Grand Jury Says County Should Provide More Protection for Elderly

The Orange County Grand Jury, in its final report issued Tuesday, said some of the homes for elderly in the county are not properly licensed and therefore not monitored by state or county authorities.

The report also said there are homes in which the caretakers do not speak the same language as the residents. “This makes it impossible for the seniors to express their needs and . . . is a potentially dangerous situation, especially when life-threatening emergencies occur,” the report says.

The grand jury recommended that the county provide money to the district attorney’s office for a position specifically aimed at protecting the elderly. “Many instances of abuse and neglect in board-and-care homes go unreported to the appropriate police or prosecutorial agencies,” the jury said in explaining its recommendation.

The licensing of such homes, which are also called residential homes or community care facilities, is done by the state and is not a county responsibility. County officials said they believe the state has been interested in cracking down on unlicensed homes.

The state’s Little Hoover Commission held a public hearing in Orange County in February about the problem, grand jurors noted. But jurors also said the county should appropriate money to provide for consumers a list of all of the board-and-care facilities that are available in the county.

Monitoring Meals

In another report issued Tuesday, the grand jury said the Orange County Area Agency on Aging should do a better job of monitoring the meals and services provided to elderly residents. The jury recommended that written policies be developed immediately and that the issue “be considered an agency priority.”

Peggy Weatherspoon, director of the agency, said she has not had time to review the recommendations to prepare a response.

The board-and-care home report is contained in a bound copy of the 1987-88 Orange County Grand Jury’s reports on 20 different studies covering varied aspects of the county, ranging from the operation of the jails to buying new equipment.

The complete report was presented officially to the county administration Tuesday by jury foreman James O. Lindberg. The county has 90 days to prepare a response to all of the recommendations in the grand jury’s study.

“We tried to center on areas where we could do some good,” Lindberg said. “We didn’t want to get anything that was so large we couldn’t handle it properly.”

The grand jury also looked at how frequently the county has implemented the recommendations of previous grand juries.

It found that 108 reports, with 584 recommendations, were issued by grand juries in the past five years. It said the county agreed with 405 of those recommendations.

The study did not analyze how many of the recommendations eventually were implemented by the county. But it said, “In general . . . the status check on concurred responses indicates a good report card analysis for Orange County.”

The report recommended, however, that the next grand jury continue to monitor the county’s progress in implementing grand jury recommendations. Lindberg has been asked to serve as foreman of the incoming 1988-89 grand jury.