Marin County Grand Jury
2016-2017
Findings & Recommendations
17 findings
F1:
Having a formal PE Plan or PE Guidelines in place helps to foster better and faster community involvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each agency should obtain input from the public in the planning and design or update of its plan/guidelines.
F2:
Not everyone conducts PE in the same way.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Agency managers should regularly share their PE Plans and “lessons learned” with their counterparts in other Marin agencies.
F3:
Agencies’ perception of the need for PE is in response to a controversy, not an ongoing process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Each agency should offer regular PE professional development to its staff.
F4:
Smaller municipalities do not necessarily have the need, the budget or the will to develop a formal plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each agency without a formal PE Plan should develop either a PE Plan or PE Guidelines tailored to the needs of their public and publish the results.
F5:
Larger municipalities recognize the need for a formal PE Plan.
F6:
Some agencies are close to having a PE Plan; it wouldn’t take too much effort to formalize one or to develop PE Guidelines.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each agency without a formal PE Plan should develop either a PE Plan or PE Guidelines tailored to the needs of their public and publish the results.
F7:
All Marin agencies agree that PE is important, and all are engaged to some degree.
F8:
There is a disconnect between how agencies rate their PE efforts and how the public views their efforts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
Each agency should publish an annual report describing the effectiveness of their PE efforts.
F9:
Most agencies believe they are doing a good job of PE.
F10:
Marinites want to be engaged more.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
Each agency should communicate and emphasize to the public the importance of participation in PE.
F11:
The public perceives a need for more and better engagement opportunities, including follow-up.
Related Recommendations (5)
R2:
Each agency should obtain input from the public in the planning and design or update of its plan/guidelines.
R4:
Each agency should provide early and ample opportunity for PE in the form of proactive engagement in order to ensure that the public is aware of all their PE opportunities.
R5:
Post-engagement, each agency should follow up with the public, informing them of the results of projects and issues.
R6:
Each agency should create an easy-to-find area on their website dedicated to describing current community issues and explaining how the public can get involved.
R11:
Each agency should communicate and emphasize to the public the importance of participation in PE.
F12:
Only a few municipalities have an employee dedicated to PE.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Each agency should make PE a required responsibility of at least one staff person and publicize that responsibility.
F13:
Building relationships between civic leaders and community-based organizations contributes to the inclusion of traditionally disenfranchised groups, increasing the amount and quality of PE – and providing support for the agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Each agency should develop meaningful and ongoing partnerships with their local community-based organizations.
F14:
Marin agencies are using various and multiple modes of technology to engage the public, but the public isn’t necessarily aware of this.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4:
Each agency should provide early and ample opportunity for PE in the form of proactive engagement in order to ensure that the public is aware of all their PE opportunities.
R6:
Each agency should create an easy-to-find area on their website dedicated to describing current community issues and explaining how the public can get involved.
R10:
Each agency should include on all written communications the social media platforms they use.
F15:
Moving beyond the minimum requirements of The Brown Act is essential for modern day PE.
F16:
Marin agencies and their public are statistically comparable to the Bay Area in terms of PE satisfaction and involvement levels.
F17:
PE is a two-way street, requiring vigilance on the part of the public as well as the agencies who serve them.
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
A significant number of inmates in the Marin County Jail have severe mental illness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Mentally ill inmates should not be kept in a safety cell longer than 24 consecutive hours unless the jail psychiatrist certifies that no other remedy is available to prevent the inmate from harming themselves or others.
F2:
The Jail’s clinical and custodial staff are highly professional, dedicated, and competent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Safety cells should never be used for mentally ill inmates as a substitute for adequate medication and/or other psychiatric treatment.
F3:
Due to deficiencies in policies, organization, management, and staffing levels, mental health care in Marin County Jail is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Any inmate placed in a safety cell should be evaluated by mental health staff within one hour for the appropriateness of the placement and the evaluation of possible alternative placements.
F4:
No mental health staff are on site for large parts of every day.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Jail should, within 6 months, establish or contract with a local facility where involuntary administration of psychiatric medication can take place.
F5:
The Jail experiences a high level of turnover in the mental health staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Jail should identify and adopt, within 6 months, policies that ensure mentally ill inmates are provided a minimum of one hour per day outside their cell, with a minimum of seven hours per week, while meeting adequate clinical and custodial standards of care.
F6:
Inmates with severe mental health issues are placed in isolation, being allowed outside of their cells for only 30 minutes per day or a minimum of 3 hours per week.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
A psychiatrist should be available at the jail 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, and be available by telephone 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
F7:
Mentally ill inmates are often placed in safety cells (commonly known as padded cells) for periods longer than 24 hours, a practice that has been described by the courts as cruel and unusual punishment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
A Mental Health Crisis Specialist or a Psychiatric Nurse should be available at the jail 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
F8:
The mental health status of inmates at the time of booking is often performed by deputies rather than mental health staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The Jail should immediately institute programs to provide appropriate professional mental health (non-medication) therapy to all mentally ill inmates, particularly those incarcerated for longer than 7 days.
