Orange County Grand Jury
2006-2007
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (13)
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Compensation: Continue to alleviate the attorney compensation disparities between Orange County and the surrounding counties created by findings in F-1 and F-2. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. It should be noted that there is not always equality between the neighboring counties; therefore, it would be impossible to always maintain parity of attorneys' compensation. Many other factors enter into the computation of compensation- salary is only one. Furthermore, it would place the County of Orange in the position of being required to give salary increases every time a neighboring county gave an increase to its attorneys, effectively undermining the ability of the County of Orange to participate in the collective bargaining process. Finally, not one of the ex-County employees that the Grand Jury interviewed indicated that he or she left employment with Orange County and took a similar job with a neighboring county because of the variation in salary between the counties. Of the seven ex-County employees interviewed, only two indicated that money was an issue. Yet, money was not the only issue; one said "money wasn't an issue"; one left to have a baby and hoped to return; one didn't want to be a Public Defender any more; one left because he/she had to work too hard; and one didn't feel appreciated and the "money was a lesser issue." Current Status: This recommendation has been implemented. Deputy Public Defenders have secured significant additional compensation since the time of the grand jury analysis. The County of Orange and the Orange County Attorney Association (OCAA), the bargaining unit for non-management county attorneys including deputy Public Defenders, agreed to a new Memorandum of Understanding for the time period from June 22, 2007 through June 18, 2009. The new agreement incorporates two annual pay increases of 3.75% each, with the next raise to take effect in the summer of 2008. This is in addition to the regular promotions for new lawyers from Attorney I to Attorney II, and Attorney II to Attorney III, which include pay increases. The Attorney III, Deputy Attorney IV and Senior Deputy Attorneys who are not already at the top step of their pay range also receive annual merit pay increases that average 5.5% per year. Other components of the agreement increase attorney compensation, such as an increase in the optional benefit package from $1,500 to $2,000 per year and an increase in the number of hours of Annual Leave that can be converted to cash each year.
R2:
Automation: Continue the development and implementation of a computerized management system which would address the concerns in finding F-3. Original Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but should be completely developed and fully implemented within eighteen months barring unforeseen circumstances. Current Status: The Orange County Board of Supervisors has authorized the Offices of the Public Defender to purchase LegalEdge Software for a new Case Management System. The new application will meet the Department needs, goals, and objectives and includes the capacity for future integration with all the justice partners. The project will take three years to fully implement beginning March 1, 2008, with the core system to be installed and implemented during the first year. In the second year, enhancements will be developed and implemented, adding functionality to the core system. Report: Orange County Zoos April 23, 2007 Released:
R3:
Attendance: Develop ways to increase Orange County Zoo patronage, i.e. by providing better signs and maps to the public depicting the OCZ's location within the park, and promoting the park's attractions to entice more visitors. Original Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Current Status: The demand study noted above was conducted to address the Grand Jury's findings regarding increasing visitation through improved marketing strategies. The recent study provides valuable insight into the Zoo users and into how to attract new visitors. The study contains recommendations to increase public awareness and interest in the Zoo and to better serve the public. The final Orange County Zoo Master Plan will be completed by December 31, 2008. The Zoo is the focus of an inaugural program at the School of Business at California State University, Fullerton (CSUF). This program engages the Senior Marketing Class in a service-learning project to develop marketing plans for the Orange County Zoo. The current class began its work on February 7, 2008 and at the end of the term in May 2008, the students' marketing strategies will be evaluated to select the best team plan. The partnership with the CSUF marketing students is expected to continue with subsequent classes, so future learning service projects may be developed in relation to marketing the Zoo. The Friends of the Orange County Zoo, a non-profit support group, has been organized and is seeking grant funds on behalf of the Zoo. A proposed project for such funds would be to design and fabricate exhibit signs within the Zoo. The Friends organization funded a report "Interpreting and Wayfinding Recommendations," by ECOS Communications, Inc. in December 2007. ECOS Communications has experience with advising similar zoological organizations and made recommendations for improved directional and interpretive signage. Interactive interpretive signs are included in the recommended sign designs. Signs have been posted throughout the park to direct visitors to the Zoo location. The signs are colored differently than standard park signage to bring attention to them and to assist the public in finding the Zoo. The park brochure is being updated and will be reprinted for distribution in April 2008. This brochure contains a map that will assist the public in locating the Zoo within Irvine Regional Park. An In-Custody Death Reviewed Report: April 30, 2007 Released:
R5:
Planning: Medical emergency pre-planning and drills with appropriate personnel should occur on a regular basis, especially when new staff is working in the jail. Original Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Current Status: The recommendation has been implemented. Health Care Agency (HCA) continues to conduct emergency response drills at both the Central Jail Complex and Theo Lacy with a total of 42 staff participating (as of 2/1/08) in various drill scenarios including patients who are unconscious and/or experiencing seizures. Additionally, Correctional Medical Services (CMS) will be participating in a large-scale riot drill the Sheriff's Department is planning for the spring of 2008. As part of the planning process, CMS is forming small workgroups to prepare for this drill as well as future joint trainings with the Sheriff's Department. When new Correctional Medical Services clinical employees are hired, their Basic Cardiac Life Support (BCLS) certification is verified and they are oriented to the Emergency Medical Response policy and procedure, which includes a review of emergency response equipment. Newport Harbor Moorings: Are They Held In The Public Trust Or Report: For Private Profit? Released: May 30, 2007
R7:
SSA Website: Revise the website so that it contains an area that is specific to pre- and post-emancipated youth services. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. Of the 2400 users of the CFS Emancipation Services Program's website, none of the feedback received contained complaints about or suggestions for improvement of the site. However, the Department acknowledges that enhancements to the website could improve usability and plans to assess the necessary pages and update them as deemed appropriate. Current Response: The recommendation has been implemented. Social Services Agency's (SSA) Independent Living Program (ILP) added a Youth Permanency section to the website and a copy of the "A Guide to Permanency Options for Youth" booklet. ILP staff members also met with California Youth Connection (CYC) members and conducted focus groups with emancipated foster youth. The youths made the recommendation to link the SSA Internet site to youth social communication Internet sites such as MySpace and FaceBook. This, however, will not be implemented due to safety and possible liability issues.
R8:
City and County Ordinances: The City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange should review their ordinances to make sure that they are consistent with each other. Original Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The County will review with the City of Newport Beach our respective ordinances for consistency. Current Status: Orange County Sheriff-Harbor Patrol Division has met with the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division to compare County ordinances and City municipal codes. All significant operational codes are consistent with each other.
R9:
Waiting List: Review and update the mooring waiting list. Original Response: The recommendation requires further analysis. The County, through the Sheriff's Harbor Patrol, administers both the City and County moorings in accordance with the City's ordinance and procedures. Working cooperatively with the City's Harbor Resources Manager, the Sheriff's Harbor Patrol plans to determine how best to make follow-up contact (on a periodic basis) with the mooring requestors and develop a fair procedure to purge or update old files. Current Status: The two waiting lists have been reviewed and updated by Orange County Sheriff-Harbor Patrol Division. Each name on the lists was notified via mail. Of the 520 names on the Shore Moorings List, 72 requested to remain on the list. Of the 1,582 names on the Off-Shore Moorings List, 188 requested to remain on the list. Orange County Sheriff-Harbor Patrol Division will be implementing an annual waiting list update procedure, with the next notification scheduled for January 2009. --- --- r. 🕪 Pre & Post Emancipated Youth: Is Camelot Still a Dream? Report: Released: June 6, 2007
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
There is a large cost-of-living and attorneys’ salary variance existing between Orange County and the neighboring counties of Riverside and San Bernardino.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Continue to alleviate the attorney compensation disparities between Orange County and the surrounding counties created by the findings in F-1 and F-2.
F2:
The attorneys’ compensation problem continues to be exacerbated by the reduction in take-home pay brought about by the recent change in Orange County’s pension system and health care benefits. 8
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Continue the development and implementation of a computerized management system which would address the concerns in findings F-3... Response to Recommendation R-1 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. A Response to Recommendation R-2 is requested from the Orange County Public Defender. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: § 933.05. Responses to findings (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 9 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed…This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 1 0
F3:
The Public Defender’s Office is collaborating in the development of an automated case management system which will unify the case management systems in use for the investigative and clerical branches of the offices. Responses to Findings F-1 and F-2 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. A Response to Finding F-3 is requested from the Orange County Public Defender. . RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following Recommendations:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
A master report that incorporates program data and outcomes does not exist.
F2:
Available data does not associate programs and outcomes with the Fullerton Report recommendations.
F3:
It is very difficult to determine total population for each program and what percentage of that population is actually served and their outcomes.
F4:
A full report, in the form noted above, is not provided to the Board of Supervisors on an annual basis.
F5:
The annual "Skills Day" is not enough opportunity for pre-emancipated youth to exercise their Independent Living Skills.
F6:
The demand for pre-emancipation transitional housing and availability is unclear.
F7:
The web site http://www.ssa.ocgov.com/youth/default.asp is not user friendly for emancipated youth.
