Butte County Grand Jury
2011-2012
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
28 findings
F1:
The hiring of a new Director for DBH has produced some positive results. Many on the staff appreciate her dedication and professionalism and she has represented the County well at the regional and State levels. Her on-going efforts to find solutions to long-term problems within the Department are recognized by the Grand Jury. 16
F2:
Some recently implemented programs are having positive effects. The WIN program is helping meet the needs of consumers coming out of in-patient placement and in reducing recidivism. The WRAP® program has the support of consumers and staff. CIT is a program designed to provide law enforcement personnel with new levels of knowledge which will assist them in deescalating situations involving consumers with a mental health crisis.
F3:
The utilization of employment programs by consumers is a positive resource providing work experience that often leads to employment in the private sector or within the Department.
F4:
The lack of community based long-term planning has impacted Department programs in a number of ways. Current efforts to develop a strategic plan for the Department are a positive step if all members of the behavioral health profession in the County and the general public are encouraged to participate.
F5:
The continuum of care necessary to meet the needs of consumers is underdeveloped. Long-term planning will assist in identifying gaps in service and prioritize needs.
F6:
Reduced staffing levels have resulted in a fragmented approach to the intake and assessment of consumers at the various out-patient facilities leading to problems in continuity and coordination of care delivered to consumers.
F7:
Due to the difficulty of recruiting and retaining a Medical Director, DBH needs to reevaluate this position so that it can best make use of the number of psychiatrists available.
F8:
There has been a history of staff members, especially medical staff, concluding that their opinions are not always valued in the decision making process.
F9:
Procedures for reviewing circumstances surrounding the death of a consumer, under the care of DBH, are inadequate.
F10:
The relationships with all area hospitals, especially with Enloe Hospital, are dysfunctional and have a negative impact on the delivery of mental health services to consumers. This situation does not adequately serve the best interest of the community.
F11:
The MCT is available only during the normal working day causing long delays in consumer mental status evaluations conducted in EDs. This results in an adverse impact on the hospital EDs ability to respond to the needs of the public.
F12:
The problem of long waits in the EDs for individuals brought in under the 5150 code, even for those determined not to need immediate treatment, could be at least partially solved if Emergency Department Physicians were authorized to release such holds.
F13:
The acute shortage of drug and alcohol programs within DBH makes it difficult for the Department to meet the demand for such services. 17
F14:
A large percentage of those being released from incarceration, either from the Butte County Jail or from a State prison, have been identified as having behavioral health issues. There is a need to improve the procedure for moving these persons into the existing mental health system and for providing adequate treatment.
F15:
There are serious issues concerning implementation of policies and procedures pursuant to section 5150. The presently dysfunctional working relationships between DBH and area hospitals, as well as in some cases questionable application of the 5150 provisions by law enforcement, are not serving the best interests of either the community or mental health consumers.
F16:
The computer system, AVATAR, which will eventually provide many benefits for DBH, the community and consumers, has been slow in implementation. It has not enthusiastically accepted by all staff impacting the Department’s ability to provide and bill for necessary services.
F17:
The lack of County in-patient mental health facilities for youth leads to expensive out-of- county placements that do not always meet the needs of the consumers. Alternative programs such as HAP and TBS may be a partial solution to this problem.
F18:
Adult consumers are being placed in out-of county facilities when at times the in-county facilities, such as Enloe Behavioral Health, are not fully utilized.
F19:
DBH does not effectively utilize resources that can increase public awareness and understanding of its programs in order to encourage and cultivate community support.
F20:
There is need for expanded facilities for the care of geriatric mental health consumers.
F21:
That on behalf of the City of Gridley, a waiver of Mary’s Gone Crackers sewer capacity fees was, with approval of City Council, carried out by the City and the responsible party for the business Mary’s Gone Crackers pursuant to the signing of an agreement on December 20, 2010.
F22:
That with the advent of the loss of Redevelopment Agency tax increment funds, the City will be challenged to find alternative sources of funding for projects previously paid for with RDA funds.
F23:
No tangible or reliable evidence was found that false information was submitted to FEMA.
F24:
The City appropriately sought additional monies that remained within the USDA loan grant.
F25:
The City has been attempting to identify the cause of the current buildup of sludge within the City’s sewer system. However, without adequate quantity and proper placement of sludge flow measuring/monitoring units, the City is unable to determine with absolute certainty the specific sources of the sludge in the City’s sewer system.
F26:
That adequate quantity and proper placement of sludge flow measuring/monitoring units can be implemented by the City to identify sources (s) of sludge flow into the City sewer system.
F27:
No improper management of the financial interface between the Gridley BID and the City has been found. The Gridley BID is awaiting reinstatement of its corporate business status by the Office of the California Secretary of State. The Gridley BID had no record on file of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notice, letter or correspondence granting it a non-profit status. As long as the Mayor exercises recusal from all City Council proceedings, actions and decisions relating to interface between the City and the BID, the Grand Jury finds no discernible conflict of interest.
F28:
The Gridley Animal Control Department is well managed by enthusiastic and dedicated staff. 68
Additional Recommendations
48
Not linked to specific findings.
R00-01:
$322,674.36 $134,863.90
R1:
That DBH continue and enhance where possible, programs such as WIN, WRAP® and CIT.
R2:
That with care and appropriate consideration, DBH continue where possible to use consumers in employment situations and provide them with the support and supervision necessary to make such opportunities successful.
R3:
That DBH implement policies that make long term planning a priority. As a part of the planning procedure DBH identify gaps in services, needs for prevention/education, staffing and financial resources.
R4:
That DBH design and implement procedures for conducting a psychological autopsy following the death of a consumer. 18
R5:
That DBH improve working relationships with area hospitals, especially with regard to the use of emergency departments by those in mental health crisis situations. That DBH review of the function of the Mobile Crisis Team and expand its availability and response capability.
