Contra Costa County 2015-2016 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Continuity Report

Compliance and Continuity Committee Review of 2014-2015 Reports 1601

From the consolidated annual report · 350 pages

Full Details →

Individual reports (12)

July 21, 2016 — Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District*

6 pages 10 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F4: The levees in the County's portion of the Delta have been built up or otherwise strengthened on a piecemeal basis over the century or more of their existence. The respondent agrees with the finding. Levee repairs and improvements have been performed when funding is available. This situation has already significantly improved for BIMID following the 2015 ballot approval of its new Proposition 218 Assessment District, which is generating more than $200,000 additional annual revenue for enhanced levee maintenance (including DWR Subventions) and required local shares for DWR Special Projects. Both this ambitious and ultimately successful effort, and a previous unsuccessful Parcel Tax approach in 2010, were in keeping with the findings and recommendations of the Grand Jury's 2004-05 Grand Jury Report, "Cracks to Patch at Bethel Island," and CoCoCo LAFCO's 2008 first Municipal Services Review of BIMID and Reclamation Districts within the County (which drew heavily from that Grand Jury Report with respect to BIMID).

F5: Because the levees remain vulnerable to natural hazards and human activities, they require constant vigilance - i.e. frequent inspection coupled with timely maintenance and prompt repairs. The respondent agrees with the finding. Frequent inspections and timely maintenance and repairs are an imperative necessity to ensure and prolong levee integrity. 보다는데 보고 마을 이 경우를 보는데 함께 하다고 있는 것 같다. 1.00 and in folia halakan askaden ni mandina wiadalay agti milan ang melilah sasa en eradarentilalarin biladi an na mariyendiya kewa o er ekkin bergalar besette de menoralistado e trada calara y 🏗 a televista en degrá filosoficias. and the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contract of the contra ababata, e e aku Sara njebio Auski uraj. information the control of the register flags of the paragraph in a highest so which is adas in dela revisare i la marca da ser el del incretor della estimate [1] - 글로 1888 - 그런 이 이 아이 아이 아이 아이 모든 것을 다고 있다.

F11: There is no formal or standardized educational or training resource available to the districts for levee inspection, maintenance, and repair, which can support new levee superintendents or managers while they acquire the experience to recognize problems early, learn how to appropriately respond, and learn how to balance environmental regulations with maintenance protocols. The respondent agrees with the finding. There is no single source of education or training for reclamation district staff. Training and education must be piecemealed together from a variety of sources, and often over a period of time as information changes. Neighboring, similar districts can also be a helpful resource. It would also certainly help were the State (presumably DWR) to develop and offer some form of formal standardized training and associated written materials.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: After identifying the necessary funding, reclamation districts should consider adding a "training module" for new and re-elected Board members to their required governance training (i.e. Brown Act and Ethics). This "module" or session should cover the district's levee regulations and protocols, the consequences of noncompliance with regulations and protocols, flood preparedness, and emergency response training - or at a minimum a "back to basics" session with the consulting engineer to cover these concerns. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. This District already provides newly elected Board members with a "training manual" of sorts, which includes all of the District's ordinances (notably the ordinance related to levee regulations and protocols), flood preparedness, etc. Additionally, this District hosts a flood fight class every two years (at a minimum). All District Staff are required to attend the flood fight class, and the Board of Directors, interested island residents, and neighboring districts are also invited to attend. And Board members and key staff members are also required to comply with AB 1234's ethics training, and are also provided the opportunity for online Brown Act training.

F12: Levee management requires recognizing seasonal timeframes and juggling multiple deadlines, including preparing for storm season and the "no-mowing" period, when local bird populations nest, as well as timely application for the subvention and/or special projects funding programs. The respondent agrees with the finding. Proper staffing levels, with experienced staff working together as a team, along with its District Engineers, are necessary and essential for effective levee management, and successful pursuit of available outside funding sources. Again, neighboring, similar districts can also be a helpful resource.

F13: Unpermitted encroachments can hinder visual inspection of the levee surface and create new structural weaknesses or potential conduits for seepage. The respondent agrees with the finding, but with additional competing considerations. Policies and procedures for management of levee encroachments should be adopted, and systematically enforced, by each reclamation district. In Bethel Island this is also balanced out with historically significant structures that, albeit encroaching, have contributed to its being formally designated as a "Legacy Community" both with respect to such structures in themselves, and the unique Bethel Island lifestyle(s) they have come to symbolize over the years. While not therefore removed or demolished, such "nonconforming" encroaching structures cannot be expanded, but only improved or repaired to the extent called for in the interest of safety. BIMID has also long advocated for County, State, and Federal policies that would allow such structures to be removed "as is" from the levee and relocated on site to coincide with the required setback, but without triggering the often financially unfeasible requirement that a second story be added.

F14: Education about the potential danger of unpermitted encroachments can be a highly effective management tool for mitigating this type of hazard because increased understanding of the potential consequences of such encroachments can support longer-term adherence to levee regulations and protocols. The respondent agrees with the finding. Public outreach is very costly. With limited staff and funding, and a sizeable island population, educating each resident and property owner is virtually impossible. Public education efforts are made as funding and opportunity is available, with particular reliance on Bethel Island on BIMID's website and Facebook page, and public posting, especially at the Post Office, since there is no direct mail delivery on Bethel Island, only P.O. boxes.

F15: Since early recognition of potential trouble spots and prompt repair work are critical to maintaining levee integrity, while resources for levee patrols are limited, the presence of an educated and aware residential population can supply additional eyes to provide the constant vigilance that is crucial to safeguarding the levee. The respondent agrees with the finding. Because Bethel Island is largely populated (with approximately three-quarters of the levee perimeter being residential properties), in addition to its own regular levee patrols by staff, BIMID relies heavily on its residents to report potential trouble spots with the levee. Each reported problem is followed up with a visual inspection by District staff as soon as possible, and any necessary remediation.