F8:
Emancipated youth do not always use the Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment and when they do they may not enter the county identification code. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-9 are requested from the Social Services Agency. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.5, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
SSA needs to report programs and outcomes in one document. Numbers presented without 18
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The County database and information about foster youths is inadequate. There has been very little tracking of youths in foster care and group homes. As a result, answers to such questions as their health and educational background are not readily available for appropriate decision making. County projections about the number of emancipated youths are strictly an estimate. There is no information about what percentage have a high school diploma, about how many attend college, or how many end up homeless. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 Social Services Agency response: Disagree partially with the finding. While the Child Welfare System/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) system was deployed in all of California’s counties in 1997, it remains a system under development and will be in a developmental mode for several years. The features this finding comments upon as lacking are slated for future development. The lack of aggregate case profile information and useful management information from the current CWS/CMS is a concern of many counties and is being addressed in the on-going system development and management processes in Sacramento. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of CWS/CMS? Oct. 2006 Response: CWS/CMS remains incapable at the present time of tracking services received by foster youth who have emancipated from either Dependency or Probation. In July 2006, the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), issued their proposed rulemaking to require States to collect and report data to ACF on youth who are receiving independent living services and the outcomes of certain youth who are in foster care or who age out of foster care. The California Department of Social Services is currently determining how they will comply with this new regulation, by either updating the CWS/CMS to allow for the tracking of this information or through the development of an additional database for counties to use. The Orange County Independent Living Program Database was implemented September 10, 2001. This is a standalone database into which information regarding the ILP-eligible foster and emancipated youth is entered and maintained on a monthly basis. As the Emancipation Services, ILP Contracts, and Youth Permanency Program, expand with new services and contract providers, data from those efforts are included for each participating youth. Currently, Orange County ILP is pursuing joining the California Connected by 25 Initiative (CC251). CC251 is a project sponsored through the Casey and Stuart Foundations, which provide technical assistance to counties, in assessing their Independent Living Programs, with the goal of building a local, integrated system of transition supports and services for emancipating and emancipated foster youth ages 14 to 24. Included in this project is the Efforts to Outcomes (ETO) database, which is used to track important basic outcomes for transition aged youth. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report:
F2:
The current Independent Living Program for emancipated youths in Orange County, which is a critical program for self-sufficiency and independent living, can be considered mediocre at best. To be effective, it should be presented in a transitional housing milieu with attendance mandatory. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 Social Services Agency response: Disagree wholly with the finding While we do not quarrel with the premise that more can be done if and when additional federal ILP funding is provided, there are activities underway which it appears the Grand Jury may not have inventoried: • Community forum to solicit interest in development of Transitional Housing Program Pilot, to serve 17 year old foster youth. SSA has selected Olive Crest and Florence Crittendon Services to each develop THPP programs, and is working with each provider and the California Department of Social Services to initiate services as soon as possible. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of this program? Oct. 2006 Response: On August 25, 2000 the California Department of Social Services approved the Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP) plan submitted by the County of Orange Social Services Agency. This program plan allows for a variety of THPP physical plant formats. The current provider uses a scatter-site apartment complex format, where foster youth aged 16 years and older reside with individual bedrooms in two-bedroom apartments, surrounded by adult tenants. The CDSS Division of Community Care Licensing licenses this facility as a group home. The foster youth in this facility attend school, are part-time employed, receive therapy, prepare their own meals, do their own laundry, and are coached and monitored by staff trained in facilitating independent living skills. There have been as many as 20 foster youth participating in this service program in some months. It prepares youth to live independently, and to be more acceptable candidates for transitional housing programs available in Orange County for emancipated youth. • Private Industry Council and SSA procedures to provide re-employment and training services to pre and post emancipated youth. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of this program? Oct. 2006 Response: The Orange County ILP is an active partner in the Workforce Investment Boards (WIB) with active voting membership in the Youth Councils for each of the Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Orange County WIBS. Similarly, the three WIB Youth Council Coordinators are active members in the Children's Services Coordination Committee (CSCC) Emancipation Services Subcommittee. The SSA ILP, Probation and WIB collaboration drafted a Miscellaneous Order, which was signed by the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court, the Honorable Robert B. Hutson. This document authorizes the release of Transitional Independent Living Plans (TILP) and vocational Assessment documents to the Workforce Investment Act contract providers, thereby expediting the delivery of services to all ILP-eligible foster youth. • SSA support of community based efforts to develop transitional housing programs for emancipated youth through Super NOFA funding. Funding has been awarded to Shelter for the Homeless, YMCA and Olivecrest. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What support was provided and what programs have been implemented? Oct. 2006 Response: There are now a total of 65 beds available in Orange County for emancipated youth, provided through contracts and community collaborations. The SSA ILP program has developed contracts with Orange County Housing Authority and the Santa Ana Housing Authority through the Family Unification Program, to support emancipated youth on the path to self-sufficiency for a maximum of eighteen months. Olive Crest has developed the Crossroads program for housing and supportive services to emancipated youth. This is a continuation of the THPP contracted services that they provide to foster youth through the ILP program. Orangewood Children's Foundation and a group of entrepreneurs from Mariner's Church developed the Rising Tides Program in two apartment complexes located in Garden Grove and Tustin. These 80-apartment facilities house up to 18 emancipated youth each, two to an apartment, where the other tenants subsidize the rent cost for the emancipated youth. Over a period of 18 months, the emancipated youth incrementally increase their contribution to the rent, in preparation for when they will complete the program and live on their own. • State Department of Education funding for the Foster Youth Services project, a collaborative model involving the Orange County Department of Education, the Health Care Agency, the Probation Department and others. The goal of services is to improve the continuity of education for youth in group home programs. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of the program? Oct. 2006 Response: Orange County ILP developed a contract with Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) in 2002, through the Foster Youth Services program, initially focusing only on services for Group Home youth. This program has expanded to include all foster youth aged 14 and older. The current services include tracking of classes taken, the grades achieved for each class, the credits accumulated toward high school graduation, as well as reading and math proficiency at the close of each semester. The School Counselors funded in this project also provide recommendations on services to achieve timely graduation, and act as liaisons with the 28 School Districts to facilitate those services in behalf of foster youth. • ILP services provided weekly to youth at Orangewood Children’s Home. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What services? Oct. 2006 Response: As a part of the ILP Workshops, Seminars, and Special Events contract, peer mentors from the current Provider, Orangewood Children's Foundation (OCF), provide weekly Independent Living Skills presentations for ILP-eligible foster youth residing at Orangewood Children's Home. • Independent City, a mock day long experience allowing youth to apply for jobs, apartments, checking accounts, budget funds for grocery shopping, etc. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: Is this a one-time experience for each youth? Oct. 2006/07 Response: Independent City is a full-day Special Event, under the ILP Workshops, Seminars, and Special Events contract, which is offered one time per year. ILP eligible foster youth may attend this special event every year. It is designed to help the youth apply in a "real life" situation the life skills that they have learned all year long at the 130 workshops presented each year under the contract. • There are no established standards for Independent Living Programs, and no evidence to suggest that a program is best presented in a transitional housing milieu. 2006 Grand Jury follow-up: Has this information changed? Oct. 2006 Response: The State of California has encouraged each county to provide basic core ILP services, so that foster youth from one county jurisdiction, but placed in another county will have generally equivalent services. Orange County ILP provides far more individualized services than are offered to foster youth in any of the adjacent counties. The State of California has limited funds allocated for transitional housing programs, and few counties are currently participating in this service. Orange County ILP youth have achieved success with THPP program services in this county. Whereas this program's milieu services work well for the participating youth, the majority of foster youth live with relatives, in licensed foster homes, in Foster Family Agency homes, or in Group Homes. Orange County ILP is reaching out to foster care providers in each of these settings to encourage them to employ the Ansell Casey Life Skills Assessment Online tool found at www.caseylifeskills.org on a quarterly basis to assist foster youth in preparing for self- sufficiency. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report:
F3:
The measure of success for a pre-emancipation Independent Living Program, following the instruction of AB1111, should be enabling participants to seek a high school diploma, providing vocational training and job readiness, locating and obtaining housing, providing daily living skills and providing individual and group counseling. The Independent Living Program should be more than discussion and classes. There should be “hands on” experience and concrete assistance in preparing for independence prior to discharge. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Agrees with finding With-out any "hands-on" opportunities, that implication is correct. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What are the current "hands-on opportunities? Oct. 2006 Response: The current ILP Workshop contract with OCF provides hands-on application for a variety of life skills issues. In addition, the contract provides financial incentives for each participating foster youth to do the homework associated with each workshop topic, so that the youth can apply what they have learned in their current placement setting, and prepare themselves for applying these skills in their life after they emancipate. Also, as above, the Independent City event provides a one-day opportunity each year to apply the skills learned in the workshops. • It is important to note that AB-1111 ILP services and programs direction and services are a work in progress by the State of California. Counties are awaiting state guidelines and standards regarding ILP program design, which should bring some statewide uniformity to the county ILP programs. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of state and county programs? What has been implemented since this response? Oct. 2006 Response: In November 2005, the State of California Department of Social Services enacted ILP regulations for the first time. Prior to that time, there were ILP guidelines in place. As mentioned above, there is still a great variety in how ILP services are delivered from county to county. CDSS continues to work with the County Welfare Directors Association on allowing counties the flexibility of developing their ILP programs to meet the needs of the youth placed in their county, while ensuring the youths' individual needs are met, no matter where they reside. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report:
F4:
The new John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (HR3443) requires more extensive assessment of performance based on certain outcomes, including education, employment, avoidance of dependency, homelessness, non-marital childbirth, and incarceration. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Agrees with finding. Awaiting a policy statement by the Governor regarding its implementation and proposed use of the additional federal funding that this legislation will bring to the State of California. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the status of the Governor's policy statement? Oct. 2006 Response: The State of California Department of Social Services has established a mechanism to distribute Federal funding to each county for ILP services. The allocation methodology is currently under review for possible revision. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report:
F5:
The relatively few programs in Orange County designed to serve emancipated youths are scattered and fragmented. Those who operate them often do so without knowledge of other similar programs. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Disagrees partially with the finding Future Search has developed sub-committees to coordinate efforts in specific areas, e.g. housing, transportation, and jobs. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of Future Search and what advancements have been made as a result of their efforts? Oct. 2006 Response: The County of Orange Board of Supervisors established the Children's Services Coordination Committee (CSCC) as a formal committee, with monthly meetings at the Hall of Administration Board Conference Room. Membership in this committee consists of representatives from all County Agencies providing services to children. There are also representatives from several community service agencies represented in this committee. Leadership in this committee is currently held by Dr. Michael Riley, Director of the Division of Children and Family Srvices in the Social Services Agency. A CSCC Emancipation Subcommittee has also been formed, and meets monthly. Membership includes representatives from the Social Services Agency (SSA), Probation, Health Care Agency Public Health Nurses and Behavioral Health psychologists, the three Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), Regional Center of Orange County, as well as foster care and service providers in the Orange County community. • Orangewood Children's Foundation (OCF) has organized several meetings to facilitate the sharing of information, resources and programs for emancipated youth, especially in the area of housing. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What has been accomplished as a result of the meetings? Oct. 2006 Response: As mentioned above in section 2, over the last several years, SSA ILP program has developed contracts with local Housing Authorities to provide housing and services to emancipated youth. Community providers such as Rising Tides, Crossroads, Wise Place, YWCA, Mercy House, Joseph's House, Ladder to Success, Harbor Village, and Connections House have also developed housing and services for emancipated youth, with an average 18 month duration. Orange County ILP is preparing a Transitional Housing Program-PLUS (THP+) proposal for CDSS this month to augment the number of emancipation housing resources. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report:
F6:
In spite of the past two Grand Jury reports alerting the Orange County Board of Supervisors to this critical situation, the Board of Supervisors has not budgeted funds for transitional housing, or taken formal action on transitional housing for emancipated youths. The Social Services Agency has responded to prior Grand Jury reports of the past two years by claiming that they are developing and implementing transitional housing for youths after emancipation. At the present time, Orange County has very few housing options available for emancipating youths. A few small privately-funded programs are providing services but are not available to accommodate the number of estimated youths needing transitional housing services. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Disagree wholly with the finding In response to the 1997-1998 Grand Jury report, the Social Services Agency stated the intent to host roundtable sessions involving private and public organizations, with the goal of completing an inventory of resources and of identifying gaps in service. These roundtables were held and have evolved into other informal collaborative efforts, including Future Search. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: Has the Social Services Agency continued to identify resources and gaps in service? Are the informal collaborative efforts ongoing, if so what are they? Oct. 2006 Response: As mentioned above in the last two responses in section 5, the CSCC Emancipation Subcommittee Meeting is the monthly venue for identifying gaps and resources. Several housing resources have been established for emancipated youth. The County of Orange Board of Supervisors voted in 2001 to exercise the option offered by CDSS to participate in Assembly Bill 427. Among the changes evolving from that legislation were the expansion of THPP services to foster youth as young as 16 years, and the Transitional Housing Program – PLUS (THP+) for services and housing to emancipated youth up to age 24. At that juncture the County share of cost was sixty percent. State funding for this project dried up within months, and Orange County had to withdraw its participation in the project. Legislation enacted in 2006 now allows Counties to submit a THP+ Program plan, and requires that as long as the State funds are sufficient, the cost of the new THP+ programs is borne 100% by the State of California. Orange County SSA is submitting its proposal to the State for requested participation in this THP+ project. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report:
F7:
The County of Orange does not have an administrative umbrella to coordinate programs and services for emancipating youths. The missing linchpin is a director with authority and responsibility to coordinate the efforts of all concerned agencies and private nonprofit caregivers. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Disagree partially with the finding The Director of the Social Services Agency, Children and Family Services, has committed to lead the broad-based collaborative effort initiated through the Future Search process. This effort, strengthened by the issuance of statewide Independent Living Program standards and by new federal and state funding streams, holds the greatest promise for an improved Orange County network of services. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What are the outcomes of this effort? Oct. 2006 Response: As mentioned above in Section 5, the Director of SSA Children and Family Services Division chairs the CSCC monthly committee meetings, and does, in fact, coordinate the efforts of County Agencies, concerned agencies and non-profit caregivers. This broad-based collaborative, coupled with the monthly CSCC Emancipation Subcommittee meetings, are effectively taking full advantage of federal and funding streams, including the Mental Health Srvices Act (Proposition 63) funds to create and sustain services for ILP-eligible youth. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report:
Additional Recommendations
8
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Social Services Agency should direct the Technology Services Department to develop a tracking system to collect data for 16- to 21-year-old foster youths. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The Social Services Agency has no authority or ability to maintain oversight of youth after the Juvenile Court terminates dependency status. The Social Services Agency lacks a source of funding for the development of an Orange County specific tracking system. SSA will seek the support of other counties and the State of California to develop such a feature in CWS/CMS. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What has SSA done to gain consensus with other counties and the state to implement a tracking program? Can the new CalWin system be used to track emancipated youth when they apply for government assistance? Could pre-emancipated youth information be placed in the CalWIN system in order to track them after emancipation if/when they apply for aid? Oct. 2006 Response: In 2002, given the inability of CWS/CMS to track ILP services provided, and the outcomes for those youth, Orange County SSA developed a stand-alone ILP database. This software application is user-friendly and has the capacity to augment fields to track new services as they are added. In addition, Orange County ILP is seeking participation in the California Connected by 25 project, to join 5 other counties that have access to a web-based application called Efforts to Outcomes. This system will help Orange County to be a leader statewide in tracking the outcomes that will be required of California Counties by the Federal government. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: RECOMMENDATION
R2:
A link between the Fullerton Report recommendations and what is actually occurring needs to be established. Time, money, and effort were expended in the development of the report and it appears it has been placed on a shelf. If it was important to develop the document then it is equally important to implement its recommendations. The recommendations should be merged into the report card format mentioned in R-1.
R3:
The presentation of data needs to be in the context of the overall population served. Calling data "outcomes" that merely identify attendance numbers is not really an outcome. Attendance does not automatically mean the youth grasp the concepts. Outcomes should be presented that reflect the youths' ability to actually use the information provided.
R4:
The report card recommended in R-1 should be presented annually to the Board of Supervisors.
R5:
The opportunity for youth to exercise Independent Living Skills once a year is not enough. The youth should have multiple opportunities during the year to use the skills they have learned in workshops. Vendor contracts should be revised to require competency testing for each workshop. This would also allow for the assessment of outcomes.