R6:
That DBH, together with area hospitals and the Board of Supervisors, develop a policy that will allow emergency department physicians to release 5150 holds.
R7:
That alternatives for those entering the mental health system in crisis be explored, including the possibility of establishing a central intake facility.
R8:
That as part of an improving relationship between the DBH and Enloe Hospital, opportunities for better use of the Enloe Behavioral Health be explored.
R9:
That opportunities for the expansion of drug and alcohol treatment programs be explored.
R10:
That DBH work with corrections officials and any other involved agencies to establish procedures to insure that those being released from incarceration are connected with out- patient mental health services in a timely manner.
R11:
That DBH and all area law enforcement agencies work together so that policies and practices concerning the application Section 5150 are appropriate.
R12:
That DBH continue efforts to fully implement the AVATAR system, including the training and supervision of all appropriate staff.
R13:
That DBH continue efforts to minimize the need for costly out-of-area placement of youth and adults needing in-patient care. DBH may need to provide the leadership necessary to initiate discussions with nearby counties to establish a facility to provide in- patient treatment for youth.
R14:
That DBH explore, with area hospitals and other entities, the possibility of the establishment of a facility for treatment of geriatric patients with mental health issues.
R15:
That DBH publicize its programs to increase public awareness and support for its work and the services it provides. This should include placing meeting notices in newspapers, on appropriate websites, on community calendars, and utilization of other media as appropriate. 19
R16:
That before the 2012-2013 budget is adopted, the City Administrator and the Finance Officer follow through on actions taken in the 2011-2012 budget to resolve the Planning Department budget allocation issue as it relates to the 2030 General Plan update by making appropriate inter-fund budget transfers.
R17:
That the City research, reconstruct, and attain an accurate record of the events, inclusive of expenditures and inter-fund transfers, that have either contributed to or caused the on- going allocation of funds issue pertaining to the Planning Department budget.
R18:
That the property owner reimbursement plan for the Eagle Meadows Maintenance Assessment District be implemented by summer of 2012, and that past and present Eagle Meadows subdivision owners be notified by the City of Gridley with an explanation of the details of the reimbursement plan.
R19:
That in order to best serve the public, the plan for reimbursement of Eagle Meadows Maintenance Assessment District overcharged assessment fees be a product of very close coordination between the City Council, City Attorney, City Administrator and City Finance Officer.
R20:
That the City continue, and intensify, efforts to obtain an adequate response from AT&T, which will allow the City to determine a course of action to bring the outstanding AT&T bill issue to a conclusion.
R21:
That the City not address its correspondence seeking information from AT&T “To Whom it May Concern,” but instead address correspondence to a specific named point of contact. 70
R22:
That the City establish a General Fund reserve for contingencies with a goal of containing and maintaining not less than an amount which would cover contingency cost expectations based upon previous annual General Fund expenditures.
R23:
That the City Administrator establish and implement procedures that will inform City staff of reasons for inter-fund transfers and changes in budget allocations as they occur.
R24:
That department heads and Finance Department staff receive additional MOMS training.
R25:
That prior to providing utility connections and services to businesses, the City properly formalize all connections and services agreements, and create and enter the proper billing codes into the City financial management system.
R26:
That the City identify, evaluate and apply available alternative funding sources to offset RDA funding losses.
R27:
That the City install a technologically appropriate and efficient sludge flow measuring/monitoring unit with backup at the juncture of the City’s sewer system waste water intake point and the waste water outlet point of any party suspected of discharging sludge into the City sewer system.
R28:
That in the event the City determines the offending party responsible for excessive sludge discharge into the City sewer system, the City seek full reimbursement of all costs incurred by the City.
R29:
That the Gridley BID continue to pursue reinstatement of its corporate status with the Office of the California Secretary of State.
R30:
That the Gridley BID expeditiously submit a request to the Internal Revenue Service for a copy of the letter or document which grants the Gridley Business Improvement District non-profit status in compliance with section 501(c)(6) of the United States Internal Revenue Code.
R31:
That as long as the Mayor of the City of Gridley is concurrently serving as both Mayor and as the paid/salaried Executive Director of the Gridley BID, the Mayor avoid all proceedings, actions and decisions relating to interface between the City and the Gridley BID. 71
R01-02:
$325,411.61 $137,963.07
R02-03:
$345,085.90 $145,796.06
R03-04:
$587,200.26 $157,510.04
R04-05:
$405,874.21 $171,231.68 $20,150.20
R05-06:
$438,062.73 $184,911.38 $20,150.20
R06-07:
$476,097.85 $200,332.98
R07-08:
$513,277.89 $214,810.24
R08-09:
$538,171.17 $225,224.63
R10-11:
$238,444.93 $5,920,223.33 $2,877,039.33 $40,300.40 $9,606.37 The information in this table was supplied by the DRPD Manager. This information has been kept for the past 19 years on a bulletin board in the District office showing the current and cumulative totals of the funds taken from the District. The first column is the fiscal year. The second column denotes the 1% from County property taxes that DRPD should have received each year. The third column indicates the amounts withheld for ERAF each year by the State, which DRPD was entitled. The fourth column shows additional amounts withheld in those years for ERAF. The last column notes the only funds reimbursed under ERAF. 103
R93-94:
$235,615.96 $96,329.00
R94-95:
$261,165.37 $106,775.00
R95-96:
$269,583.98 $110,235.00
R96-97:
$277,637.14 $114,884.00
R97-98:
$294,686.01 $122,886.00
R98-99:
$303,571.04 $127,160.00
R99-00:
$326,107.85 $131,635.28 $9,606.37