F16: In addition to permitting procedures and intermittent newsletters, there are other opportunities to educate the public, and especially residents of reclamation districts, about the hazards that can damage or impair the levees. The respondent agrees with the finding. In addition to the online and pubic posting mentioned above, each and every interaction that BIMID staff and Directors have with Bethel Island residents and property owners is an opportunity for public education. The 2014-15 Assessment District public outreach effort and series of community workshops were themselves an ideal opportunity for such public education.

F17: Explaining the hazards to levees by multiple means at appropriate times – i.e., just before the start of storm season in the fall - can help to keep awareness at a heightened and effective level. The respondent agrees with the finding. Again, public outreach, especially with our District's large population, is very costly. Every effort for public education is made when funding and opportunity are available, in addition to online and public posting as emphasized above.

F21: Some reclamation districts that are unable to maintain the staff, equipment, and material stockpiles needed for emergency major repairs, rely on informal mutual- aid arrangements. The respondent agrees with the finding. This district is fortunate to have a core staff of very skilled individuals and an equipment base sufficient to do a majority of its own repairs and maintenance. Small material stockpiles are kept on hand in the event a small emergency repair Additionally, this District has been recently working towards is needed. formalizing a mutual-aid agreement with several neighboring districts, while as outlined above its own annual resource base has been considerably improved by the recent passage of the Assessment District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Reclamation districts should formalize, or at a minimum, document, all "Mutual Aid" agreements for future reference as reclamation district personnel change over time. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. As explained earlier, this District is currently working on formalizing a Mutual Aid agreement with several neighboring districts. As these agreements are finalized, it is the intention of this District to keep a master file of all Mutual Aid agreements for future reference. As an additional note, even though there may not be a formal agreement in place, in the event of an actual emergency, this District would offer aid to any district with a need, as long as resources were available. Not only does this District consider itself good stewards of Bethel Island, but of the entire Delta region. Please also note a correction in the table on as to the total miles of levee on Bethel Island. The 11.5 Agriculture figure is correct; however, the Urban (i.e. Delta Coves Subdivision's portion) figure is closer to 2.6 miles, which it appears may have been rounded to the 3 miles indicated in the table. We just wanted to make sure you have the accurate baseline information. Thank you for your service, and for the opportunity to directly participate in this important public process through our review and comment of your Report, which we hope has been of benefit to you. Please let us know if there's any more you may need us to do, or any additional information you may wish us to provide. Sincerely, Bruce Smith President

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: After identifying the necessary funding, the County reclamation districts should collaborate in establishing and supporting a shared website, possibly approaching one of the Districts that already has a website to take the lead. This website should include "Best Practices", a calendar of date- or seasonal - specific tasks, such as preparation for nesting season when certain work is prohibited, and dates when Subventions Program applications are due, and a common log of significant levee incidents to identify and track historical trouble spots. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. As addressed above, this District already maintains a website, which staff and Directors endeavor to keep as informative as possible. It is this District's experience, however, that although there are few dedicated residents and property owners who check the site frequently for updates, a majority do not. The District's Facebook page seems to generate more viewers than the District's website. Again, this District utilizes both its website and Facebook page, and postings at the Post Office, to get as much information as possible to the public.

R3: After identifying the necessary funding, the County reclamation districts should consider taking turns hosting a short, local, annual conference for all District Board members and staff. Each conference should include an educational presentation on a matter of common interest, such as changes in regulations or levee standards, new technology or procedures for levee work, new sources of funding, and/or most effective techniques for successful grant applications. The recommendation requires further analysis. While the idea is a good one, this District is unsure of the feasibility of coordination of such an event with as many participants that are identified in this report. Perhaps coordination of several smaller groups would be more feasible.

∼ June 30, 2016 — Caring for the Victims

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

∼ June 30, 2016 — Protecting Our Groundwater Resources

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

June 14, 2016 — Our Children in Need Why Another Report?

11 pages 74 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 74 findings

F1: A comprehensive system of care for victims of CSEC [children in need] still has not been fully implemented in Contra Costa County.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

R2: The Board of Supervisors should issue a policy statement of the County’s intention to provide the personnel, facilities, training, and administrative support necessary to protect the county’s children in need.

R3: The Board of Supervisors should create a position of “Youth Advocate”, with the power to: a. Investigate all county agencies charged with providing services to children; b. Report his/her findings and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and to the public every six months; c. Recommend to the Board of Supervisors the amount of money necessary to accomplish his/her recommended actions; and d. Advocate before the Board of Supervisors on all matters related to children in need.

R4: The Board of Supervisors should issue a policy statement of the County’s intention to provide material increases in the funding for the county’s agencies in order to create, and accomplish the recommendations of, the Youth Advocate in protecting our children in need, and identify the funds to do so.

F2: A CSEC Protocol, which provides a comprehensive system of care for victims of CSEC, was prepared under the leadership of Children and Family Services (CFS).

F3: The CSEC Protocol provides the framework for cooperation and coordination amount the County, its cities and NGOs.

F4: Many social workers in CFS, law enforcement, officers in Juvenile Hall, and victim advocates in the DA’s Office are not implementing the CSEC Protocol because they have not seen it.

Related Recommendations (2)

F5: CFS, the leader of the Oversight Committee, has not followed up with its interagency partners that have signed off on the Protocol but have not submitted their own CSEC department plan/protocols to the Oversight Committee.

Related Recommendations (2)

F6: CFS lacks personnel who can act as the hub of all CSEC referrals from law enforcement by assessing the health, psychiatric and physical needs of victims of CSEC and who can navigate these services for them.

