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:

Findings and Recommendations: The 1996-1997 Grand Jury summarized the conclusions and proposed changes which had been made by the 1995-1996 Grand Jury. In most cases the Findings and Recommendations were combined. If there was a response directed to a Finding, in addition to a Recommendation, the Finding and Recommendation were separately summarized.

Response: A summary of the written reply to a Grand Jury Finding and/or Recommendation from an Affected Agency.

Action Completed: Actions taken by an Affected Agency as a result of a Grand Jury Recommendation. Only actions taken by February 28, 1997 are included in the table.

Action Pending: Any commitment made prior to February 28, 1997 by an Affected Agency in response to a Recommendation, or in response to clarification questions asked by the 1996-1997 Grand Jury.

Reports are listed as follows:

The 1995-96 reports were identified as A to S. All the reports required responses except for R and S. The tables summarizing responses are in the same order as reports listed in the 1995-96 Final Book:

SBPD Peacekeeping Efforts During Fiesta A
Performance Audits B
Goleta Area Planning Commission C
Preparedness for Disasters D
City Detention Facilities E
City of SB Cable TV Franchise Renewal F
Audit and Finance G
Inmate Death of May 4, 1995 H
Juvenile Detention Facilities I
Issues in Planning & Development J
County Agreement with Prison Health Services, Inc. K
Department of Social Services/GAIN Program L
Privatization Issues in County Government M
City of Santa Barbara Fire Prevention and Investigation N
County Clerk-Recorder-Assessor Department O
County Detention Facilities P
The City of Solvang and State Water Q

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION

FINDING: The 1996-97 Grand Jury concludes that a review process is effective in improving government in Santa Barbara County.

RECOMMENDATION: Future Grand Juries should continue a review process.

AFFECTED AGENCIES: None