F9:
In the case of emergency psychotic events, inmates who refuse medication are often placed in safety cells rather than being treated by involuntary administration of medication, which is allowed by California law and is the common community standard.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Booking of inmates should at all times include screening for mental illness by a nurse using an accepted mental health screening tool.
F10:
Since the termination of the County’s contract with Santa Clara in 2015, the Jail and the Department of Health and Human Services have not yet established adequate processes to provide involuntary psychiatric medication in an emergency situation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
Classification of inmates as mentally ill should be reviewed by a member of the mental health staff within one hour of booking.
F11:
Neither individual nor group psychotherapy is provided by professional mental health staff.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
All policies and procedures in the Sheriff’s Manual related to the care of inmates should be reviewed and updated within 6 months and following that, as necessary, at least biennially.
F12:
The Jail’s clinical quality assurance process does not adequately address mental health issues in the Jail.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
The Jail should develop, implement, and enforce a quality improvement procedure and establish a quality improvement plan for mental health services.
F13:
The County’s use of state funds associated with AB 109 does not adequately address the increased mental health care burden on the Jail of longer term inmates that resulted from the enactment of AB 109.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
The County should provide adequate funding to implement these recommendations.
F14:
Multiple documents in the Marin County Sheriff’s Department Custody Division Policy and Procedures Manual have not been reviewed or updated for up to 12 years.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
Marin County Jail provides no assessment to determine an inmate’s educational levels and needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The MCOE should review educational programs in other jail facilities to develop an improved curriculum in the Marin County Jail.
F2:
There is an initial question about an inmate’s educational level upon booking into the Marin County Jail, but this information is not shared with the MCOE teachers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Jail should facilitate implementation of the programs developed by MCOE.
F3:
MCOE and jail staff have little contact and coordination regarding the academic program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The MCOE should evaluate the academic program at the County Jail to determine whether inmates are making progress toward obtaining their GED or HiSet tests.
F4:
Marin County Jail’s academic program is funded exclusively by the MCOE general fund.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Marin County Jail and MCOE should hold regularly scheduled meetings.
F5:
The County of Marin’s AB 109 budget provides no funding for the MCOE jail education programs even though education is expressly mentioned in the AB 109 realignment program. No request for funding has been made by MCOE from the AB 109 budget.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The MCOE should apply for additional funding for the jail’s educational program.
F6:
Eighty percent of the incarcerated population are high school dropouts.20
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
MCOE and Marin County Jail should work together to increase the hours of teacher contact time with inmates.
F7:
The MCOE has not developed a definitive curriculum for the Marin County Jail academic program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The Jail should forward each inmate's level of education to the MCOE teachers. Lynch, Matthew Ed.D. “High School Dropout Rates: Causes and Costs.” Huffington Post. May 2014. Interview with MCOE staff
F8:
The MCOE does not provide inmates with a written description of the academic program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Each inmate booked into the Jail without a high school diploma, should be assessed within two weeks to ascertain their reading and math levels.
F9:
The MCOE operates the academic program year-round but there is no GED or HiSET testing during the summer months.21
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Each inmate without a high school diploma, GED or HiSet certificate should be given an individual instructional program to work toward obtaining a certificate of completion.
F10:
There is a need for electronic tablets in addition to computer software programs for reading and math.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
A joint technology committee should be formed between the Jail and MCOE so that new devices can be researched before purchase.
F11:
The only jail vocational programs are the culinary, baking, and food handlers programs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
The vocational program should teach computer skills and basic applications such as Microsoft Office, Google Documents, etc., as many jobs now require these as basic skills for employment. Many programs are available in electronic tablet form and should be considered for jail use.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R12:
GED or HiSET testing should be available year round.
R13:
The Jail and MCOE should develop literature about the courses available in the MCOE’s academic program and make them available for all inmates.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
All of the agencies investigated in this report had pension liabilities in excess of pension assets as of FY 2016.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Marin Board of Supervisors should empanel a commission to investigate methods to reduce pension debt and to find ways to keep the public informed. The panel should be comprised of Marin citizens with no financial interest in any public employee pension plan and should be allowed to engage legal and actuarial consultants to develop and propose alternatives to the current system.
F2:
A prolonged period of declining global investment returns has led pension plan assets to underperform their targeted expected returns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
CalSTRS and MCERA should provide actuarial calculations based on the risk-free rate as CalPERS does in its termination calculations.
F3:
MCERA, CalPERS and CalSTRS have lowered their discount rates, which will result in significantly higher required contributions by Marin County agencies in the next few years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Agencies should publish long-term budgets (i.e., covering at least five years), update them at least every other year and report what percent of total revenue they anticipate spending on pension contributions.