Related Recommendations (2)

F7: Suspected CSEC victims are being arrested and booked into Juvenile Hall for their own safety pursuant to various statutes under the Welfare & Institutions Code relating to infractions and crimes committed by youth, while the County assesses the appropriate health and social services to provide.

Related Recommendations (2)

F8: The County has not provided funding to CFS for [a] temporary housing facility for victims of CSEC.

Related Recommendations (2)

F9: Due to the lack of a single database in the County covering all CSEC-related arrests, referrals and pending cases, the County does not know the number of victims of CSEC and where they are located.

Related Recommendations (2)

F10: County personnel and law enforcement dealing with victims of CSEC are well- meaning, compassionate and dedicated people trying to make the best of a very difficult situation.

F11: Most County personnel and law enforcement dealing with victims of CSEC lack in-depth CSEC training, necessary facilities for temporarily accommodating the victims, and a clear-cut plan of action which lays out how to rescue, protect and serve the victims of CSEC in a manner that is caring and trauma-informed. From report 1609, Human Trafficking:

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F12: The emphasis in human trafficking cases has shifted from solely prosecution to a “victim-centered” approach in which the needs of persons who have been trafficked receive equal consideration.

F13: Effectively identifying and apprehending traffickers requires knowledge of the local environment and criminal activities acquired through long experience.

F14: Successful apprehension and prosecution of traffickers often involves coordination and cooperation among local, state and federal agencies.

F15: City law enforcement and Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department have no comprehensive or consistent method for analyzing data about the number and type of trafficking victims. More data that is complete is needed to define the magnitude of the problem and to support decisions about victim services and resource allocation.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F16: City law enforcement and Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department does not always use resources offered by state and federal agencies for joint “sting” and “sweep” operations.

F17: Trafficking frequently occurs in combination with other violent crimes and with a history of abuse and trauma.

F18: Public awareness is a critical factor in identifying potential human trafficking activity.

F19: The County’s efforts to build a broad public awareness of human trafficking has primarily been a poster campaign beginning in January 2015.

F20: The Zero Tolerance for Human Trafficking Coalition is developing operating guidelines for case review and coordination to be completed in December 2016. From report 1611, Maintaining a Stable Environment for our Special Education School Children and Staff: The discussion section of that report defines the children in need who are to be served by special education programs: “Contra Costa County Office of Education (COE) operates five Special Education schools, specifically targeted for special needs children. These special needs children include those who are autistic, those with severe physical and developmental disabilities, and those who are wheelchair- bound, needing around-the-clock assistance.” “It is vital that the learning environment in special education schools be one of compassion and serenity to foster the learning process, notwithstanding the behavior issues that may arise with special needs children. Those personnel involved with special needs children must be compassionate, properly credentialed, and trained to administer to the “special” needs of special education children. They must have the confidence and support of the students, their parents, and school administrators.” “…Special Education programs involve, by definition, “Special Needs Children”. Many of these children are non-verbal and are so severely disabled that they are confined to wheelchairs and need on-duty nurses during the school day to watch over them so they do not injure themselves, administer appropriate medications, and provide needed hygiene. In all cases, behavior must be closely monitored as these children may lash out at other children or hurt themselves. When such incidents occur, a form known as an Incident Report (IR) must be completed by the teacher, reviewed by the school psychologist, and routed to the school principal for review and acceptance. The IR is required to be completed by credentialed staff.”

F21: There are over three years of complaints about a hostile work environment at the Brentwood Special Education Schools operated by the COE (Brentwood Schools).

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F22: Complaints of a hostile work environment at the Brentwood Schools were made known to COE from at least 2012 through 2015, both verbally and in writing by various entities including the two labor unions representing staff at the school locations.

F23: The perceived hostile working environment at the Brentwood Schools may have had a detrimental impact on the students themselves, many of whom reportedly expressed signs of distress through body movement, sounds, or facial expressions.

F24: There is no written protocol for staff of the Brentwood Schools to follow in deciding if, how, and when to file an incident report on any incident occurring in their classroom or facility.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F25: Incident reports are not logged into any central index either at the Brentwood Schools or the COE.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F26: Incident reports are not tracked and trended for possible patterns or recurrent problems either by the Brentwood Schools or the COE.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F27: Neither the Brentwood Schools nor the COE have a written protocol concerning who should complete, review, and respond to incident reports.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F28: At times, incident reports at the Brentwood Schools have not been given to the school psychologist for review prior to being finalized, as required in the verbal briefings to school staff.

Related Recommendations (2)

F29: The incident report form used at the Brentwood Schools requires the class teacher of the student involved in the incident, school psychologist, and principal to sign the form.

F30: Incident reports at the Brentwood Schools were sometimes completed by an Instructional Assistant.

F31: It was reported that police were called to the Brentwood Schools on a number of occasions.

F32: There is no written protocol requiring the Brentwood Schools to maintain a record of police visits, nor to require them to report the event to the COE.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F33: The Brentwood Schools do not provide their staff with a handbook to inform them of school protocols and complaint procedures.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F34: Instructional Assistants at the Brentwood Schools are not provided a handbook concerning rules and requirements related to the job.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F35: The COE publishes School Accountability Report Cards (“SARC”) on its website that provide an annual picture of the schools in the County under the auspices of the COE.

F36: While there are published SARCs for several special education locations, the data published, other than the front page, does not accurately pertain to the schools named. From report 1612, Foster Care: The Background section of the Foster Care report ( ) identifies approximately 1500 children who are under the jurisdiction of the County’s Welfare Services.

F37: The attrition rate of families in the County who are willing to foster children is high.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F38: Many potential foster parents have been eliminated from the list of currently available foster parents, after it was found that they were only interested in adopting and were not willing to take in older foster youth.

