 06- 56 MOVE THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER TO AN EARTHQUAKE COMPLIANT FACILITY WITH SUFFICIENT SPACE NEEDED FOR PERSONNEL TO FUNCTION EFFICIENTLY. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 63 FLEET MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND The Fleet Management Department provides vehicles, equipment, and services to officials and employees in order to provide County services to its citizens. They operate six repair/ maintenance facilities and 22 fuel sites throughout the County. The County has three other fleets which are not controlled by the Fleet Management Department: the Sheriff’s Department, County Fire Department, and Special Districts. Each of these departments currently manages their own fleet of vehicles and equipment. FINDINGS Alternative fuel vehicles within the Fleet Management Department’s inventory are currently being phased out and only a few of them are in use. This is primarily due to lack of interest, which diminishes the availability of fueling locations. The department currently has 20 Toyota hybrid vehicles in their inventory. They feel these vehicles are the design of the future. While visiting the department on September 22, 2005, participating Grand Jurors were each given safety goggles to wear during a walk- through of the Shop area. We were told upon entering the building that it is a requirement that everyone must wear eye protection. Once inside the Shop area one of the first observations we made was that none of the employees we saw were wearing any eye protection. The only people with proper eye protection were the visiting Grand Jurors and the Fleet Management Department managers. It is clearly posted at the entrances/ exits of the Shop area that protective eyewear is required. At that same visitation we were initially informed of a consolidation study being done by an outside consultant. The Board of Supervisors had ordered a study to consider the issue of consolidating the four County fleets into one fleet. We were told that the study began about two years ago and was 90- 95 percent complete. We were advised that we could see the report when it was completed, sometime in December 2005. 2005- 2006 San Bernardino County Grand Jury Final Report 64 On November 23, 2005 the Grand Jury contacted the Dire |
| PDI.Date | 2006 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2006 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 2005-2006. |
| OCLC number | 144613424 |
Tags
Add tags for County of San Bernardino Grand Jury final report
Comments
Post a Comment for County of San Bernardino Grand Jury final report
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...