v . 0 0 5 P a g e | 1
August 6, 2024
ITEM TITLE
Grand Jury Report: Response to the 2023/2024 Grand Jury Report on Retired Senior Volunteer Patrol Programs (RSVP) at San Diego Law Enforcement Agencies
Report Number: 24-0212
Location: No specific geographic location
Department: Police
G.C. § 84308: No
Environmental Notice: The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required.
Recommended Action
Adopt a resolution accepting the 2023/2024 Grand Jury Report on Retired Senior Volunteer Patrol Programs (RSVP) at San Diego Law Enforceme nt Agencies and authorizing the Chief of Police to respond on behalf of the City.
SUMMARY
On May 22, 2024, the Chula Vista Police Department and Police Chief Roxana Kennedy received the San Diego County Grand Jury report entitled “Retired Senior Volunteer Patrol Programs (RSVP) at San Diego Law Enforcement Agencies.” The report contained five findings and three recommendations directed to Chief of Police Roxana Kennedy. The Grand Jury filed the report with the Clerk of the Court on May 29, 2024.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a physical change in the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
Thus, no environmental review is required.
P a g e | 2
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
On May 22, 2024, the Chula Vista Police Department and Police Chief Roxana Kennedy received the San Diego County Grand Jury report on the Retired Senior Volunteer Patrol Programs (RSVP) at San Diego Law Enforcement Agencies. The Grand Jury filed the report with the Clerk of the Court on May 29, 2024.
The report contained five findings and three recommendations directed to Chief of Police Roxana Kennedy.
The City must state whether it agrees with any findings pertaining to Chula Vista, and if not, provide an explanation. The City must also respond to each recommendation by stating one of the following:
a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. b) The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
c) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report; or,
d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
On behalf of the City of Chula Vista, the Chief of Police drafted the attached letter in response to the San Diego County Grand Jury Report, which includes the following responses to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations:
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY’S FIVE FINDINGS:
Finding 1: RSVP programs are an asset to local law enforcement agencies.
Response to Finding 1: The City of Chula Vista agrees with this finding.
Finding 2: RSVP personnel perform routine administrative tasks allowing sworn personnel to perform other more vital public safety actions.
Response to Finding 2: The City of Chula Vista agrees with this finding.
Finding 3: RSVP programs benefit significantly from having reliable equipment to provide quality services.
Response to Finding 3: The City of Chula Vista agrees with this finding.
P a g e | 3
Finding 4: Current RSVP recruitment does not always meet membership goals.
Response to Finding 4: The City of Chula Vista agrees with this finding.
Finding 5: Training requirements are currently determined and, in many cases, conducted by individual jurisdictions leading to potentially inconsistent policies and procedures throughout the County.
Response to Finding 5: The City of Chula Vista respectfully disagrees with this finding. RSVP programs are meant to serve their local communities and augment their respective law enforcement agencies. Each agency and jurisdiction have unique needs and areas in which they utilize their RSVP members. In Chula Vista, our Senior Volunteer Patrol (SVP) members are formally trained on the tasks which are specific to the needs of the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) and the Chula Vista community. We therefore tailor the training and tasks of our SVP members to best meet our local needs.
RESPOSE TO GRAND JURY’S THREE RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 2023-2024 Grand Jury recommends that all interviewed San Di ego law enforcement agencies with RSVP programs:
Recommendation 1: Collaborate to create a centralized two -week academy for new RSVP recruits across all law enforcement agencies.
Response to Recommendation 1: The City of Chula Vista has determined that this recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted . Currently, CVPD SVP members attend a 40 -hour in-house training class which is located at CVPD headquarters, where volunteers learn curriculum specific to our community and Police Department needs.
Currently, the Sheriff’s Department hosts a two -week course three times a year in Poway . This course is attended by members of the Sheriff’s RSVP. The San Diego Police Department (SDPD) are allowed seats in the Sheriff’s course. The Sheriff’s Department will also allow an additional five to ten seats (space permitting) for other agencies.
Requiring a senior volunteer to commute daily approximately 27 miles each way (54 miles in total) to Poway from Chula Vista for two weeks, with full day s of training, would seriously strain our ability to attract and retain members for Chula Vista’s SVP. Transportation to and from Poway, or other locations in the County, for elderly members of our community who wish to be a volunteer would be challenging and could dissuade or even prevent someone from joining our SVP program.
In addition, the weeklong course taught in -house by CVPD is specific to the needs of our community and resources for members of Chula Vista SVP, whereas the course put on by the Sheriff’s Department contains substantial information which may not be relevant to our SVP members (e.g. tours of County offices, County buildings, etc.) . Additionally, because our class is offered in -house by CVPD, we can allow as many SVP candidates as p ossible to attend and do not need to worry about space limitations inherent with training offered by other agencies. Likewise, we have flexibility to schedule the classes around completion of background screenings of SVP members rather than waiting for training to be offered by another agency.
P a g e | 4
Recommendation 2: Collaborate to develop and share recruiting best practices.
Response to Recommendation 2: The City of Chula Vista has not yet implemented this recommendation but plans to implement this recommendation within ninety days. Recruiting practices for police department employment, including volunteer positions, are the responsibility of each respective agency based on an agency’s vacancies, budget, and unique job responsibilities, along with any additional agency -specific benefits. At CVPD, recruitment of SVPs occurs via our website, community presentations, booths at community events, staffing storefront offices, and word-of-mouth. Our recruitment methods mirror those of other agencies in the region as well. These recruiting practices and strategies have worked for CVPD for 30 years. In the current year alone, from January to June 2024, CVPD SVP members volunteered 7,900 hours and are on -track to volunteer a total of 16,000 hours for 2024 . The Chula Vista Police Department looks forward to sharing recruiting practices that have been successful in Chula Vista and developing best practices.
Recommendation 3: Pursue outside funding sources for RSVP operations and acquisition of dedicated equipment.
Response to Recommendation 3: The City of Chula Vista has implemented this recommendation and is in support of pursuing additional outside funding sources . The Chula Vista Police Foundation (a non -profit entity) has provided funds for SVP uniforms and miscellaneous gear. The cost for other supplies, equipment, and expenses is paid by CVPD, and the SVP vehicles are paid for by Chula Vista’s “Measure P” (2016 local ballot initiative) funds.
DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site-specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 18702.2(a)(11), is not applicable to this decision for purposes of determining a disqualifying real property-related financial conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter.
CURRENT-YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There is no current-year fiscal impact as a result of this action.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
There is no ongoing fiscal impact as a result of this action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Grand Jury Report – Retired Senior Volunteer Programs (RSVP) at San Diego Law Enforcement Agencies
2. Response to Grand Jury Report
Staff Contact: Chief Roxana Kennedy, Police Department Assistant Chief Dan Peak, Police Department