F39: The County uses FFAs (non-profit Foster Care Agencies that are not County run) after first trying to locate suitable potential homes in the County system.

F40: The foster caregivers identified through FFAs are sometimes more experienced, and receive more support and training from the FFA.

F41: FFA social workers have lighter caseloads than County social workers.

F42: There is a shortage of available, qualified foster homes in the County, as evidenced by the 384 youth that are currently located in out-of-county foster homes.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F43: The County has not performed a “gap” analysis to specifically identify the type of foster homes most needed.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F44: There is a shortage of foster parents willing and able to take in teenagers.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F45: Foster family recruitment efforts have not kept up with the need for foster families.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F46: The CFS recruiting position, which is the position that is responsible for foster parent recruitment, has not been filled and is currently staffed by one person on a half-time basis.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F47: CFS is not accumulating information to help measure outcomes of County foster youth and determine which providers are the most effective (where applicable).

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F48: Mental health professionals do not participate in the new CFS Continuous Quality Improvement process.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F49: The County Mental Health Department does limited screenings/assessments of new foster youth.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F50: CFS Placement staff often does not have a complete mental health diagnosis, suggested treatment plan, or prognosis prior to placing a new foster youth with foster parents.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F51: Ongoing mental health therapy for foster youth is frequently not as effective as it could be because it is difficult to arrange and often interrupted due to the movement of youth between foster homes.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F52: Out-of-county placement strains the resources of CFS both monetarily and in terms of staff time as CFS staff have to travel to wherever the foster youth is located.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F53: CFS is experiencing significant challenges in coordinating with all the necessary agencies involved to meet the requirements of AB 403.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F54: Current MOUs or job classifications do not permit sufficient flexibility to allow for mental health professionals to respond after hours to situations that arise in the treatment of foster youth.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F55: Based on the current costs of Group Home care, millions of dollars of State support money will be saved when foster youth transition to individual foster families.

F56: High level executives at FFAs frequently recruit foster parents, whereas lower level line personnel usually perform this function at the County. From report 1615, Truancy:

F57: Based on truancy rates during the 2014 - 2015 school year, the County ranked among the worst in the State, 46th out of 58 counties.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F58: Based on chronic absences during the elementary school year 2014 - 2015, the County ranked last out of the nine Bay Area counties.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F59: Not all County school districts comply with the requirement found in California Education Code section 15497 that each district collect, track and report its chronically absent rates in an annual LCAP.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F60: The COE (County Office of Education) does not currently know the chronically absent rates for all of the County’s school districts because the COE lacks relevant data needed to perform the analysis.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F61: To identify students with attendance issues and quickly address these issues, the school district needs complete and accurate data about attendance and a well- developed support infrastructure.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F62: (Each) school district has its own software system for collecting attendance information and its own process and standards for collecting, storing and utilizing the truancy attendance information gathered, which are not necessarily the same as other districts in the County.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F63: Without a centralized attendance system or compatible software among school districts, it is challenging to get a complete picture of a student’s attendance profile and patterns over multiple years or across districts.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F64: Some school districts have little communication with other school districts and the COE about best practices, common achievement goals, and best data systems regarding attendance.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F65: The California Attorney General, Kamala Harris’ 2015 report, “In-School and on Track”, indicates that over 80 percent of chronically absent students in kindergarten and 1st grade are unable to read at grade level by 3rd grade. These students are four times more likely to drop out than children who can read at grade level.

F66: [Some cities in the County do] not have a daytime curfew.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F67: [Cities that have] and enforce a daytime curfew see less daytime and juvenile crime.

F68: Chronically absent or truant students, who do not get back on track before age 18, are more likely to drop out of high school before graduation.

F69: Parent and Truancy Courts offer attendance support and are one of the last opportunities to alter a student’s attendance behavior.

F70: Attendance improvement programs used by the County’s Juvenile Courts, such as the Lincoln Child Center, ankle monitors, drug and mental health counselors, and tutoring classes, lack long-term funding.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F71: The school districts that have Truancy or Resource Officers who connect directly with students, help get chronically absent or truant students back on track.

F72: There is currently no teen truancy court in the WCCUSD (West Contra Costa Unified School District) area.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F73: The WCCUSD does not provide sufficient staff to process chronically absent students through the Parent or Truancy Court in Martinez. NEW FINDING IN THIS REPORT, BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should enact the recommendations directed to them made in Grand Jury reports 1605, 1609, 1612, and 1615.

F74: The present levels of personnel, support, and financing are inadequate to protect the County’s children in need.

Related Recommendations (3)

June 01, 2016 — Contact: Michael Simmons Foreperson

22 pages 23 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 23 findings

F1: There is an estimated backlog of 2,300 welfare fraud cases being processed in the fall of 2015.

F2: Approximately 300 welfare fraud cases have been released for review to the DA from July through December 2015.

F3: Although the amount of money distributed by EHSD in the three main programs is roughly $185 million annually, the County only pays $4.4 million of this amount, while the remainder of these benefits are paid for by the federal and state government.

F4: The ratio of recovered money to total payments was less than 1 percent in 2014 and 1.87 percent in 2013.

F5: The lack of staff to process suspected fraud cases is one of the primary reasons Contra Costa County did not recover more monies from welfare fraud in 2013 and 2014.

F6: Contra Costa County has the third lowest welfare fraud referral rate in the nine county Bay Area and is at one-third of the statewide rate.

F7: There are currently two Welfare Fraud Investigators and one Welfare Fraud Investigator Supervisor.

F8: EHSD is authorized to fill five Welfare Fraud Investigator positions.

F9: The County has difficultly hiring and retaining Welfare Fraud Investigators.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should consider, in order to make the position more attractive with higher net pay, offering non-benefitted status to candidates for Welfare Fraud Investigator, after reviewing the legal and policy-related considerations of doing so.