F4:
If pension plan administrators discounted net pension liabilities according to accounting rules used for the private sector, increases in required contributions would be vastly larger than those required by the recent lowering of discount rates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Each agency should provide 10 years of audited financial statements and summary pension data for the same period (or links to them) on the financial page of its public website.
F5:
Most Marin County school districts have a negative net position due in part to the addition of net pension liabilities to their balance sheets.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
For the purposes of transparency, MCERA, CalSTRS and CalPERS should publish an actuarial analysis of the effect of Cost of Living Allowances (COLA) on unfunded pension liabilities on an annual basis.
F6:
The required contributions of Marin school districts to CalSTRS and CalPERS will nearly double within the next five to six years due to legislatively (CalSTRS) and administratively (CalPERS) mandated contribution increases.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Elected state officials should support legislation to permit public agencies to offer defined contribution plans for new employees.
F7:
Pension contribution increases will strain Marin County agency budgets, requiring either cutbacks in services, new sources of revenue or both.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Elected state officials should support legislation to implement a statewide financial economic health oversight committee of all public entities similar to that implemented in NY.
F8:
The private sector has largely moved away from defined benefit plans primarily due to the risk of underfunding, offering instead defined contribution plans to its employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
Public agencies and public employee unions should begin to explore how introduction of defined contribution programs can reduce unfunded liabilities for public pensions.
F9:
Taxpayers bear most of the risk of Marin County employee pension plan assets underperforming their expected targets.
F10:
Retirees’ pension benefits would be reduced if an agency was unable to meet its contribution obligations.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Many of the municipalities have decreased their UAAL obligation since FY 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each agency should adopt a formal, written policy for contributions to its OPEB plan.
F2:
Some of the schools that have increased their UAAL obligation (since FY 2012) are setting aside OPEB contributions into reserve funds (rather than irrevocable trust funds).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each agency’s standard practice should be to consistently satisfy its formal, written OPEB contribution policy.
F3:
Many of the special districts have increased their UAAL obligation since FY 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Each agency’s OPEB contribution policy and practice should support a projection under GASB 75 that its OPEB plan assets will be sufficient to make all projected OPEB benefit payments.
F4:
Some of the agencies that stated they comply with their actuarial funding guidelines, are not in compliance as shown in their CAFRs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Each agency that uses special reserve funds for Postemployment Benefits should transition to a trust meeting the criteria of GASB 75.
F5:
GASB 45 has increased the agency’s reporting transparency, but the information in these financial reports is difficult for the average person to understand.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Each term of service, elected or appointed officials of each agency should take a public agency financial class.
F6:
GASB 45 permits an agency with a full ARC funding policy in its GASB 45 valuation to increase its discount rate, thereby decreasing its OPEB liability and ARC payments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Each agency should make its CAFRs, Audits, and GASB valuations more readily understandable by the general public.
F7:
Upcoming GASB 75 reporting will further improve an agency’s OPEB reporting transparency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Each agency should ensure that all of its public financial presentations are more readily understandable and scheduled during hours convenient for the public.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R8:
Each agency should have the following downloadable and text-searchable documents readily accessible on their website: the last five years of CAFRs/Audits and the last three actuarial reports.
R9:
Before the next round of bargaining begins, each agency should prioritize the cost containment strategies to be used, including reducing or eliminating OPEB benefits for future employees.
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
Political will for the construction of new housing is constrained by County-wide vocal citizen opposition.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Each planning department should begin regularly scheduled meetings at which developers can speak, early in the process, with all relevant members of staff to discuss impacts of proposed development and potential solutions to problems.
F2:
The costs of land and development make it too expensive to build low-income affordable housing in Marin.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Each planning department should develop a proactive community outreach strategy for any project that might be considered potentially controversial (including going beyond legal noticing minimums and initiating outreach efforts as early as possible in the development cycle).
F3:
Developers routinely respond that they do not try to build housing in Marin because of the difficulties imposed by the local regulatory requirements and citizen complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Each planning department should use succinct “plain-speak” to convey issues in their outreach.
F4:
Responsibility for housing in Marin is fragmented with little overall coordination among different agencies in the County as well as the Cities and Towns.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Each school district should investigate building teacher and staff workforce housing on their land.
F5:
Active planning for the creation of low-income affordable housing does not occur within our cities, towns, and the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Each utility district should adopt waivers for hook-up fees for low-income housing projects and accessory dwelling units.
F6:
Over 60,000 people commute each day to jobs in Marin, many living outside the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Each jurisdiction should adopt procedures so that low-income housing projects are fast- tracked through the planning and permitting process.
F7:
Proposals to build low-income affordable housing create immediate neighbor opposition. Efforts to mediate with neighborhood groups are often too late in the process and have been ineffective.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
The County should create and fund the position of Regional Housing Coordinator. The Coordinator's responsibilities should include: working with funding sources and developers, identifying underutilized properties, working with jurisdictions to create specific plans, and creating a County-wide Civic mediation program for all civic project community dialogues.
Additional documents
Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.