R6:
The SSA needs to identify the actual demand for Transitional Housing and consider changes to the screening process and criteria for living in these programs.
R7:
Revise the website so that it contains an area that is specific to pre-and post- emancipated youth services.
R8:
The SSA has improved the use of the Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessment; however, more should be done to ensure participation of post-emancipated youth by offering incentives that are important to them. A Response to all Recommendations is requested from the Social Services Agency. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: § 933.05. Responses to findings (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, 19 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. APPENDIX "A" The findings and responses from the 1999/2000 Grand Jury report ("Orange County is No Camelot for Emancipated Youth") are listed along with excerpts from the agency responses to that report. Finally, updated agency responses were requested by the 2006/2007 Grand Jury and these are included at the end of each numbered segment. This section will provide the reader with a basis for understanding where the county stood in 1999 with respect to emancipated youth and what occurred following that Grand Jury report. Moreover, the 1999/2000 responses identified enhancements and/or new programs that were to be implemented. The updated (2006/2007) responses provide a measure of insight as to how far Orange County has progressed from 1999 and whether or not significant changes have been made to enhance the self-sufficiency of emancipated youth. The full text 1999/2000 report, "Orange County is No Camelot for Emancipated Youth," may be accessed at www.ocgrandjury.org. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: FINDING 1. The County database and information about foster youths is inadequate. There has been very little tracking of youths in foster care and group homes. As a result, answers to such questions as their health and educational background are not readily available for appropriate decision making. County projections about the number of emancipated youths are strictly an estimate. There is no information about what percentage have a high school diploma, about how many attend college, or how many end up homeless. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 Social Services Agency response: Disagree partially with the finding. While the Child Welfare System/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) system was deployed in all of California’s counties in 1997, it remains a system under development and will be in a developmental mode for several years. The features this finding comments upon as lacking are slated for future development. The lack of aggregate case profile information and useful management information from the current CWS/CMS is a concern of many counties and is being addressed in the on-going system development and management processes in Sacramento. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of CWS/CMS? Oct. 2006 Response: CWS/CMS remains incapable at the present time of tracking services received by foster youth who have emancipated from either Dependency or Probation. In July 2006, the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), issued their proposed rulemaking to require 20 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY States to collect and report data to ACF on youth who are receiving independent living services and the outcomes of certain youth who are in foster care or who age out of foster care. The California Department of Social Services is currently determining how they will comply with this new regulation, by either updating the CWS/CMS to allow for the tracking of this information or through the development of an additional database for counties to use. The Orange County Independent Living Program Database was implemented September 10, 2001. This is a standalone database into which information regarding the ILP-eligible foster and emancipated youth is entered and maintained on a monthly basis. As the Emancipation Services, ILP Contracts, and Youth Permanency Program, expand with new services and contract providers, data from those efforts are included for each participating youth. Currently, Orange County ILP is pursuing joining the California Connected by 25 Initiative (CC251). CC251 is a project sponsored through the Casey and Stuart Foundations, which provide technical assistance to counties, in assessing their Independent Living Programs, with the goal of building a local, integrated system of transition supports and services for emancipating and emancipated foster youth ages 14 to 24. Included in this project is the Efforts to Outcomes (ETO) database, which is used to track important basic outcomes for transition aged youth. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: FINDING 2. The current Independent Living Program for emancipated youths in Orange County, which is a critical program for self-sufficiency and independent living, can be considered mediocre at best. To be effective, it should be presented in a transitional housing milieu with attendance mandatory. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 Social Services Agency response: Disagree wholly with the finding While we do not quarrel with the premise that more can be done if and when additional federal ILP funding is provided, there are activities underway which it appears the Grand Jury may not have inventoried: • Community forum to solicit interest in development of Transitional Housing Program Pilot, to serve 17 year old foster youth. SSA has selected Olive Crest and Florence Crittendon Services to each develop THPP programs, and is working with each provider and the California Department of Social Services to initiate services as soon as possible. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of this program? Oct. 2006 Response: On August 25, 2000 the California Department of Social Services approved the Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP) plan submitted by the County of Orange Social Services Agency. This program plan allows for a variety of THPP physical plant formats. The current provider uses a scatter-site apartment complex format, where foster youth aged 16 years and older reside with individual bedrooms in two-bedroom apartments, surrounded by adult tenants. The CDSS Division of Community Care Licensing licenses this facility as a group home. The foster youth in this facility attend school, are part-time employed, receive therapy, prepare their own meals, do their own laundry, and are coached and monitored by staff trained in facilitating independent living skills. There have been as many as 20 foster youth participating in this service program in some months. It prepares youth to live independently, and to be more acceptable candidates for transitional housing programs available in Orange County for emancipated youth. • Private Industry Council and SSA procedures to provide re-employment and training services to pre and post emancipated youth. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of this program? 21 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY Oct. 2006 Response: The Orange County ILP is an active partner in the Workforce Investment Boards (WIB) with active voting membership in the Youth Councils for each of the Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Orange County WIBS. Similarly, the three WIB Youth Council Coordinators are active members in the Children's Services Coordination Committee (CSCC) Emancipation Services Subcommittee. The SSA ILP, Probation and WIB collaboration drafted a Miscellaneous Order, which was signed by the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court, the Honorable Robert B. Hutson. This document authorizes the release of Transitional Independent Living Plans (TILP) and vocational Assessment documents to the Workforce Investment Act contract providers, thereby expediting the delivery of services to all ILP-eligible foster youth. • SSA support of community based efforts to develop transitional housing programs for emancipated youth through Super NOFA funding. Funding has been awarded to Shelter for the Homeless, YMCA and Olivecrest. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What support was provided and what programs have been implemented? Oct. 2006 Response: There are now a total of 65 beds available in Orange County for emancipated youth, provided through contracts and community collaborations. The SSA ILP program has developed contracts with Orange County Housing Authority and the Santa Ana Housing Authority through the Family Unification Program, to support emancipated youth on the path to self-sufficiency for a maximum of eighteen months. Olive Crest has developed the Crossroads program for housing and supportive services to emancipated youth. This is a continuation of the THPP contracted services that they provide to foster youth through the ILP program. Orangewood Children's Foundation and a group of entrepreneurs from Mariner's Church developed the Rising Tides Program in two apartment complexes located in Garden Grove and Tustin. These 80-apartment facilities house up to 18 emancipated youth each, two to an apartment, where the other tenants subsidize the rent cost for the emancipated youth. Over a period of 18 months, the emancipated youth incrementally increase their contribution to the rent, in preparation for when they will complete the program and live on their own. • State Department of Education funding for the Foster Youth Services project, a collaborative model involving the Orange County Department of Education, the Health Care Agency, the Probation Department and others. The goal of services is to improve the continuity of education for youth in group home programs. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of the program? Oct. 2006 Response: Orange County ILP developed a contract with Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) in 2002, through the Foster Youth Services program, initially focusing only on services for Group Home youth. This program has expanded to include all foster youth aged 14 and older. The current services include tracking of classes taken, the grades achieved for each class, the credits accumulated toward high school graduation, as well as reading and math proficiency at the close of each semester. The School Counselors funded in this project also provide recommendations on services to achieve timely graduation, and act as liaisons with the 28 School Districts to facilitate those services in behalf of foster youth. • ILP services provided weekly to youth at Orangewood Children’s Home. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What services? Oct. 2006 Response: As a part of the ILP Workshops, Seminars, and Special Events contract, peer mentors from the current Provider, Orangewood Children's Foundation (OCF), provide weekly Independent Living Skills presentations for ILP-eligible foster youth residing at Orangewood Children's Home. 22 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY • Independent City, a mock day long experience allowing youth to apply for jobs, apartments, checking accounts, budget funds for grocery shopping, etc. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: Is this a one-time experience for each youth? Oct. 2006/07 Response: Independent City is a full-day Special Event, under the ILP Workshops, Seminars, and Special Events contract, which is offered one time per year. ILP eligible foster youth may attend this special event every year. It is designed to help the youth apply in a "real life" situation the life skills that they have learned all year long at the 130 workshops presented each year under the contract. • There are no established standards for Independent Living Programs, and no evidence to suggest that a program is best presented in a transitional housing milieu. 2006 Grand Jury follow-up: Has this information changed? Oct. 2006 Response: The State of California has encouraged each county to provide basic core ILP services, so that foster youth from one county jurisdiction, but placed in another county will have generally equivalent services. Orange County ILP provides far more individualized services than are offered to foster youth in any of the adjacent counties. The State of California has limited funds allocated for transitional housing programs, and few counties are currently participating in this service. Orange County ILP youth have achieved success with THPP program services in this county. Whereas this program's milieu services work well for the participating youth, the majority of foster youth live with relatives, in licensed foster homes, in Foster Family Agency homes, or in Group Homes. Orange County ILP is reaching out to foster care providers in each of these settings to encourage them to employ the Ansell Casey Life Skills Assessment Online tool found at www.caseylifeskills.org on a quarterly basis to assist foster youth in preparing for self- sufficiency. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: FINDING 3. The measure of success for a pre-emancipation Independent Living Program, following the instruction of AB1111, should be enabling participants to seek a high school diploma, providing vocational training and job readiness, locating and obtaining housing, providing daily living skills and providing individual and group counseling. The Independent Living Program should be more than discussion and classes. There should be “hands on” experience and concrete assistance in preparing for independence prior to discharge. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Agrees with finding With-out any "hands-on" opportunities, that implication is correct. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What are the current "hands-on opportunities? Oct. 2006 Response: The current ILP Workshop contract with OCF provides hands-on application for a variety of life skills issues. In addition, the contract provides financial incentives for each participating foster youth to do the homework associated with each workshop topic, so that the youth can apply what they have learned in their current placement setting, and prepare themselves for applying these skills in their life after they emancipate. Also, as above, the Independent City event provides a one-day opportunity each year to apply the skills learned in the workshops. • It is important to note that AB-1111 ILP services and programs direction and services are a work in progress by the State of California. Counties are awaiting state guidelines and standards regarding ILP program design, which should bring some statewide uniformity to 23 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY the county ILP programs. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of state and county programs? What has been implemented since this response? Oct. 2006 Response: In November 2005, the State of California Department of Social Services enacted ILP regulations for the first time. Prior to that time, there were ILP guidelines in place. As mentioned above, there is still a great variety in how ILP services are delivered from county to county. CDSS continues to work with the County Welfare Directors Association on allowing counties the flexibility of developing their ILP programs to meet the needs of the youth placed in their county, while ensuring the youths' individual needs are met, no matter where they reside. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: FINDING 4. The new John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (HR3443) requires more extensive assessment of performance based on certain outcomes, including education, employment, avoidance of dependency, homelessness, non-marital childbirth, and incarceration. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Agrees with finding. Awaiting a policy statement by the Governor regarding its implementation and proposed use of the additional federal funding that this legislation will bring to the State of California. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the status of the Governor's policy statement? Oct. 2006 Response: The State of California Department of Social Services has established a mechanism to distribute Federal funding to each county for ILP services. The allocation methodology is currently under review for possible revision. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: FINDING 5. The relatively few programs in Orange County designed to serve emancipated youths are scattered and fragmented. Those who operate them often do so without knowledge of other similar programs. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Disagrees partially with the finding Future Search has developed sub-committees to coordinate efforts in specific areas, e.g. housing, transportation, and jobs. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the current status of Future Search and what advancements have been made as a result of their efforts? Oct. 2006 Response: The County of Orange Board of Supervisors established the Children's Services Coordination Committee (CSCC) as a formal committee, with monthly meetings at the Hall of Administration Board Conference Room. Membership in this committee consists of representatives from all County Agencies providing services to children. There are also representatives from several community service agencies represented in this committee. Leadership in this committee is currently held by Dr. Michael Riley, Director of the Division of Children and Family Srvices in the Social Services Agency. A CSCC Emancipation Subcommittee has also been formed, and meets monthly. Membership includes representatives from the Social Services Agency (SSA), Probation, Health Care Agency Public Health Nurses and Behavioral Health psychologists, the three Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), Regional Center of Orange County, as well as 24 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY foster care and service providers in the Orange County community. • Orangewood Children's Foundation (OCF) has organized several meetings to facilitate the sharing of information, resources and programs for emancipated youth, especially in the area of housing. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What has been accomplished as a result of the meetings? Oct. 2006 Response: As mentioned above in section 2, over the last several years, SSA ILP program has developed contracts with local Housing Authorities to provide housing and services to emancipated youth. Community providers such as Rising Tides, Crossroads, Wise Place, YWCA, Mercy House, Joseph's House, Ladder to Success, Harbor Village, and Connections House have also developed housing and services for emancipated youth, with an average 18 month duration. Orange County ILP is preparing a Transitional Housing Program-PLUS (THP+) proposal for CDSS this month to augment the number of emancipation housing resources. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: FINDING 6. In spite of the past two Grand Jury reports alerting the Orange County Board of Supervisors to this critical situation, the Board of Supervisors has not budgeted funds for transitional housing, or taken formal action on transitional housing for emancipated youths. The Social Services Agency has responded to prior Grand Jury reports of the past two years by claiming that they are developing and implementing transitional housing for youths after emancipation. At the present time, Orange County has very few housing options available for emancipating youths. A few small privately-funded programs are providing services but are not available to accommodate the number of estimated youths needing transitional housing services. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Disagree wholly with the finding In response to the 1997-1998 Grand Jury report, the Social Services Agency stated the intent to host roundtable sessions involving private and public organizations, with the goal of completing an inventory of resources and of identifying gaps in service. These roundtables were held and have evolved into other informal collaborative efforts, including Future Search. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: Has the Social Services Agency continued to identify resources and gaps in service? Are the informal collaborative efforts ongoing, if so what are they? Oct. 2006 Response: As mentioned above in the last two responses in section 5, the CSCC Emancipation Subcommittee Meeting is the monthly venue for identifying gaps and resources. Several housing resources have been established for emancipated youth. The County of Orange Board of Supervisors voted in 2001 to exercise the option offered by CDSS to participate in Assembly Bill 427. Among the changes evolving from that legislation were the expansion of THPP services to foster youth as young as 16 years, and the Transitional Housing Program – PLUS (THP+) for services and housing to emancipated youth up to age 24. At that juncture the County share of cost was sixty percent. State funding for this project dried up within months, and Orange County had to withdraw its participation in the project. Legislation enacted in 2006 now allows Counties to submit a THP+ Program plan, and requires that as long as the State funds are sufficient, the cost of the new THP+ programs is borne 100% by the State of California. Orange County SSA is submitting its proposal to the State for requested participation in this THP+ project. 25 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: FINDING 7. The County of Orange does not have an administrative umbrella to coordinate programs and services for emancipating youths. The missing linchpin is a director with authority and responsibility to coordinate the efforts of all concerned agencies and private nonprofit caregivers. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Disagree partially with the finding The Director of the Social Services Agency, Children and Family Services, has committed to lead the broad-based collaborative effort initiated through the Future Search process. This effort, strengthened by the issuance of statewide Independent Living Program standards and by new federal and state funding streams, holds the greatest promise for an improved Orange County network of services. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What are the outcomes of this effort? Oct. 2006 Response: As mentioned above in Section 5, the Director of SSA Children and Family Services Division chairs the CSCC monthly committee meetings, and does, in fact, coordinate the efforts of County Agencies, concerned agencies and non-profit caregivers. This broad-based collaborative, coupled with the monthly CSCC Emancipation Subcommittee meetings, are effectively taking full advantage of federal and funding streams, including the Mental Health Srvices Act (Proposition 63) funds to create and sustain services for ILP-eligible youth. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: RECOMMENDATION 1. The Social Services Agency should direct the Technology Services Department to develop a tracking system to collect data for 16- to 21-year-old foster youths. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The Social Services Agency has no authority or ability to maintain oversight of youth after the Juvenile Court terminates dependency status. The Social Services Agency lacks a source of funding for the development of an Orange County specific tracking system. SSA will seek the support of other counties and the State of California to develop such a feature in CWS/CMS. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What has SSA done to gain consensus with other counties and the state to implement a tracking program? Can the new CalWin system be used to track emancipated youth when they apply for government assistance? Could pre-emancipated youth information be placed in the CalWIN system in order to track them after emancipation if/when they apply for aid? Oct. 2006 Response: In 2002, given the inability of CWS/CMS to track ILP services provided, and the outcomes for those youth, Orange County SSA developed a stand-alone ILP database. This software application is user-friendly and has the capacity to augment fields to track new services as they are added. In addition, Orange County ILP is seeking participation in the California Connected by 25 project, to join 5 other counties that have access to a web-based application called Efforts to Outcomes. This system will help Orange County to be a leader statewide in tracking the outcomes that will be required of California Counties by the Federal government. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: RECOMMENDATION 2. The Independent Living Program for emancipated youths should be presented with a transitional housing program which includes independence but also supervision and coaching and counseling, especially in the areas of education and employment. The 26 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY transitional housing programs that exist in Orange County should be authorized to present the Independent Living Program and should also be compensated. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: The recommendation requires further analysis Final Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. At this time, no funding source exists to support this concept. However, funding resources are under development. The Social Services Agency will continue its efforts with collaborative public, private and faith based organizations, as it awaits development of statewide standards and clarifications of state/federal funding streams. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What has been done? Have standards and clarifications been realized? Oct. 2006 Response: As mentioned in Findings Section 6 above, Orange County ILP is submitting a THP+ Project Plan this month, in anticipation of approval by CDSS as a THP+ county for the Fiscal Year 2007/2008. This State-funded plan includes proposals for the three distinct types of housing formats, addressing the diverse needs of the emancipated youth. This service plan has measurable outcome elements including post-secondary educational advancement, employment enhancement to achieve a living wage in Orange County, increased access to health and mental health services, living skills development, as well as financial education and savings toward independent housing. (cid:131) Chaffee Act: It doubled the amount of federal funds for the Independent Living Program. This legislation potentially impacts child welfare services, in part, in the following ways: Funds for education, vocational and job training necessary to obtain employment and/or prepare for secondary education, training in daily living skills, substance abuse prevention, pregnancy prevention and preventative health activities and connections to dedicated adults. Requires a portion of the funds to be used for older youth, ages 18 to 21. A portion may be used for room and board. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: Since receiving Chaffee Act funds what programs have been implemented or enhanced? Oct. 2006 Response: Orange County ILP has expanded its service population on both ends, now serving foster youth from age 14, and emancipated youth until their 21st birthday. Linkages with the Federal Workforce Investment Act contracts in each of the Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Orange County WIBs are now automatic. The matriculation of foster youth into those employment preparation, job training, job placement, and job retention services is accelerated by the Miscellaneous Order signed this year by the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court. Using the Transitional Independent Living Plan and Vocational Assessment documents already completed to take the place of lengthy and duplicitous interviews for the foster youth, outcomes for continued participation in these services are improved. (cid:131) The State Department of Health and Human Services is required to issue regulations for the disbursement of additional funds to Counties within the next 12 months. Over the course of the next 12 months, the Social Services Agency will be evaluating and working with the State and local providers to develop new and augment existing services. 27 /07 Grand Jury follow-up: What new services were developed and what existing services have been augmented? Oct. 2006 Response: The ILP workshop contract now requires the provider to deliver 130 ILP workshops and seminars, as well as 6 special events each calendar year. Independent Living Coaches are now provided to a minimum of 150 foster and emancipated youth. Mentoring contracts and memoranda of understanding are in place with 5 community based organizations. The academic performance tracking contract with OCDE has been established, and with leverage of new funding sources, will double the number of foster youth served. A Vocational Assessment contract has been established, providing foster youth with individualized assessment identifying entry level positions in at least three career paths available in Orange County that the foster youth are prepared to pursue. The ILP staff is facilitating Emancipation Planning Conferences, which provide the foster youth with an opportunity to lead the planning for short-term and long-range goals. Family finding and engagement services that create connections between foster youth and healthy extended family members began in October 2004, and Orange County is one of 14 counties participating in the California Permanency for Youth Project (CPYP). • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: RECOMMENDATION 3. The pre-emancipation Independent Living Program should be improved by authorizing and compensating group homes for presenting the Independent Living Program because they will be able to provide more concrete and hands-on assistance and address the transportation problem. Group homes are better qualified to monitor educational progress and provide tutors, if needed, to help their youths obtain a high school diploma, which is the most important element of the Independent Living Program. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but it will be implemented in the future. Significant program developments are in process and planned for within the next six months. Final Response: The recommendation has been implemented. We are assured that the California Department of Social Services will develop statewide standards for the delivery of ILP within six months. At that time, the Social Services Agency will reassess its pre-emancipation program. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What was the result of the reassessment of the pre-emancipation program? Oct. 2006 Response: Since the last SSA response, CDSS Community Care Licensing regulations, as well as SSA Contracts obligations for Group Homes have changed, holding group homes responsible for providing ILP services and facilitating ILP services involvement by foster youth in their charge. Among all foster care providers, the group homes have become the most active supporters of transporting the foster youth to ILP workshops and activities. Orange County ILP has required the use of the www.caseylifeskills.org web site assessment by all foster care providers. Academic tracking and recommendations for augmented services provided through the ILP contract with OCDE have provided all the foster care providers with essential tools to assist foster youth in their academic progress toward high school graduation. As mentioned above in Findings Section 3 above, CDSS did not complete the ILP Regulation in Division 30 and Division 31 until November 2005. Orange County ILP anticipated those regulations, and had many of the services and standards in place before the regulations were implemented. (cid:131) The Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP) is a state pilot project authorized by Assembly Bill 2774. This program will provide well-supervised, semi-independent living situations for 17-18 year olds that are still in foster care. It is funded by AFDC foster care dollars. SSA is in the process of selecting a contractor(s) to provide these services to youth. 28 /07 Grand Jury follow-up: Was this program implemented? What is the current status of this program? Oct. 2006 Response: As mentioned in Finding 6 above, Orange County ILP implemented the expansion of THPP services in 2002 to include foster youth as young as 16 years of age. There is currently one licensed THPP provider in Orange County, providing services to 10 foster youth. Orange County was required in September 2006 to specify the maximum number of THPP beds that it would use, based on the funding streams allocated at that juncture to this State-sponsored program. Orange County ILP specified twenty beds, which is the maximum number of youth in any given month that have been placed in this program. (cid:131) The Social Services Agency is currently working with the Orange County Department of Education in a collaborative project titled CORE (Collaborative Options Resource Efficacy) to support the education needs of emancipating youth to age 21. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the status of CORE? What was accomplished? Oct. 2006 Response: The CORE program is known statewide as Foster Youth Services (FYS). Orange County ILP has established a contract with FYS, as mentioned in Finding Section 2 above, which not only serves foster youth placed in group homes, but now serves all foster youth 14 years and older. Orange County has changed the CORE name to FYS, to coincide with other California Counties. This week, Orange County ILP joined OCDE and Probation representatives in drafting a grant proposal to expand the FYS academic services to now assist former foster youth who are now Probation Wards serving time in Probation Institutions. (cid:131) Also, recently acquired ILP staff is working with ILP providers, including Cypress College, Santa Ana College, and the Orangewood Children's Foundation, to enhance ILP educational and vocational services. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What enhancements have been made as a result of this endeavor? Oct. 2006 Response: The Bridges to Higher Education Program was established to provide academic mentoring and enhancement services to prepare foster youth for post-secondary education opportunities. Collaborations with 15 universities and vocational schools started at California State University Fullerton, and have been developed under the title Guardian Scholars, providing emancipated foster youth with free tuition, books, fees, and in some cases year- around housing to support their post-secondary education and training. There is legislation pending in the State of California that would expand the Guardian Scholar program to all State Universities. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: RECOMMENDATION 4. The Independent Living Program should focus on key areas that are critical to independent living: education, employment, housing, and reducing the probability of early parenthood. A study with specific recommendations should be initiated to evaluate the Independent Living Program in Orange County. An evaluation of the program is needed that links the objectives of the program with the results. No response required • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: RECOMMENDATION 5. The Social Services Agency should take the leadership role in coordinating all of the current, fragmented programs for emancipated youths currently in Orange County. Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Response: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Final Response: The recommendation has been implemented. 29 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY The Social Services Agency has acquired a Program Manager to fill this role and expand the Independent Living Program. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: How has the Program Manager expanded the ILP? Oct. 2006 Response: Since 2001, the current Program Manager has expanded the Independent Living Program in many ways. Orange County has established a uniform assessment tool for tracking foster youth progress on life skill achievement (www.caseylifeskills.org). ILP Services went from serving a population of foster youth between the ages of 16-19, and now serves all foster youth and emancipated youth from age 14 until the 21st birthday. The program staff grew from two Senior Social Workers to now seven Senior Social Workers, serving 2,752 youth in the last FFY. Educational tracking and academic enhancement services are serving all foster youth 14 years and older. Independent Living Coaches are now serving in excess of 150 foster youth. ILP workshops and seminars numbering 130 each calendar year are provided to youth. THPP services have been fully implemented in Orange County. There are currently a minimum of 65 emancipated youth beds available among those operated by ILP contracts and community organizations. The Orange County THP+ proposal is being prepared for delivery to CDSS, in hopes of implementation in FY07/08. The findings and recommendations of the Emancipated Youth Housing Study in collaboration with California State University Fullerton have been implemented to enhance the applications of life skills in the daily lives of foster youth, and create extended family connections that will bring hope and additional resources to emancipating foster youth. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: RECOMMENDATION 6. The Board of Supervisors, County Executive Office, and the Social Services Agency, following leadership on both the federal and state levels, should elevate transitional housing for emancipated youths to the highest priority. Response: The recommendation requires further analysis Final Response: The recommendation has been implemented. SSA plans to initiate such an emancipation program planning process with the arrival of the new, increased federal funding for emancipation services within the next six months to one year. Undoubtedly, transitional housing will be identified as one of the foremost needs to be addressed. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What is the status of this program planning process and what has been implemented or enhanced? Was transitional housing identified as one of the foremost needs? Oct. 2006 Response: As mentioned in the Findings Section 5 and 6, as well as in Recommendations Sections 2 and 5 above, stable emancipation housing is the foundation upon which all other services can be effective in the youth's lives. Housing resources developed since 2001 are helpful, but there are approximately 250 foster youth emancipating each year. Housing for emancipated youth will be greatly enhanced as Orange County is approved as a THP+ County in FY07/08. • 1999/2000 Grand Jury Report: RECOMMENDATION 7. An administrative position should be created whose purpose is to coordinate all of the County and private agencies similar to the collaborative efforts of Friends of the Children Bridges and the Probation Department’s Children and Family Resource Centers. This position would also have the responsibility and accountability for all pre- and post-emancipated Independent Living Programs. 30 2006-2007 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY Excerpts from the 1999/2000 agency response: Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Final Response: The recommendation has been implemented. ….new federal laws require that ILP services be extended to include youth to age 21, thereby doubling the ILP caseload. These guidelines are to be put into place over the next 12 months. Further, the development and oversight of transitional housing placement services will increase contract oversight responsibilities. Therefore, significant expansion of the ILP program and support staffs has been requested in a budget augmentation request supported by County Administration. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: What was the outcome of implementing the new federal laws? Oct. 2006 Response: Orange County ILP acted on the option available in the legislation of providing services to foster youth as young as 14 years. This, in concert with the augmentation of older emancipated youth, provided an ILP service population during the last reporting period (FFY 05/06) of 2,752 youth between the ages of 14 and 21 years. The staffing for ILP was augmented, and the services enumerated in Recommendations Section 5 above have been implemented. The ILP Program Manager will facilitate the coordinated efforts of county agency and community partners in developing a comprehensive emancipation services program for foster youth. 2006/07 Grand Jury follow-up: Please explain the results of this effort? Oct. 2006 Response: As noted in the Findings Section 5 above, the ILP Program Manager and SSA Management coordinate the development and maintenance of community partnerships and coordinate interventions through the overarching CSCC monthly meetings, and the monthly CSCC Emancipation Subcommittee meetings. These groups of dedicated community partners have assisted SSA management in the development of enhanced academic services, mentoring services, independent living skill development resources, post secondary education resources, and emancipation housing resources. 31
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The FRCs supported by SSA/FaCT provide valuable services to their client populations and their neighborhoods, despite having to cope with serious financial resource limitations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Increase the total financial support from the SSA to FRCs. If federal or state funding is cut, make up the difference from the County General Fund. Underwrite more of the infrastructure and overhead of the FRCs. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-11.)
F2:
SSA/FaCT provides adequate in-kind services and support to the FRCs; however, SSA/FaCT has not completely addressed the FRCs’ need for additional financial support. 13
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Increase the total financial support from the SSA to FRCs. If federal or state funding is cut, make up the difference from the County General Fund. Underwrite more of the infrastructure and overhead of the FRCs. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-11.)
F3:
SSA/FaCT funds typically represent 15-25% of the total budget of a SSA/FaCT-supported FRC. This means that every dollar spent by the SSA to support FRCs leverages about $3-5 in other contributions to the FRC network.
F4:
SSA/FaCT distributes federal, state and county grant and program monies to the FRCs without charging overhead allocations for SSA administrative costs.
F5:
The SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs handle a substantial caseload. While it is logical to expect that the majority of these clients are being diverted from the formal SSA CFS system, it is difficult to prove this without objective statistical evidence.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Develop an objective method of showing whether or not the SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs are effectively diverting caseload from SSA FCS. For example, a random sample of FRC clients’ names and addresses could be matched with the names and addresses of SSA CFS clients. A low degree of overlap in the two data bases could indicate that the majority of FRC cases do not ultimately turn into CFS caseload. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-5, F-7, F-8, F-9 and F-10.)
F6:
The SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs are exceeding their contracted caseload levels for many of their defined services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Increase the contracted caseload levels at SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs to better reflect the actual demand for services. (This recommendation arises from Finding F-6.)
F7:
Outcomes evaluation is very difficult. This is a problem in determining whether SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs are meeting the SSA’s strategic expectations. Nearly all the instruments that clients fill out to measure the outcomes of their interactions with SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs are essentially self-reports by the clients.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Develop an objective method of assessing service outcomes that directly measures whether changes in client behavior are occurring as a result of the clients’ engagements with the SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs. For example, a random sample of clients could be followed for some period of time after the end of their cases in order to observe whether their family situations stabilize or improve. The sample results could validate the logic models that relate the improvement in at-risk indexes and other changes between pre-tests and post-tests to concrete client behavior changes. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-7, F-8, and F-9.)
F8:
SSA/FaCT’s outcomes evaluation shows that the FRCs are increasing clients’ knowledge levels and reducing their calculated risk levels, but FaCT’s evaluation technique does not actually measure whether the clients’ behavior has changed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Develop an objective method of assessing service outcomes that directly measures whether changes in client behavior are occurring as a result of the clients’ engagements with the SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs. For example, a random sample of clients could be followed for some period of time after the end of their cases in order to observe whether their family situations stabilize or improve. The sample results could validate the logic models that relate the improvement in at-risk indexes and other changes between pre-tests and post-tests to concrete client behavior changes. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-7, F-8, and F-9.)
F9:
SSA/FaCT justifies its outcomes evaluation methodology by research indicating that linkages do exist between increases in parents’ knowledge of family preservation and child-rearing skills and changes in their behavior; however, none of this research is directly based on the Orange County population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Develop an objective method of assessing service outcomes that directly measures whether changes in client behavior are occurring as a result of the clients’ engagements with the SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs. For example, a random sample of clients could be followed for some period of time after the end of their cases in order to observe whether their family situations stabilize or improve. The sample results could validate the logic models that relate the improvement in at-risk indexes and other changes between pre-tests and post-tests to concrete client behavior changes. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-7, F-8, and F-9.)
F10:
SSA/FaCT’s outcomes evaluation technique does not show whether or not FRC clients end up turning into SSA FCS caseload.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Develop an objective method of showing whether or not the SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs are effectively diverting caseload from SSA FCS. For example, a random sample of FRC clients’ names and addresses could be matched with the names and addresses of SSA CFS clients. A low degree of overlap in the two data bases could indicate that the majority of FRC cases do not ultimately turn into CFS caseload. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-5, F-7, F-8, F-9 and F-10.)
F11:
Most SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs operate with very limited resources. They are often located in cramped quarters in storefronts or older buildings with very limited office space. The working conditions are generally substantially lower quality than the SSA’s offices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Increase the total financial support from the SSA to FRCs. If federal or state funding is cut, make up the difference from the County General Fund. Underwrite more of the infrastructure and overhead of the FRCs. (This recommendation arises from Findings F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, and F-11.)
F12:
About 70% of SSA/FaCT-supported FRC clients are Hispanic.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Improve outreach to non-Hispanic communities and support additional FRC locations in areas of the county that are not primarily Hispanic/Latino. (This recommendation arises from Finding F-12.)
F13:
Some FRCs have declined SSA/FaCT funding because the RFP was too narrowly written, specifying a set of services to be offered that did not match the needs of their neighborhoods. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-13 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. Responses to Findings F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6 and F-11 are required from the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with the California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the 14 Presiding Officer of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Be flexible in the types of services to be supported, especially in developing the RFPs for each program cycle, allowing the FRCs to be as creative as possible in programming their service offerings to be maximally responsive to the needs of their neighborhoods. Consider preparing individualized RFPs with targeted service mixes for specific neighborhoods. (This recommendation arises from Finding F- 13.) Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-6 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. Responses to Recommendations R-1 and R-2 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. 15 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 16
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R13:
Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-6 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. Responses to Recommendations R-1 and R-2 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
R12-15:
full and part time permanent staff complemented by 30-50 volunteers. The SSA-supported FRCs should not be confused with the County Probation Department’s Youth and Family Resource Centers (YFRCs), which have different programming directed at youth on probation and their families. In Orange County there are presently 28 stand-alone FRCs, plus a potentially larger number of organizations such as hospitals that provide some of the functions of a FRC. Stand-alone FRCs are typically operated by consortia of private charitable organizations called collaboratives. Different member organizations in a FRC collaborative will be responsible for different services or functions. Stand-alone FRCs are usually located in residential neighborhoods and are supported by a combination of private donations and county, state and federal grants. In some cases, county grants are funded by federal and state programs and the SSA acts as the program administrator. FRCs that are not supported by SSA are not within the scope of this report. The SSA and the OCF have created a jointly supported and staffed entity, Families and Communities Together (FaCT), for the purpose of supporting certain types of services offered by selected Orange County FRCs. The FaCT mission statement is: “To identify and promote promising and best practices, train, fund and advocate for FRCs to be Orange County’s community based platform for prevention activities and family support services.” FaCT has offices in the SSA’s facility in Orange and a budgeted headquarters staff of 31 – 11 from the SSA including five in the SSA Contracts department and 20 from Orangewood Children’s’ Foundation. The organization chart of FaCT is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 – FaCT Organization The Board of Supervisors approves contracts with the FRCs that SSA/FACT will support based on SSA/FaCT recommendations. SSA/FaCT selects its recommended FRCs by evaluating responses by FRC collaboratives to a Request for Proposal (RFP) that is issued on a 5-year cycle. Of the 28 stand-alone FRCs in Orange County, 14 FRC collaboratives responded to the RFP for the cycle for services beginning July 1, 2006, of which 12 were selected. Each selected FRC executes a contract with SSA/FaCT specifying the suite of SSA/FaCT-supported services to be offered in that FRC and the expected caseload for each offered service. The SSA’s Contracts Department administers the contracts between SSA/FaCT and the FRCs. Under these contracts, each SSA/FaCT-supported FRC directly receives between $230,000-350,000 yearly depending on the mix of services offered by the FRC that are eligible for SSA/FaCT support. Most FRCs also offer additional services not supported by SSA/FaCT; typically SSA/FaCT funds represent about 15-25% of their annual budgets. This means that each dollar spent by the SSA on supporting the FRC network leverages about $3-5 in other contributions. Most contributions to FRCs, from whatever source, are categorical, inflexible and time-limited, and therefore do not cover infrastructural costs such as overhead or administration. As a result, FRCs may struggle to effectively meet the needs of their communities and stay true to their original missions if they modify priorities to fit the restrictions of available grant monies. Therefore, some FRCs may be reluctant to accept SSA/FaCT funding if the SSA/FaCT RFP is narrowly written. One FRC, for example, was SSA/FaCT-supported prior to 2002, but decided not to respond to the SSA/FaCT RFP for the 2002/2003 through 2005/2006 cycle because it was too narrowly focused on supporting adoptive and foster parenting. This FRC believed that emphasis 4 was not appropriately targeted to the requirements of its neighborhood, where most of its caseload comes from divorces and family break-ups rather than adoptions and foster homes. This FRC did respond to the RFP for the 2006/2007 through 2009/2010 cycle, because that RFP was more flexible in allocating funds toward family support and preservation in addition to adoption and foster care. In each SSA/FaCT-supported FRC, one of the collaborating organizations acts as the Lead Agency, paying the other members of the collaborative their share of the SSA/FaCT supporting funds and billing SSA/FaCT regularly for reimbursement. The Lead Agency also is responsible for the overall administration of the FRC and for maintaining and operating its financial and information systems. Each FRC is audited annually by an independent certified public accounting firm and the audit results are submitted to SSA/FaCT. SSA/FaCT’s FRC support funds have declined from the previous RFP cycle. In FY2005/2006, the last year of the previous cycle, SSA/FaCT administered a total of $3,905,116 in federal, state and county government grants. The SSA/FaCT program is budgeted to administer a total of $3,818,858 in federal, state and county government grants during FY 2006/2007, a decrease of $86,258, or about 2%. Of this total, $3,173,884 is going directly to FRCs in the form of contract payments from the SSA, $312,500 is going to the Child Abuse Treatment (ChAT) program to support activities in the FRCs, and $332,474 is going to the OCF to support activities in the FRCs and provide administrative support to FaCT headquarters. SSA/FaCT’s FRC support funds come from the following sources (dollars shown are for FY 2006/2007): Federal Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program - $2,525,000 (66%) This program funds four types of services: Family Preservation, Family Support, Time-Limited Family Reunification, and Adoption Promotion and Support. The services are intended to promote protection of children from abuse and neglect, safe maintenance of children in their own homes whenever possible and appropriate, permanency and stability in the living conditions of children, preservation of the continuity of family relationships, enhancement of families’ capacity to provide for their children’s needs, and provision of appropriate educational, physical health and mental health services for children. This program’s allocation to Orange County was decreased by $212,052 from FY2005/2006 levels. Federal Community Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) program - $107,474 (3%) This program funds services designed to reduce child abuse. Its allocation to Orange County was decreased by $74,602 from FY2005/2006 levels. State Supportive and Therapeutic Options (STOP) program - $133,474 (3%) This Proposition 10 program funds treatment and support services for families with children returning from out-of-home placement or families at risk of such placements. This funding requires a 30% match from county funds, which come from the county Wraparound Fund. This grant was decreased by $590,014 from FY2005/2006 levels. County Wraparound Funds - $790,410 (21%) These funds are used to address the needs of behaviorally and/or emotionally disturbed children so that the children may be maintained safely in their homes. These funds are also used for the required 30% county match to the State STOP program funds as well as for the Differential Response Pilot program in operation at two of the county-sponsored FRCs. This grant started in FY2006/2007. State Office of Emergency Services Child Abuse Treatment (ChAT) grant – $200,000 (5%) This grant funds comprehensive treatment services for child victims of physical and sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, school violence, community violence and abduction. This grant was also $200,000 in FY2005/2006. County Children’s’ Trust Fund - $62,500 (2%) These funds are derived from license plate taxes and are used to support general FRC programming. This funding was also $62,500 in FY2005/2006. Note that if Orange County had not contributed the $790,410 in Wraparound funds in FY2006/2007, the total funding available to SSA/FaCT would have dropped from FY2005/2006 levels by $876,668, or more than 22%, instead of only $86,258, or 2%. Child Welfare funds, contributions from OCF and Title 4E funds pay for the FaCT headquarters staff; the SSA allocates its departmental overhead to programs based on caseload, but FaCT programs, by definition, generate no direct SSA caseload, so there is no SSA overhead allocated to SSA/FaCT. FRCs that are supported by SSA/FaCT funds offer the following categories of core and comprehensive services (not all FRCs offer all these services): • Information and Referral – helping individuals and families find services in the community and from government agencies; • Advocacy – helping individuals and families obtain multiple forms of assistance from the FRC and other agencies (including government) through individualized case management; • Comprehensive Case Management – reviewing the status of client cases with multiple needs and planning how the FRC will engage with each client going forward; • Counseling – support groups, crisis intervention, and individual counseling; • Domestic Violence Counseling – for non-offending parents and children; • Domestic Violence Legal Assistance – helping non-offending parents secure restraining orders and other legal remedies; • Parenting Education – teaching parents how to be more effective; • Personal Empowerment Program – classes and coaching for battered or at-risk parents; • After School Programs/Tutoring – for children and adults; • Youth Enrichment Activities – including day care for children of parents attending classes or other functions at FRCs; • Foster/Adoptive Recruitment and Outreach; • Legal Assistance – for other than domestic violence situations; and • Community Workshops – to promote community improvement, involvement and solidarity, including a Community Action Council (CAC) composed of FRC clients, at each FRC. FRCs are not supposed to charge fees for any SSA/FaCT-supported services. If fees are posted, they are supposed to be waived. However, FRCs may charge fees for other services that they offer that are not SSA/FaCT-supported. It appears that the SSA/FaCT-funded FRCs are complying with this policy. SSA/FaCT supports twelve FRCs that are operating in these Orange County locations during FY 2006/2007: 6 Anaheim Fullerton FRC At Manzanita Park, 1260 N. Riviera Street, Anaheim, CA 92801 Corbin FRC 2215 W. McFadden Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92704 Friendly Center Collaborative FRC 147 W. Rose, Orange, CA 92867 FRC of La Habra 301 W. Las Lomas Drive, La Habra, CA 90631 Garden Grove Focus Collaborative FRC At Magnolia Park, 11402 Magnolia Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92841 Minnie Street FRC 1300 E. McFadden Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Oak View FRC 17261 Oak Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Salk Community FRC 1411 S. Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 South Orange County FRC 28191 Marguerite Parkway, Suite 19, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Stanton FRC 11822 Santa Paula Street, Stanton, CA 90680 Tustin FRC 14722 Newport Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780 Westminster FRC 8102 Westminster Boulevard, Suite E, Westminster, CA 92683 Figure 2 – Orange County SSA/FaCT-Supported Family Resource Centers 7 In addition to providing direct financial support, SSA/FaCT provides the following in-kind services to FRCs: • Program Coordination – four program coordinators perform the following functions: o attend monthly management meetings with each FRC in which best practices are shared, training needs identified, resource needs are identified and recommended, etc.; o attend weekly case management team meetings in which individual clients’ cases are reviewed and action plans developed for further engagement with the clients; o attend a monthly meeting with all FRC managers (site coordinators) in which best practices are shared, and problems and issues are reviewed; o approve the governance structure of each FRC and work to intervene in dysfunctional governance situations (this is helpful to FRCs because each FRC is operated by a consortium of at least three different charitable organizations and agencies which must agree on how the FRC is to be managed); o work one-on-one with FRC site coordinators to resolve day-to-day issues; o review bids in response to RFPs for FRCs, and complete the contracts with the FRCs; o deal with the various agencies and staff collaborating in each FRC; and o review monthly reports from FRCs, analyze discrepancies between expected and actual caseloads for each service offered, and work with the FRCs to restructure service programming if necessary. • Data Collection and Analysis – a Data Evaluation specialist and the FaCTTRAK data collection and evaluation system perform the following functions: o collect data on caseload and outcomes by service offering at each FRC (each FRC maintains a data entry clerk who performs the input to the system, each FRC “owns” its own section of the data base, and FRCs can use the system to track caseload and outcomes for all services they provide, even services not supported by FaCT); o provide detail and aggregated statistical reports on caseload and outcomes at each FRC and in total across all FRCs; o provide statistical reports required by the federal and state funding programs supporting FaCT and the Children and Families Commission of Orange County; and o train the data entry clerks at the FRCs and conduct monthly meetings to reinforce training and evaluate their work. • Training – Under its CONNECT program, which builds organizational capacity among Orange County non-profit organizations, OCF provides training to FRC employees in areas such as management, grant writing, and marketing and supervisory skills. • Technical Assistance – FaCT provides FRCs with assistance in integrating their information systems with the Internet, memo writing, dealing with government agencies, and other areas. • Case Management – FaCT arranges for SSA social workers, some of whom are licensed clinicians, to assist FRCs in reviewing and developing engagement plans for client cases at weekly Case Management Team meetings. The majority of the SSA social workers have master’s degrees. 8 • Outreach – FaCT assists FRCs with marketing and refers clients to the FRCs. It also trains and encourages other County departments that come into contact with at-risk families, such as the Health Care Agency and the Sheriff’s Department, to refer clients to the FRCs. The SSA hosts other programs on the FRC network in addition to the functions that SSA supports through the FaCT mechanism, including: • “Project Connections.FRC Health Access” is a countywide, culturally sensitive in-home service that helps medically and socially vulnerable children from newborn to age five and their families by providing services such as immunizations and assistance in obtaining health insurance. Hospitals associated with the Bridges for Newborns program (see below) screen 75-80% of all families with newborns in Orange County for prenatal care and health insurance knowledge and refer families to their neighborhoods’ FRCs’ Health Access programs. “Project Connections.FRC” is funded by Proposition 10 monies administered by the Children and Families Commission of Orange County (the “First 5” grant, which is directed at helping children who are newborn through five years of age) and is offered in eight SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs (in addition to three other sites outside the FaCT FRC network). • “Bridges for Newborns” provides in-home parent education in health care for children, and assists families in finding and understanding how to access community health care resources. Referrals to this program come from hospitals. This program is funded by Proposition 10 monies administered by the Orange County Children and Families Commission (the “First 5” grant) and is accessible at all SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs (plus other sites outside the FaCT FRC network, such as hospital social services departments). • “Differential Response” (DR), funded by the SSA and operated under the auspices of its Children and Family Services Division, is a new program that the SSA is piloting at two of the SSA/FaCT- supported FRCs. The idea of DR is to refer at-risk families to FRCs, instead of the Court or the official social services system, when the risk level is not high enough to warrant Court intervention to remove the child from the home. This allows the FRC to involve the community in educating and supporting the family and mitigating the risk conditions and to help advocate for the family. Families assessed by the SSA as eligible for DR are given the option to participate, rather than go through the formal social services process. If a family agrees, a FRC-based DR advocate accompanies the SSA social worker on up to the next three visits to the family, after which the FRC DR advocate takes over the case from the social worker. Once in DR, the family can engage with any other service provided by the FRC, and the FRC case management team reviews the DR cases along with the FRC’s other normal cases. In FY 2005/2006, the last year for which statistics are available, there were nine SSA/FaCT funded FRCs in Orange County. These nine FRCs served 6,399 families with 5,354 children, including 11,658 individuals. The case load was 77% Hispanic/Latino; the primary language of nearly 70% of the clients was Spanish and most of the FaCT-funded FRCs offer their services in Spanish as well as English because of these demographics. This may be a result of the location of most FRCs in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods. It may also signify a lack of successful outreach to non-Hispanic constituencies, although the FRCs also offer Vietnamese language services and materials. It is, however, consistent with national trends in the client bases of FRCs. There is anecdotal evidence that many undocumented families go to FRCs because they do not want to deal directly with the government. No procedures exist for identifying whether SSA/FaCT-supported FRC clients are undocumented aliens. FaCT and FRC personnel believe that such procedures, if implemented, would alienate the FRCs from their neighborhoods, damaging their ability to perform their strategic mission. Most individual FRC clients are female; the typical client’s age is between 30 and 39. Thirty-five percent of clients have annual incomes under $10,000 and another 30% of clients earn between $10,000 and $20,000 per year. Many clients initially contact FRCs to get information; a FRC can often field 200-400 information inquiries per month. In many cases the FRCs, after providing the requested information, refer the clients to other agencies in the County. In FY2005/2006, the breakdown of service caseload was as follows (note that some individuals and families may be clients for multiple services): Number of Number of Number of Contracted Service Category Individuals Families Children Case Load ----------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- -------------- INDIVIDUAL SERVICES Advocacy 1,045 800 237 453 + 372(1) Comprehensive Case Management 681 500 229 608(3) Counseling 827 491 339 601 Domestic Violence Counseling 168 140 27 120 Domestic Violence Legal Assistance 46 46 0 32 Parenting Education 467 399 0 411 Personal Empowerment Program 427 421 0 379 After School Programs/Tutoring 391 295 402 98 Youth Enrichment Activities 729 554 713 883 GROUP SERVICES Foster/Adoptive Recruitment & Outreach 2,668 44(2) Legal Assistance 814 208 Community Workshops 9,062 56(2) OTHER SERVICES Adult Education 254 230 0 93 ChAT 421 179 133 n/a Project Connections.FRC 9,934 4,322 5,362 n/a Emergency Services 157 134 131 Information and Referral 11,706 4,325 (1) In FY2005/2006 some FRCs’ contracts specified this target in families and others specified it in individuals. Both figures are shown; 453 individuals and 372 families. (2) The figure shown is the contracted number of workshops. Multiple individuals attended each workshop. (3) The contracted number of families is shown. The caseload in FY 2006/2007 will be greater because of the increase in the number of FRCs compared to FY 2005/2006 (twelve sites versus nine). Year-to-year individual FRC caseloads appear relatively stable overall, although some service categories experience larger fluctuations. The SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs are meeting or exceeding their contracted caseloads for most services, and in those cases where the expected caseloads are not being met, FaCT and FRC staff are analyzing the reasons and modifying the service offerings in an effort to make them more attractive to the population in the FRCs’ neighborhoods. In FY2005/2006 cases were referred to SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs from the following sources: 10 Hospital, Doctor or Nurse 32% (many of these are through Bridges for Newborns) Friend or Family 22% Walk-in 17% School 5% Social Worker or Counselor 4% Other Community Based Agency 4% Brochure or Flyer 2% Other 14% Measuring the effectiveness of social services is difficult at best. Ideally, actual outcomes would be examined: Are FRC clients successfully preserving their families, or are they failing and/or turning into SSA child welfare cases? However, traditional evaluation tools used to measure social services outcomes do not work well for family support programs or FRCs, which respond to a diverse range of family issues in a holistic manner with an entire menu of inter-related services, rather than to a single issue or through a particular task or service that is easily identified and evaluated. Because families often participate in a variety of individual and group programs offered by a FRC, measuring exactly who got what from which program or service can be very difficult. The problem of outcomes measurement is made even more difficult because what needs to be measured is, in effect, the degree to which something is not happening – the dysfunctionality or breakup of families. Individual FRCs also do not have the internal resources to perform rigorous statistical evaluations of their services that demonstrate the value of those services. This is an area in which SSA/FaCT can provide great assistance to FRCs. Accordingly, SSA/FaCT has implemented a system to track and analyze outcomes information. The summary analysis from this system was first available for 2005/2006. SSA/FaCT assesses the outcomes of FRC cases based primarily on self-reports by the clients on pre-tests and post-tests. When clients begin engaging with a SSA/FaCT-supported FRC, they are administered pre-tests that measure whether they are at risk. At the end of their cases they take post-tests, which are repeats of the pre- tests. The content of the tests depends on the services the clients are receiving. For example, the Parenting Education pre-test asks clients to rate themselves on whether they never, sometimes, or always engage in various child rearing behaviors, such as: • setting limits and rules; • spending quality time with the child; • losing patience with the child due to stress; • listening to the child when he/she wants to talk; • encouraging the child to do his/her best; • working together with one’s partner on how the child is disciplined; • being consistent when administering discipline; and • communicating with the child’s teacher. The test also asks whether the clients know certain facts about child rearing, such as: • whether drinking alcohol or using drugs can affect parenting; • whether a five-year-old can be put in time-out for more than 20 minutes; and • whether physical punishment is a necessary form of discipline. The FRCs input the clients’ answers to the pre-test questions into FaCTTRAK and FaCTTRAK computes an at-risk index for each client. At the conclusion of the clients’ engagements, when the FRC re-administers the post-tests, the at-risk indexes are again computed by FaCTTRAK. The differences between the pre-test and post-test at-risk indexes and other results are taken as measures of the efficacy of the services. In effect, this pre-test/post-test procedure measures the increase in clients’ knowledge of the content of the services that they receive, rather than directly measuring the desired outcome, i.e., whether changes in clients’ behavior that are conducive to family preservation and child welfare actually occur. The SSA infers the linkage between increase in knowledge and actual behavior changes through a logic model based on extensive research that indicates such a linkage exists. For example, in a 2000 study of parental neglect in infants and toddlers done for the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, families in which neglect was substantiated by child protective services workers were found to have less knowledge of parenting overall on issues such as child development, children’s needs, and unrealistic expectations of children than parents in families where there was no neglect; caregivers in families who neglected their children also had fewer parenting skills such as impulse control, effective communication, effective coping with stress, and problem- solving skills. (This was the first study ever done of the correlates of the substantiation of neglect in children 0- 36 months of age.) However, as far as the Grand Jury could determine, none of this research, including the 2000 study just cited, is specifically based on Orange County’s population. During FY2005-2006 the overall outcomes of selected SSA/FaCT core services across all of the nine FRCs that were SSA/FaCT-supported during that fiscal year were measured by pre-testing and post-testing in this way, as follows: • Individual and Family Counseling: Clients increased their self-esteem by 33%, reduced their depression by 25% and reduced their anxiety by 27%. Children who participated in counseling reduced their overall school behavior problems by 32% and improved their academic achievement by 33%. The risk of physical, emotional and sexual abuse was reduced by 20%. Also, 46% of clients reported that they felt less discouraged after completing counseling than at the beginning, and 46% stated that they now turn to family members for help. • Parenting Education: Clients increased their overall knowledge of parenting techniques by 16% from the beginning of the course to the end. The course teaches five key parenting concepts and clients improved in all five areas. Clients’ knowledge of effective discipline techniques improved by 17% and their knowledge of how to use social support resources, such as their children’s teachers, to assist in parenting increased by 20%. Seventy-three percent of clients understood the proper use of timeout at the end of the course, compared with 31% at the beginning. • Domestic Violence Counseling: Upon completion of six sessions of counseling, clients reduced their risk of emotional abuse by 66% and their overall risk index by 57%. Clients’ self-esteem improved by 57%, their ability to access a safety plan improved by 73%, and their financial stability improved by 63%. The counseling sessions addressed the risk of physical abuse, sexual abuse, motivation, depression, and social support; clients improved in all these areas. • Personal Empowerment Program (PEP): Clients increased their knowledge of domestic violence risk factors by 81% after completing this ten-week course, which addressed four areas: How to develop a safety plan, types of abuse, legal options available to abused people, and the effects of violence on children. Clients increased their knowledge in all four areas. • Comprehensive Case Management: Over 50% of families were able to complete their service plan upon the close of their cases; however, about 30% did not follow through on their referrals, were unable to complete them or were lost to follow-up. Of the families referred to counseling, 70% completed or were participating in the services and 45% had completed or were participating in domestic violence counseling. Parents referred to parenting classes seemed to be split, with one-third 12 participating in the classes, one-third referred but not participating yet, and one-third not following through. • Family Advocacy: Over 80% of families participating were able to successfully complete their service plan upon the close of their cases. Families had the highest need for counseling, domestic violence services, parenting, and health services (excluding health insurance). Of the families referred to counseling, 71% completed or were participating at the time they ended their service plan, 91% accessed the health services they needed, and 83% participated in parenting classes. The results above show that for the services where pre-tests and post-tests are given, the FRCs generally appear to be successfully increasing their clients’ knowledge of, and access to, strategies and resources for dealing with stresses that put their families at risk of breaking up. (It should be noted that not all services offered by SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs have pre-tests and post-tests.) However, this does not demonstrate conclusively that the clients’ behavior has actually changed, or that the majority of FRC cases do not ultimately turn into SSA caseload. Client confidentiality considerations prevent client information collected by SSA/FaCT-supported FRCs from being matched against other social services data bases. Because of this, the Grand Jury was unable to determine how many FRC client cases turn later into interventions by the SSA Children and Families Service (CFS), which could be one potential measure of the actual subsequent behavior of the clients, and which could also indicate whether FRCs actually divert caseload from the SSA. Also, unlike CFS cases, there is no formal mechanism in the SSA/FaCT-supported FRC network for tracking clients after the close of their cases, which could be another method of determining subsequent client behavior. Tracking a sample of clients could verify the logic model that supports using the difference between pre-test and post-test scores as a proxy for directly measuring changes in behavior. The FaCT team believes that such tracking would be considered overly intrusive by the clients, and would therefore ultimately damage the effectiveness of the FRCs. Clients of FRC comprehensive case management services do give consent to the SSA to check their prior involvement with social welfare services statewide, and these checks indicate that generally the clients have not had extensive prior interaction with the social welfare system. However, only a small percentage of cases are subject to comprehensive case management, and it is not clear whether they represent a valid sample of the general FRC client population.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
There is an absence of a MRF in South County to facilitate diversion of waste.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors and IWMD need to find a suitable location for a South County MRF,and work towards environmental agencies approval of that site as expeditiously as possible.
F2:
Methane gas recovery efforts at Alpha Olinda fail to utilize 100% of the gas generated. 9
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
IWMD needs to find a way to utilize 100% of Alpha Olinda's methane gas recovery.
F3:
The plastic bag dilemma requires that a solution be found.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
IWMD needs to find a solution for the recycling of plastic bags.
F4:
City waste disposal managers do not have sufficient working knowledge of the information provided by IWMD, which is intended to assist them in the control of their reclamation results.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
IWMD needs to provide training to municipalities that require a better understanding of the data they are provided.
F5:
There is a need to explore additional markets for green waste.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
IWMD needs to explore alternative markets for green waste reuse.
F6:
The presence of non-franchise haulers and so-called “Ghost Haulers” bins, in cities which bypass the recycling system, needs to be corrected in order to establish the waste haulers’ confidence that their municipalities are looking out for their best interests. A Response to Finding F-1 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-5 are requested from the IWMD. A Response to Finding F-6 is required from all 34 Orange County City Councils. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code section 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government agency to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Municipalities need to solve their unauthorized waste bin problems by enacting city ordinances forbidding these practices, imposing fines, including stepped-up fines for additional violations, and impounding unauthorized bins. A Response on Recommendation R-1 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses on Recommendations R-1 through R-5 are requested from the IWMD. A Response on Recommendation R-6 is required from all 34 Orange County City 10 Councils. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. EXHIBIT 1 ON FOLLOWING PAGES 11 12 13 Source: Orange County Integrated Waste Management 14
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
CDSIRs have been effective in improving procedures within the agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
SSA should continue Quality Assurance investigation and procedural review based on best practice along with the CDSIR.
F2:
Brochures, pamphlets, and public service announcements about CAR are not widely distributed or displayed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
SSA should conduct an aggressive public service campaign to educate the general public about child abuse. The anonymity of reporting to CAR needs to be publicized throughout Orange County, including radio and TV public service announcements in English and Spanish.
F3:
The current Automated Call Distribution telephone system at CAR was purchased in 1998 and has reached its end-of-life. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-3 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
SSA should ensure that the new phone system at CAR is operational by June, 2007. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-3 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: 9 §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 10
F4:
to maintain a central data base of all serious incidents or deaths in cases where Children’s Services was involved in order to identify trends and problems.” 7 Clearly this procedure was followed in 2001 when MV1 died. The recommendations addressed problems with case management decisions, communication among the care providers, and reporting in a timely manner. The U.S General Accounting Office (GAO) reported in 2006 (GAO-07-75), “ In response to a GAO survey, state child welfare agencies identified three primary challenges as most important to resolve to improve outcomes for children under their supervision: providing an adequate level of services for children and families, recruiting and retaining caseworkers, and finding appropriate homes for certain children.” In the same document GAO addressed caseloads of SWs from a previous report: “For example, we reported that high caseloads, poor supervision, and the burden of administrative responsibilities have, in some cases, prompted caseworkers to voluntarily leave their employment with welfare agencies.” The GAO conducted this study because “the states have not been able to meet all outcome measures for children in their care”. The difficulty of recruiting, training, and retaining employees in child welfare is nationwide. It may well exacerbate poor outcomes for children in the states’ care. A very disturbing aspect of the MV1 case not addressed in the SSA recommendations is that during the criminal trial of the Mother, neighbors said that they expressed concerns about the child to care providers, and/or the SW, and as well as an investigator. There were no CAR reports or mention of complaints against the Mother in contact logs. If, in fact, neighbors did report suspected abuse, the SW procedure would have been to conduct an investigation and examination of the child. Perhaps the outcome could have been different had the neighbors been aware of CAR and how to report suspected child abuse. In the case of FV2, the SW made a recommendation to the court not to reunify this child. When a situation occurs where the agency’s recommendation is not followed by the court, the agency has no recourse. MV3’s case, five years after MV1, followed Best Known Practices (BKP) to the letter, and yet, the Father confessed to the murder of his son. SSA’s role in the protection of children and attempting to change the root causes of abuse is a national goal. The current Best Known Practice focuses on the best interests of the child, which is removing the harm from the child, either through reunification, adoption, or guardianship. According to the OC Child Death Review Team 2006 Annual Report from the office of the Sheriff-Coroner, in calendar year 2005, five children under the age of six died as a result of homicide. In 2000, the statewide Fatal Child Abuse and Neglect Surveillance (FCANS) program established a matrix to collect data on causes and circumstances surrounding child deaths. The broad scope of the matrix includes those deaths that may not have abuse and neglect as a contributing factor; however, that child may have had abuse and neglect as a part of his or 8 her life history. In 2005, 31 children in OC under six years of age were reported under the FCANS matrix. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings: F-1 CDSIRs have been effective in improving procedures within the agency. F-2 Brochures, pamphlets, and public service announcements about CAR are not widely distributed or displayed. F-3 The current Automated Call Distribution telephone system at CAR was purchased in 1998 and has reached its end-of-life. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-3 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
Despite the decline in the OCH population, OCH still maintains a staff of over 300 SSA employees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Social Services Agency should consider reducing staffing levels at Orangewood Children’s Home bringing staff to child ratios more in-line with the requirements set forth in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. (This recommendation arises from Finding F-1 and F-2.)
F2:
The staffing ratio to children at Orangewood is far more generous than 4 is mandated by California law.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
If the current philosophy of swift placement of children in familial or group homes remains in place, then other uses of Orangewood Children’s Home should be seriously examined. (This recommendation arises from Finding F-3.)
F3:
Orangewood Children’s Home has a very small population of children.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Social Service Agency should explore the possibility of privatizing some Orangewood Children’s Home services, such as medical services or group counselors, in order to reduce overhead costs. (This recommendation arises from Finding F-4.)