F10: EHSD and HR have been unsuccessful in filling three Welfare Fraud Investigator positions over the past 18 months.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Board of Supervisors should consider directing EHSD to hire two full time EHSD Overpayment Unit workers to fill the currently open positions.

F11: The main reason the County has difficultly hiring and retaining Welfare Fraud Investigators is that a potential candidate with POST certification can receive better pay by becoming a police officer or a deputy sheriff instead of a Welfare Fraud Investigator.

F12: As a practical matter, the County is limited to hiring retired or medically retired police officers with POST certification for Welfare Fraud Investigators.

F13: With the backlog of approximately 2,300 referrals, EHSD hired two (2) temporary Overpayment Unit workers to assist the four (4) current full-time Overpayment Unit workers clear the backlog.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: To allow the Welfare Fraud Investigators time to perform more in-field investigations such as UHVs, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing EHSD to create a position classification for Fraud Investigation Technicians or Aides, who would prepare and process case documentation.

F14: Each temporary Overpayment Unit worker is limited to working no more than 1000 hours per year in that position.

F15: County policy prohibits Welfare Fraud Investigators from carrying handguns while conducting unannounced home visits, even in dangerous areas of the County.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Board of Supervisors should consider allowing Welfare Fraud Investigators to wear firearms at their personal discretion while conducting UHVs.

F16: Some counties hire fraud investigative staff in non-peace officer classifications, called Investigative Technicians, to perform office work processing case documentation and allowing fraud investigators to conduct more UHVs and field investigations.

F17: Investigative Technicians are not required to be POST certified and are paid at a lower salary range than Welfare Fraud Investigators.

F18: The County is reimbursed by CDSS for approximately 80 percent of the labor cost in administering CalWorks, CalFresh, and In-Home Supportive Services and investigating fraud related to these programs.

F19: The County does not receive reimbursement for the cost of the administrating General Assistance and investigating potential fraud related to those benefits.

F20: Because the State shares 12.5 percent of monies recovered for the overpayment of benefits related to CalWorks, CalFresh, and In-Home Supportive Services, hiring additional fraud investigation officers and Overpayment Unit Workers would cost the County little.

F21: The Senior Inspector in the DA’s Welfare Fraud Investigation Unit is authorized to carry a handgun.

F22: The County DA’s Office has only one senior inspector and a Deputy District Attorney assigned for welfare fraud prosecution.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: As EHSD fraud referrals increase, and as funding is identified and made available, the District Attorney should consider increasing the number of Senior Inspectors and Deputy DAs so that investigations can also be done on Electronic Benefit Transfer card fraud and internal fraud within EHSD.

F23: If the County hires more senior inspectors, they could conduct investigations into EBT card fraud, internal fraud, and in-home supportive services violations.

May 26, 2016 — Delta Levees in Contra Costa County How Well Do We Protect This Vital Safety System?

32 pages 23 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 23 findings

F1: The portion of the Delta that lies within Contra Costa County includes six of the eight western islands, deemed by the State to be of particular importance to preventing seawater intrusion that would impair the quality of water for nearly two- thirds of the State, including much of the East Bay area.

F2: Loss (i.e. submersion) of any of the six islands in the Delta within Contra Costa County has potential to affect adversely much more than just Contra Costa County.

F3: Key infrastructure located within the Contra Costa County reclamation districts benefits the entire County, including major County roads and highways, a rail-line, PG&E power transmission lines, natural gas wells, petroleum pipelines, Contra Costa Water District intakes, pumping stations, and portions of both the Contra Costa Canal and EBMUD’s Mokelumne aqueduct.

F4: The levees in the County’s portion of the Delta have been built up or otherwise strengthened on a piecemeal basis over the century or more of their existence.

F5: Because the levees remain vulnerable to natural hazards and human activities, they require constant vigilance – i.e., frequent inspection coupled with timely maintenance and prompt repairs.

F6: The Army Corp of Engineers inspects federal levees, as well as non-federal levees that qualify for the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program.

F7: All of our County’s levees are non-federal levees and the only non-federal levees in the County that qualify for participation in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program are in Holland and Byron Reclamation Districts.

F8: The only levees in the County that are independently evaluated for structural integrity are those in Reclamation Districts 800 and 2026, Holland and Byron.

F9: LAFCO’s MSR of the reclamation districts, which it performs every 5-years, focuses on financial and administrative management of the districts.

F10: LAFCO relies on self-reported information from the districts, without physical inspection, to evaluate how well the districts are maintaining the integrity of the levees for which they are responsible.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: After identifying the necessary funding, LAFCO should consider including independent physical inspections of levee conditions, in addition to the self- reported evaluations of the conditions, in the MSRs of all County reclamation districts, if necessary by hiring an independent engineering firm to perform this function.

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: After identifying the necessary funding, reclamation districts should consider adding a “training module” for new and re-elected Board members to their required governance training (i.e. Brown Act and Ethics). This “module” or session should cover the district’s levee regulations and protocols, the consequences of noncompliance with regulations and protocols, flood preparedness, and emergency response training – or at minimum a “back to basics” session with the consulting engineer to cover these concerns.

F12: Levee management requires recognizing seasonal timeframes and juggling multiple deadlines, including preparing for storm season and the “no-mowing” period, when local bird populations nest, as well as timely application for the subvention and/or special projects funding programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

F13: Unpermitted encroachments can hinder visual inspection of the levee surface and create new structural weaknesses or potential conduits for seepage.

Related Recommendations (2)

R8: After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County Planning Department to provide each applicant for new construction or major remodeling in unincorporated areas within a reclamation district with a brochure or direction to an online website explaining levee safety rules and regulations, along with the reasons for same, applicable to their particular reclamation district and to require that each applicant confirm receipt of the brochure or link to website by initialing.

