Follow Through Report


INTRODUCTION

The 1995-1996 Grand Jury created a report to analyze the responses to the previous year's Grand Jury reports in order to provide continuity from year to year. This year's Grand Jury decided to continue the practice of providing a report to monitor the status of commitments made by Affected Agencies in their responses. Affected Agencies are government bodies to which Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations are directed.

OBJECTIVES

· To review responses by Affected Agencies to Findings and Recommendations.
· To monitor the status of commitments made by Affected Agencies in their previous responses to the Grand Jury.

APPROACH

Agency responses to the 1995-96 Grand Jury report were reviewed in the context of the Penal Code in affect prior to January 1, 1997. The Penal Code was amended effective January 1, 1997 to require more substantive responses. Under the existing Penal Code, a response was considered adequate if:

· It agreed with the Finding and Recommendation and explained how it would implement the suggested action, or
· It agreed with the Finding and Recommendation, but convincingly offered a solution other than that recommended, or
· It disagreed with the Grand Jury's Finding and Recommendation, or
· It notified the Grand Jury that corrective action had been initiated.

A response was considered inadequate if:

· The Finding and Recommendation was not responded to by the Affected Agency.

The Grand Jury reviewed and summarized Findings and Recommendations and Affected Agency responses from the 1995-1996 Final Reports. Follow-up letters were sent and/or telephone calls were made if the Grand Jury needed further clarification. Based on the information gathered, the Grand Jury created tables on pages four through 56.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, ACRONYMS AND LISTING OF REPORTS

Definitions for the table headings are as follows: