Gran Jurado del Condado de Placer
2013-2014
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 (3)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
The Older Adult Advisory Commission (OAAC) is advisory only. It is a county-wide volunteer advisory commission, which has no budget, meets monthly, reports to the BOS once yearly, and has no direct authority to act. The OAAC has been given no responsibility for creating a five-year plan, nor does it have the resource capacity to do so. It primarily functions as an interagency coordinator and information sharing group.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
County staff should research collaboration models such as Nevada County’s Aging Disability Resource Connection (ADRC) Program.
F2:
The BOS agrees that the needs of the county’s seniors and disabled population ought to be addressed by a plan. Stating that it will happen in the future lacks the specificity that the response requires.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
With county staff recommendations, the BOS should designate an existing agency to take the lead, to seek grant funding, and to move the ADRC model forward to service providers.
F3:
It is not clear how the $100,000 contract for the multi-generational facility feasibility study would fit into a five-year plan in terms of service to the senior and disabled population. Conclusion The Board of Supervisors and county staff need to reconsider their response to 2013-2014 Grand Jury Final Report with reference to applicable Penal Code section(s). The focus should be on the necessity for a five-year plan to meet the needs of a growing older and disabled population in the county.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Involve the Director of HHS as a proponent of the ADRC model and have key staff research the model in order to become subject matter experts in how to adapt the ADRC model to meet Placer County needs within the next fiscal year.
F4:
of last year’s Grand Jury Report identified the need for the county to develop a five- year plan that will address the needs of its predicted growing senior and disabled populations. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) response to that finding appears to be incomplete.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
If it is determined that the ADRC model is not appropriate as a five-year plan for Placer County, then the county should implement another model for providing necessary single points of entry into a long-term support and services system for older adults and people with disabilities.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R5:
Provide a time frame for the implementation of these recommendations in accordance with subdivision (b)(2) of Penal Code § 933.05. Request for Responses: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Placer County Board of Supervisors R1 – R5 September 22, 2015 175 Fulweiler Ave. Auburn, CA 95603 Mr. David Boesch R1 - R5 August 24, 2015 Placer County CEO 175 Fulweiler Ave. Auburn, CA 95603 Copies Sent to: Mr. Jeff S. Brown Director, Placer County Health and Human Services 3091 County Center Dr. #290 Auburn, CA, 95603
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
During interviews, school district personnel indicated that they either have implemented, or are implementing, mechanisms for the safe reporting of bullying and cyber-bullying.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Schools should continue to develop and refine mechanisms for the safe reporting of bullying and cyber-bullying.
F2:
Some schools do not have a means for anonymous reporting.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Schools with no provisions for the anonymous reporting of bullying should create them. As part of their response, all schools are to provide a copy of their anonymous bullying reporting policy.
F3:
Schools are measuring the effectiveness of the programs, but with a few exceptions, do not yet have enough data to draw statistically valid conclusions.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Schools should continue to measure the effectiveness of their anti-bullying policies and utilize that data to improve school climate, including creating a safe environment for all.
F4:
Schools are utilizing PBIS to collect behavior data that includes bullying incidents.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Schools utilizing PBIS should continue its use and foster its expansion to other schools as training is available.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R5:
of that report is that: “Schools should develop a comprehensive means to evaluate the effectiveness of their anti-bullying programs and policies. Schools should conduct semi-annual anonymous surveys of the student body to measure the effectiveness of anti- bullying programs. In addition to gathering information regarding the amount and type of bullying that the student has experienced, the survey should seek student perceptions of the attitudes of teachers and administrators toward bullying.” The current Grand Jury wanted to know: How the schools are measuring the effectiveness of their programs. If changes were made to the Placer County schools policies and procedures to assure a safe environment for reporting bullying. Definitions: Bullying may include any physical or verbal act or conduct by an individual or group of individuals, including communications made in writing or electronically, that a student has or may reasonably be predicted to experience fear of harm to their person or property, a detriment to their physical or mental health, an interference with their academic performance, or with their ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities or privileges provided by a school or county office program. Cyber-bullying may include the creation or transmission of harassing communications, direct threats, or other harmful texts, sounds or images on the Internet, social media, or other technologies using a telephone, computer or any wireless communication device. Cyber- bullying also includes breaking into another person’s electronic account and assuming that person’s identity in order to damage that person’s reputation. Source: Placer County Office of Education Policy SR 5131.2 (a). Investigation Methods The investigation was performed through interviews, reviewing documents and the responses to the 2013-2014 Grand Jury Report. Specifically, the 2014-2015 Grand Jury: Interviewed the leadership of the Placer County Office of Education (PCOE), several school district superintendents, as well as high school and middle school principals. Reviewed policies regarding bullying and harassment provided by school administrators and County Office of Education management. Reviewed 2013-14 Grand Jury report and the 13 responses received in response thereto. One member of the Grand Jury was recused to avoid any conflict of interest and the appearance of bias. Facts Placer County Office of Education has updated its anti-bullying policies. Schools are aware of bullying as an issue; some schools are ahead of others. In particular, 49 schools in Placer County have implemented PBIS. There are 110 public schools in Placer County, including alternative high schools and public charter schools. The following school districts have graduated enforcement policies that could result in suspension or expulsion of a student for bullying and/or cyber-bullying: 1. Placer Union High School District 2. Roseville Joint Union High School District 3. Rocklin Unified School District Not all schools have a means for anonymous reporting. Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS) is a Program developed by the University of Oregon with support from University of North Carolina “to establish the social culture and behavioral supports needed for a school to be an effective learning environment for all students.”.1 PBIS emphasizes four integrated elements: (a) data for decision making, (b) measurable outcomes supported and evaluated by data, (c) practices with evidence that these outcomes are achievable, and (d) systems that efficiently and effectively support implementation of these practices. PBIS has a data collection component that allows schools to generate reports. PBIS collects both “behavior data” (who, what, where, when) and “fidelity data” (how the plans are being implemented). Schools using PBIS have teams of staff (administrators, certificated, non-certificated, parents) that analyze data to measure the effectiveness of the program and develop solutions to problems. For most schools, there has not been enough baseline data collected in PBIS to develop trends showing if the school’s programs are effective in reducing bullying incidents. Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility reports that using PBIS has led to a decrease in poor behavior incidents since they began using the program in February, 2013. Placer County Office of Education, PCOE Board Review “Student Support Services” October 9, 2014, http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/pcoe/Board.nsf/files/9PMN7N5CD799/$file/PCOE%20Board%2 0Overview%20of%20PBIS%2010%204%2014.pdf
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
14 hallazgos
F1:
The Historic Courthouse holding facility is well maintained and well managed.
F2:
Some gang related graffiti was noted on one of the doors in the office area.
F3:
The rear area of the courthouse does not have security cameras in place.
F4:
The large grass outdoor recreation area is not regularly used for detainee exercise or recreation. This lack of use is due to the fact that the area is less secure, more accessible to the street, and would require more staff to monitor activity.
F5:
The JDF has not experienced a PREA audit, but feel their policies and procedures fully comply with requirements.
F6:
Medications being taken by incoming detainees are reviewed and evaluated by the JDF Doctor. The JDF Doctor may consult with the detainee’s physician and parents to determine the requirement for these medications. If the JDF Doctor authorizes the medication, it is delivered to the facility by the parents. The final decision is at the discretion of the JDF Doctor. Conclusion The Grand Jury found the JDF to be clean, well maintained, and well staffed with trained personnel.
F7:
Inaction and delays on the part of the NESD have jeopardized the likelihood of this project being completed prior to the start of the 2014 – 2015 school year.
F8:
As the Grand Jury understands it, the current plan will result in two fire hydrants with flow of about 1,200 gallons each for a total flow of 2400 gpm rather than the required one hydrant with a flow of 1500 gallons. This is a satisfactory resolution to the original problem. The upgrade will replace an old section of water pipe installed in the 1940s, thus increase reliability of the water delivery system.
F9:
A single line supply would leave the school with no water for fire fighting in case of catatrophic failure of the line. For this reason, the NFPD increased the 5000 gallon requirement that the NESD provide tanks on-site to a total of 15,000 gallons capacity 88 2013-2014 Placer County Grand Jury as a backup measure to assure water availability in the event of catastrophic failure of the water supply source to the hydrants. A desirable loop connection from the Kentucky Greens development, which should also allow sufficient flow to meet the 1500 gpm minimum standard, will be planned for the future when future development is approved. Cost for that loop connection would be borne by the developer, not the NESD. After a loop connection is made there will no longer be need for the 15,000 gallon on-site water storage because if one line has a failure, water will still flow through the other side of the loop.
F10:
The fact there has been no action in regards to addressing the below standard flow of the fire hydrant is related to the facts that the school was originally constructed to standards in existence at the time of construction and the State School Board does not require upgrading to current fire code standards unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
F11:
Parents of students volunteered to clear brush on school property and have partially cleared the brush. The NESD has approved a contract for brush removal.
F12:
Responsibility for Ethics Training/Records - Often it is the fire chief or board secretary who takes responsibility for reminding and keeping records of board members’ completion of Ethics Training. It can be an awkward situation when district employees have to oversee their board members. It might be helpful if one County entity were responsible for assuring Ethics Training requirements are complied with rather than a specific employee of the Fire District. For instance, the County Clerk’s Office does a fine job in overseeing that all required officials (including Special Fire Protection District personnel) provide required annual Form 700 (Financial Disclosure Statements). Since the Clerk’s Office is the department that collects Form 700 (Assuming Office Statements) for newly elected officials, it seems logical for it to oversee reminders and maintenance of records pertaining to Ethics Training for all elected officials in the County, rather than the CEO’s Office, or each individual Fire District. Topic 3 – Miscellaneous Administrative Functions
F13:
Policies and Procedures - There is a wide disparity between what is included in the Policies and Procedure manuals of the Fire Districts. Generally, personnel policies for firefighting and emergency rescue services of the various Fire Districts are thorough and consistent. However, policies regarding Board member activity and training are not always included.
F14:
Consolidation of administrative services - The majority of interviewees expressed a need for some sort of consolidation of the Fire Districts in Placer County, at least in regards to combining administrative functions. This process has already begun with the sharing of fire chiefs in a few of the small, single fire station districts. 126 2013-2014 Placer County Grand Jury
Recomendaciones adicionales
5
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
The removal of gang-related markings by repainting the existing door, or by replacing the door.
R2:
The installation of security cameras in the rear parking areas so as to reduce the potential risk to court personnel. 21 2013-2014 Placer County Grand Jury
R3:
The Department should continue to explore opportunities for funding computer access to other regional police/fire departments by officers in the field, and for good coordination within its own dispatch center. 43 2013-2014 Placer County Grand Jury
R4:
All Placer County high schools assign separately colored parking permits for provisional licensed drivers and regular drivers. Permit contracts would have a reminder of VC 12814.6, signed by both student and the legal guardian(s), and clearly note the date when the provisional term expires. This parking permit would be exchanged for the permit of a different color when the driver has completed his/her provisional driving term. 76 2013-2014 Placer County Grand Jury
R5:
All Placer County high school parking lots be posted with signs stating “California Vehicle Code Strictly Enforced, including VC 12814.6”.