R9: The Oakley City Council should direct the Oakley Planning Commission to provide each applicant for new construction or major remodeling within a reclamation district in the City of Oakley with a brochure or direction to an online website explaining levee safety rules and regulations, along with the reasons for same, applicable to their particular reclamation district and to require that each applicant confirm receipt of the brochure or link to website by initialing.

F17: Explaining the hazards to levees by multiple means at appropriate times -- i.e., just before the start of storm season in the fall – can help to keep awareness at a heightened and effective level.

Related Recommendations (2)

F18: Efforts to educate and raise public awareness could be enhanced by cross- departmental and/or cross-agency cooperation such as including Flood Control safety bulletins with other seasonally appropriate, apt-to-be-read or mandatory mailings such as property tax bills or voter information packets.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: After identifying the necessary funding, the County Tax Collector should consider including informational material on flood preparedness or levee safety precautions, available at no charge from our County Flood Control or Central Valley Flood Control Agency or DWR, with every property tax bill that has an address within a reclamation district.

R7: After identifying the necessary funding, the County Clerk Recorder should consider including informational material on flood preparedness or levee safety precautions, available at no charge from our County Flood Control or Central Valley Flood Control Agency or DWR, with election materials sent to addresses within a reclamation district.

F19: It takes nearly 2 years from the application date for reclamation districts to receive reimbursement for levee maintenance work approved by DWR under the Subventions Program.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County’s Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to establish a task force to investigate possible ways for the less-advantaged reclamation districts to obtain interim funding, including but not limited to grants or low-interest rate loans, to cover the initial two-year lag-time to obtain reimbursement for essential levee maintenance work from the Subventions Program.

F20: The cost of the initial funding required of reclamation districts under DWR’s Subventions Program can be prohibitive for some reclamation districts, resulting in under-utilization of this highly beneficial program.

Related Recommendations (1)

F21: Some reclamation districts that are unable to maintain the staff, equipment, and material stockpiles needed for emergency major repairs, rely on informal mutual- aid arrangements.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: Reclamation districts should formalize, or at a minimum document, all “Mutual Aid” agreements for future reference as reclamation district personnel change over time.

F22: Planning agencies can require that developers who seek to develop areas within reclamation districts financially contribute to existing levees as a condition of approval of their proposed developments, as was done with the East Cypress Corridor Plan for residential development in the interior of Hotchkiss Tract, Reclamation District 799.

Related Recommendations (2)

R10: The Board of Supervisors should consider directing the appropriate planning and/or land use departments to follow the precedent established by the East Cypress Corridor Project and condition approval of proposals for new residential or commercial development, where allowed on any unincorporated County land in a reclamation district, on financial support of the existing levees.

R11: The City of Oakley should consider following the precedent established by the East Cypress Corridor Project and conditioning approval of proposals for new residential or commercial development, where proposed on Oakley’s annexed land in a reclamation district, on financial support of the existing levees.

F23: The feasibility of interagency cooperative ventures to accomplish levee improvements has been demonstrated by multi-agency coalition for to improve the levees in Reclamation District 2028, Bacon Island.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County’s Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to establish a task force or initiate a staff study to investigate ways to encourage and facilitate grant-seeking coalitions of urban water agencies and/or other beneficiaries of the levee system, on smaller-scale projects with shorter time horizons than those currently being investigated by the Delta Protection Commission (i.e. similar to but including even smaller-scale projects than the Bacon Island improvement coalition).

May 24, 2016 — A Report by the 2015-2016 Contra Costa County Grand Jury*

10 pages 6 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The Office of Public Defender is dedicated and committed to providing the best legal defense possible to those defendants who qualify for its services.

F2: Persons applying for the services of the Public Defender do not sign the financial screening questionnaire under penalty of perjury.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Public Defender should require the potential client referred by the court to attest under penalty of perjury to the accuracy of the information provided to the Public Defender.

F3: The Public Defender does not verify the financial information provided by individuals applying for its services.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: To verify the information provided on the financial eligibility questionnaire form. The Public Defender should develop guidelines concerning when documentation of financial circumstances is required and the type of such documentation, such as prior year tax return, employment pay stubs or advices, utilization of credit services, etc.

F4: The Public Defender refers some potential clients to the Criminal Conflicts Panel because the Public Defender is operating at capacity.

F5: Without verifying financial eligibility it is impossible to ascertain an individual has fraudulently obtained representation from the Office of the Public Defender.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Public Defender should require the potential client referred by the court to attest under penalty of perjury to the accuracy of the information provided to the Public Defender.

F6: Section (c) of California Penal Code section 987 contemplates that a defendant may be prosecuted for perjury based upon false material contained in the financial statement.

May 24, 2016 — A Report by the 2015-2016 Contra Costa County Grand Jury*

22 pages 13 findings 11 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F1: Among obstacles to using more recycled water are: determining who will pay for installing the necessary infrastructure and distribution system; finding a willing customer; and minimizing the financial and legal impacts to the current potable water purveyor.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should consider facilitating (possibly through a Task Force) the formation of a JPA to promote water recycling, stormwater capture and desalination projects.

F2: Water purveyors and wastewater processors can share water treatment costs and revenues under a JPA.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: CCCSD and CCWD should explore the feasibility of cooperatively developing an IPR Injection Well Project.

F3: State matching grants and low-interest loans are available for small indirect potable reuse projects, which could potentially increase water supply.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: CCCSD, CCWD, and DSRSD should consider the formation of a JPA to expand CCCSD's tertiary treatment capacity in order to free up fresh water for domestic and commercial customers.

F4: Indirect potable reuse projects are ideal for areas in the County where other new water sources are unavailable.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The Board of Supervisors should consider directing that priority be given to capture and reuse of stormwater where possible in all new County flood control projects.

F5: It is difficult to develop large recycled water projects without the cooperation and commitment of water purveyors and customers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board of Supervisors should consider adopting ordinances that promulgate recycling and recovery of water on a County-wide basis.

F6: Where recycled water can be wheeled to one customer, it could "free up" an equivalent amount of fresh water that could then be wheeled to another customer who might be willing to pay more, thus creating "win-win" results for recycled water projects.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The city should consider adopting requirements relating to the use of reclaimed water for planned communities and large commercial buildings to maximize its use.

F7: While stormwater capture and reuse has potential for contributing to the County's long-term water needs, the County has focused on NPDES compliance.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The district should consider facilitating the use of satellite wastewater treatment plants, where appropriate.

F8: Contra Costa County and its cities could adopt water saving and recycling ordinances for large commercial buildings, similar to those adopted in other large urban locations such as San Francisco.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The Board of Supervisors should consider adopting a County goal to exceed the State average for recycled water use and establish a target date.

F9: Satellite wastewater treatment plants are feasible in situations where the user is distant from existing recycled water distribution systems, needs water for irrigation, and is able to meet the costs to build and operate the plant.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The County and Districts should consider meeting to discuss each District's need for land for demonstration of scaled-up recycling and desalination projects using green technologies, which may qualify for State grant money, and the County's ability to lease such land.

F10: The County is below the State average in use of recycled water.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: To promote public awareness and citizen involvement, the Board of Supervisors should consider establishing a citizen's "Water Reuse Advisory Council" which includes citizen stakeholders and technology experts to advise them on all water reuse issues affecting the County.

F11: Desalination technology continues to evolve, including smaller scale solar powered and HDH ("Dewvaporation") pilot plants, although neither has been developed to full commercialization.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: The Board of Supervisors should consider designating a single point of contact within County government for water recycle/reuse issues or establishing a permanent water sustainability subcommittee under their Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee to advise the committee on water reuse issues.

F12: Citizen involvement (possibly through an Advisory Council) is a key to getting buy-in for recycle and IPR/DPR projects because it is citizens who pay for, consume, and depend on a reliable source of pure water.

F13: There is no single point of contact for water recycle and reuse issues in the County.

April 29, 2016 — To: Board of Supervisors

23 pages 9 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: The County’s largest outstanding debts relate to its pension liabilities. The unfunded pension liabilities of the County (including ConFire) as calculated by the CCCERA actuaries in September 2015 total $1.155 Billion. In addition to this UAAL figure, the County (again including ConFire) has outstanding $329 Million of long-term pension obligation bonds.

F2: The County’s unfunded pension liability will increase in any year in which the rate of return on the CCCERA pension fund does not reach at least 7.25%.

F3: According to the most recent CCCERA actuarial report, for every 1% drop below the CCCERA assumed rate of return of 7.25% the County’s unfunded pension liability will increase by a figure equal to 9.9% of the County payroll of employees enrolled in the CCCERA pension plan. Based on its current payroll of over $572 Million that means the reported return of 1.9% achieved by the CCCERA pension fund in 2015 could result in an increased County UAAL of over $300 Million before actuarial five-year smoothing adjustments are made.

F4: Unlike all other elements of compensation that it negotiates with the labor organizations, the County does not negotiate the rate of pension benefits employees will earn in future salary periods.

F5: The reason the County does not negotiate such pension benefits is due to a long- standing legal precedent in California, known as the California Rule, which holds that public employees are covered by an implied contract on their first day of service guaranteeing that the level of pension benefits they earn each year may not be decreased in future years unless replaced by benefits comparable in value for the employee.

F6: The California Rule is based on a case that was decided before public employees had the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining in California.

F7: The County has not taken steps to challenge or seek legal clarification of the California Rule in a California court.

F8: Negotiating the terms of future pension benefits to be earned could result in substantial cost savings for the County if permitted by a court ruling.

F9: There are legal avenues open to the County to seek judicial clarification or reform of the rule without subjecting the County to major financial risks if the challenge proves unsuccessful.

Related Recommendations (4)

R1: The Board of Supervisors should seriously consider adopting a policy of seeking judicial clarification or reform of the California Rule.

R2: The Supervisors should consider empaneling a task force, a study group, or an internal committee to examine options for challenging the California Rule that would weigh the following considerations:  Potential cost savings for the County;  Potential resources to be freed up for other priorities such as service enhancements and other wage and benefit improvements;  Opportunities to participate as an amicus curiae in existing legal cases;  Opportunities for challenging the California Rule through legal proceedings such as a declaratory relief action that would not expose the County’s financial position to undue risk in the event of an adverse result; and  Whether the County should undertake the legal challenge alone or in cooperation with other jurisdictions or organizations with a common interest in the issue, such as the California State Association of Counties (CSAC).

R3: The Supervisors should consider issuing a formal statement on their policy toward seeking reform of the California Rule, with an explanation of how they propose to manage their unfunded pension liability in the event no steps are taken to reform or adjust the California Rule.

R4: The Supervisors should consider securing a legal opinion from outside counsel experienced in the field of pension and collective bargaining law on the merits of a legal challenge to the California Rule based on the argument that the Rule should now be modified based on California’s collective bargaining system for public employees.

January 07, 2016 — A Report by the 2015-2016 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury*

31 pages 11 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 11

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The County should organize an event to educate select city managers, economic development officers and local Chambers of Commerce Representatives about (a) the economic gains to be realized from increased CalFresh participation, and (b) how to sponsor their own local enrollment events, after identifying funds to do so. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.