F4:
The labor burden of HCA employees working at OCH is approximately 30% of wages, and the indirect costs applied amount to another 23% of total of wages plus burden.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
SSA management should be more assertive and creative in quickly placing seriously emotionally disturbed children in facilities that are better equipped to handle these dependants. (This recommendation arises from Finding F-5.) 5
F5:
SSA management appears reluctant to place seriously emotionally disturbed Children, in a timely manner, in facilitates that meet their unique needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Orangewood Children’s Home should have an operational performance audit. (This recommendation arises from Finding F-6.) Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-5 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. A Response to Recommendations R-5 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Orange County Auditor and Controller, and is requested from the Orange County Chief Executive Officer (CEO). REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 6
F6:
The Orangewood Children’s Home has not had an operational performance audit recently. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-6 are requested from the Orange County Social Services Agency. A Response to Finding F-4 is requested from the Orange County Health Care Agency. A Response to Finding F-6 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Orange County Auditor and Controller and is requested from the Orange County Chief Executive Officer (CEO). RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
The over-all quality of the 28 Orange County School Districts and their individual school’s emergency preparedness plans are in need of much improvement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Orange County school districts should make sure that they and their individual schools have a SEMS equivalent plan, and these should be submitted to the Orange County Department of Education/Superintendent of Schools for review.
F2:
California Education Code 32288 requires that each school district or county office of education notify the State Department of Education, by October 15th of the year of discovery, of any schools that have not complied with section 32281. A Response to Finding F-1 is required from all 28 Orange County School Districts Superintendents. A Response to Finding F-2 is required from The Orange County Superintendent of Schools. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code section 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government agency to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Orange County Department of Education/ Superintendent of Schools should notify the State Department of Education by October 15, 2007 of any school that does not 8 have a comprehensive emergency preparedness plan that mirrors SEMS as required by California law. A Response to Recommendation R-1 is required from all 28 Orange County School Districts Superintendent. A Response to Recommendation R-2 is required from the Orange County Superintendent of Schools. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: § 933.05. Responses to findings (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed…This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. EXHIBIT 2 Standardized Emergency Management System Guidelines Part I. System Description Section A GENERAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION What is SEMS? The Standardized Emergency Management System is the system required by Government Code Section 8607 (a) for managing emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. SEMS consists of five organizational levels, which are activated as necessary: 1. field response 2. local government 3. operational area 9 4. regional 5. state SEMS incorporates the functions and principles of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Master Mutual Aid Agreement (MMAA), existing mutual aid systems, the operational area concept, and multi-agency or inter-agency coordination. Local governments must use SEMS to be eligible for funding of their response-related personnel costs under state disaster assistance programs. PURPOSE OF SEMS: SEMS has been established to provide effective management of multi-agency and multijurisdictional emergencies in California. By standardizing key elements of the emergency management system, SEMS is intended to: • facilitate the flow of information within and between levels of the system, and • facilitate coordination among all responding agencies. Use of SEMS will improve the mobilization, deployment, utilization, tracking, and demobilization of needed mutual aid resources. Use of SEMS will reduce the incidence of poor coordination and communications, and reduce resource ordering duplication on multi- agency and multijuisdictional responses. SEMS is designed to be flexible and adaptable to the varied disasters that occur in California and to the needs of all emergency reseponders. 10
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
Private profits are being made from the current procedures used in transferring the mooring permits located on the public tidelands in Newport Harbor. Because the mooring equipment and the vessel currently assigned to that mooring must be sold to the same person, when a vessel on a mooring is sold, the new owner transfers that mooring permit into his or her name, rather than vacating the mooring and allowing the waiting list to proceed in order. 9
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Tighten the regulations and procedures involved with Newport Harbor mooring permits and their transfers to ensure that all monies received which rightly belong to the public, stay within the public arena.
F2:
The offshore mooring areas now extend beyond the lines originally established by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1941.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Consider public access to available moorings through adopting a more effective waiting list.
F3:
Certain procedures adopted by the Newport Beach City Council regarding mooring permits are not enforceable because they are not included in the City’s Municipal Code.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Reestablish the original mooring boundaries.
F4:
The last assessment of the fair market value of mooring permit fees took place almost ten years ago.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Independently analyze and reestablish the City’s Municipal Code concerning the Harbor Regulations on moorings; have new procedures match corrected regulations rather than codifying, without review, what has become embedded as established practice.
F5:
Although a mooring permit can be held in the name of one (1) person only and the permit cannot be placed in a company name, exceptions have been made for certain private yacht clubs. Additionally, vessels and moorings are now registered in family trusts. After a principal’s death, the intent of a trust is to follow the vessel; however, there is an unjustified perception that this also includes the mooring permit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Review the Municipal Code on a regular basis to be sure that it incorporates the revised ordinances and procedures to allow uniform enforcement.
F6:
The County (1) follows State statutes and regulations concerning mooring and buoy permits and (2) along with the City of Newport Beach shares financial responsibility for funding the Harbor Patrol to provide management services; however, the County performs no oversight of the City’s regulations and procedures on a regular basis.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Establish a regularly scheduled independent appraisal for the fair market value of mooring permit fees, e.g., based on a percentage of the cost of a slip.
F7:
The Harbor Patrol follows the regulations and procedures set down by the City; however, they have begun re-enforcing certain, but not all, regulations, e.g., the derelict boat rule is being enforced but abandoned moorings are allowed. The result of this is that the harbor now seems cleaner; however, permittees are allowed to maintain moorings without vessels.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
Review the inclusion of yacht clubs and trusts as mooring permittees.
F8:
The mooring waiting list has not been reviewed or updated for years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
The City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange should review their ordinances to make sure that they are consistent with each other.
F9:
The majority of the current mooring permit fees fall below the Orange County Minimum Value Ordinance. Responses to Findings F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-7, and F-8 are required from the Mayor of the City of Newport Beach. Responses to Findings F-1 and F-6 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Findings F-7 and F-8 are required from the Orange County Sheriff- Coroner and Harbor Patrol. A Response to Finding F-9 is required from the Orange County Assessor. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to 10 be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
Review and update the mooring waiting list.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R10:
The Assessor Department should coordinate with the city to review the value of mooring permit fees on a regular basis to see if they rise above the Orange County Minimum Value Ordinance. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-9 are required from the Mayor of the City of Newport Beach. Responses to Recommendations R-1, R-2, R-6, R-8, and R-9 are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendations R-5 and R-9 are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Harbor Patrol. A Response to Recommendation R-10 is required from the Orange County Assessor. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
The engineering firms involved in rail crossing safety have a strong record of accomplishment in this process and the capacity to complete this project in a timely fashion does not seem seriously in doubt; however, the OCTA has fallen behind in their schedule.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The work proposed by the OCTA has fallen behind schedule. The OCTA should work with the affected entities to complete the construction on schedule by finalizing the various memoranda of understanding with impacted cities and vigorously proceed with the succeeding steps.
F2:
Impacted cities are strongly concerned about noise from OCTA/Metrolink train horns at railroad crossings. The cost of totally eliminating train horns county-wide through quiet zone corridor treatments of could be in the range of $50-$60 million.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The OCTA should create a comprehensive Quiet Zone program to preserve the quality of the environment and property values adjacent to railroad tracks. If the OCTA can mitigate freeway noise with sound walls to preserve the quality of life adjacent to freeways, alternative public transportation modes that may negatively impact the environment and property values should also receive comparable considerations, such as Quiet Zone applications.
F3:
It is unclear how the burden of cost for upgraded crossings will be shared by the OCTA and impacted cities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The burden of construction and inspection costs for these grade crossing treatments needs to be shared by the OCTA and impacted cities according to an agreed formula.
F4:
OCTA/Metrolink has an excellent safety program to inform the public on issues of concern to the public, including first-responder teams. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-4 are required from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors. Responses to Findings F2 and F-3 are required from the city councils of Anaheim, Fullerton, Dana Point, Irvine, Orange, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana and Tustin. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each finding will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. The 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings:
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
A timely and robust rail-safety education program in conjunction with Metrolink will have to be mounted by the OCTA, in various languages, to make the public aware of the increased service and potential risk at grade-crossings, and to counteract trespassing on railroad property. The upgrade in Metrolink service is unprecedented in local history and the impacted public should be made aware of the potential problems this may cause. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-4 are required from the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors A Response to Recommendation R-3 is required from the city councils of Anaheim, Fullerton, Dana Point, Irvine, Orange, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana and Tustin. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: 8 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. GLOSSARY 1. Quiet Zone: A corridor of railroad at least one-half mile in length equipped with grade crossing treatments that eliminate the need for the routine sounding train warning horns. 2. Subdivisions (or “subs”): A geographic segment of track between two specific points. 3. Betterment or cosmetic upgrades: Beautification treatments not related to safety. 4. Grade-crossing separation projects: Generally a bridge over or under a railroad that separates the railroad right-of-way from other cross traffic. 5. Delineation of the dynamic envelope: Signs and warning signals that inform pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists of the danger of grade crossings. 6. Channelization: Fences and other devices that direct individuals to a safe crossing location. 7. Increasing sight distance: Clearing obstructions that would hide safety warning devices and signage. 8. Raised medians: Curbs or barriers that prevent motorists from changing lanes at grade- crossings. 9. Flexible bollards: Rubber or soft plastic vertical “posts” that enhance medians and channelization of motorists. 10. Four –quadrant grades: Crossing grades that protect both the upstream and downstream highways and prevents “drive-around” violations. 11. Signal preemption: Signals that turn red at intersections adjacent to crossings at the approach of a train. 12. Federal Railroad Administration’s Final Train Home Rule of June 24, 2005: A series of rules for the applications of Quiet Zones. 13. Rolling Stock: Locomotives and passenger cars.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
There is an increasingly larger number of Registered Voters choosing to vote by Absentee Ballot.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Registrar of Voters must be aware of and prepared to explore the consequences of the increasing shift of voters to Absentee Ballots, then institute new procedures to handle their preparation to meet the challenge of this changing trend.
F2:
Pre-election, the Registrar of Voters relies heavily on two high-speed mechanized systems to generate and mail Absentee Ballots within statutory deadlines.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Registrar of Voters needs a second system or back up equipment should their Absentee Ballot preparation machines fail.
F3:
Pre and post-election, the hand preparation of the Absentee Ballots to be tabulated is labor intensive and time consuming. Tallying paper ballot results takes longer and it is no longer possible to get the majority of Absentee Ballots ready for tabulation before Election Day. 13
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Registrar of Voters should explore alternative Absentee Ballot tally preparation procedures.
F4:
Absentee Ballot instructions are complex and confusing to the voter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Registrar of Voters needs to explore the expansion of voter education outreach programs regarding both Absentee Ballot information and to clarify voting instructions. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-4 are requested from the Registrar of Voters. A Response to Recommendation R-2 is required from the Board of Supervisors. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 14 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 15
F5:
Absentee Ballots are playing an increasingly important role in election recounts. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-5 are requested from the Registrar of Voters. A Response to Finding F-2 is required from the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
HCA makes extensive use of contractors to implement Proposition 63. Eleven of sixteen services in the CSS Plan are provided by contractors as of March, 2007, with several other contractors pending approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Ensure that adequate resources are in place at HCA to audit contractor outcomes.
F2:
HCA staff monitors contractor activities extensively; however, HCA has little or no direct contact with SMI/SED clients. HCA Staff relies on information recorded on charts/logs by the Care Coordinators.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
HCA staff should conduct ride-alongs with the contractors’ care coordinators to develop a better understanding of the daily activities of the contractors’ personnel.
F3:
Training by HCA staff and training contractors of County employees and contractors providing MHSA services appears to be behind the schedule implied in the CSS plan.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
Devote more resources to training of County employees and contractors delivering actual MHSA services to clients.
F4:
A training contractor’s records of what training has been delivered do not match HCA’s CSS Plan implementation status reports. HCA’s status reports indicate that more training has been given than the contractor indicates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Clearly identify what training has actually been given and adjust CSS plan implementation status reporting to more accurately reflect the facts.
F5:
Multiple programs/contractors may cause overlap in service.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
A program performance audit of MHSA programs should be conducted by an internal or external auditor at the end of each CSS Plan cycle to ensure that services are not duplicated.
F6:
HCA’s management requires contractors/providers to contact HCA before scheduling meetings with the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
HCA should allow and not impede the ability of contractors and providers to communicate with the Grand Jury, if the contractors and providers so choose.
F7:
HCA has two CAT/PERT programs in place; Garden Grove and Westminster police department. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-7 are requested from the Health Care Agency. A Response to Finding F-1 is required from the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with the California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
HCA should collaborate with law enforcement in Orange County cities to expand the CAT/PERT program as additional Proposition 63 funds become available. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-7 are requested from the Health Care Agency. Responses to Recommendations R-1, R-5, R-6 and R-7 are required from the Board of Supervisors. REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared 12 for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 13