R2: The County should recruit representatives of local businesses, such as business associations and/or Chambers of Commerce, area farmers markets, and cities with high concentrations of prospective CalFresh recipients for membership in the CalFresh Partners Group. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.

R3: The County should issue a press release announcing May as CalFresh month and emphasizing the economic gains for local businesses that result from increased CalFresh participation. In addition to other local newspapers, the press release should be sent to the Contra Costa County edition of the Chamber Link, the weekly newsletter of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, which reaches over 10,000 recipients in Contra Costa County. RESPONSES RESPONDENT Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1601

R4: The County should extend CalFresh enrollment outreach to schools, senior centers, and senior housing, either directly or through the CalFresh Partners Group, after identifying funds to do so. RESPONSES RESPONDENT Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.

R5: After identifying the necessary funds, the County should return budgeted FTE staffing for EHSD to last year's levels, and use County temps as necessary to meet and maintain that staffing level after determining the legality of doing SO. RESPONDENT RESPONSES The recommendation requires further analysis. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors

R6: After identifying the necessary funds, the County should fast- track the current project to streamline the recruitment and hiring processes by Human Resources, after considering the various legal requirements governing the County's recruitment and hiring. RESPONSES RESPONDENT The recommendation has been implemented. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors

R7: Within 60 days, the County should correct the signage at office locations with CalFresh information and application intake capability to include the hours of operation and notice of CalFresh (or "Food Stamps") presence outside of the building, and directions to CalFresh information or service (preferably bilingual) inside the office if no greeter or knowledgeable receptionist is present. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1601

R8: The County through its Department of Information and Technology should (a) prioritize the resolution of firewall issues that currently prevent remote access of existing CalFresh applications; (b) support EHSD's expansion of the text messaging system, "PROMPTLY" to CalFresh; (c) investigate feasibility of internet- based communication modes such as Skype for EHSD, (d) add a link to 511 to the CalFresh website, and (e) mention 511 in the menu options in the automated telephone answering system, after identifying funds to do so. RESPONDENT RESPONSES Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future.

R9: The County should schedule a series of meetings between those departments that administer need-based programs to explicitly encourage increased cross-program referrals. RESPONDENT RESPONSES The recommendation has not yet been Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1601 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT – 1503 TIME FOR A NEW LOOK AT PENSION COSTS The County Could Save Nearly $100 Million a Year through a Sensible and Fair Approach to Pension Reform

R10: The School Board should follow all of it policies. RESPONDENT RESPONSES WCCUSD School Board of Education The recommendation has been implemented.

R11: The School Board should ensure that the CBOC contains a member from each category required by California Education Code Section 15282. RESPONDENT RESPONSES WCCUSD School Board of Education The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1601

January 01, 2015 — A Report by the 2015-2016 Contra Costa County Grand Jury*

10 pages 9 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: Mylan Specialty Division supplies Pens at no cost to public schools in the district.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The West Contra Costa Unified School District should contact those schools within their district and verify the schools are in compliance with SB 1266

F2: Mylan Specialty Division will replace Pens at public schools in the district that have expired at a discounted cost.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The Antioch Unified School District should contact those schools found not to be in compliance with SB 1266 and ensure they become compliant by the beginning of the 2016-2017 School year. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1604

F3: FARE and CDC statistical information project a range of 4 percent to 7.7 percent of students (7,200 to 13,850 out of the estimated 180,000 students in Contra Costa County's eighteen school districts) that may have an allergy that is unknown to parents and undiagnosed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: Each of the School District Boards should direct the School District Superintendent to contact all schools in their district at the start of each school calendar year to confirm that they are compliant with the requirements of SB 1266.

F4: Over 1,200 students in Contra Costa County's eighteen school districts have Pens with their names located in the school emergency medicine cabinet.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: Each of the School District Boards should direct their School District Superintendent to report to the Board at the start of each school calendar year that the School District is compliant with the requirements of SB 1266.

F5: SB 1266 does not clearly address the use of Pens at off-campus school activities or events.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools should contact his or her schools at the start of each school year to confirm that the schools are compliant with the requirements of SB 1266.

F6: SB 1266 does not cover California Preschool Instructional Network centers.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools should consider reporting to the Board of the Contra Costa Office of Education at the beginning of each school calendar year the status of compliance of the County to SB 1266.

F7: SB 1266 does not require follow up procedures for reporting the use of a Pen.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Contra Costa Office of Education should consider recommending to the California Preschool Instructional Network that preschools within its network first evaluate the practical and legal considerations of administering Pens to students and, if permissible, follow the mandate set forth in SB 1266 as closely as reasonably possible.

F8: After more than a year, one or more schools in the Antioch School District are not in full compliances with SB 1266.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The School Districts should consider the practical and legal issues of supplying Pens for field trips and other off-site school events, and working with school nurses to develop policies and procedures for their use at these events.

F9: It is unknown whether all of the schools in the West Contra Costa School District are in compliance with SB 1266.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The Contra Costa Office of Education should consider the practical and legal issues of supplying Pens for field trips and other off-site school events, and working with school nurses to develop policies and procedures for their use at these events.

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R10: The School Districts should consider working with school nurses to develop policies and procedures for reporting the use of Pens.

R11: The Contra Costa Office of Education should consider working with the Contra Costa Superintendent of Schools and school nurses to develop policies and procedures for reporting use of the Pens.

R12: The School Districts should consider helping parents understand the risks of anaphylaxis and the protocols in place for emergency administration of epinephrine. The School Districts should consider "identifying funds" to carry out these activities.

R13: The Contra Costa Office of Education should consider helping parents understand the risks of anaphylaxis and the protocols in place for emergency administration of epinephrine. The Contra Costa Office of Education should consider "identifying funds" to carry out these activities. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1604

Human Trafficking

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.