Score: +1 (1/0/0)

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2001-2002

Mental Health Services for Children The 2000–2001 Grand Jury provided several recommendations for improved Mental

Published: July 18, 2002 3 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings and Recommendations 6 findings

F1

The Mental Health response to Finding 6 states “In a collaborative effort it often appears that responsibilities are blurred.” This statement emphasizes the need for a written Memo of Understanding to clarify the roles of each collaborating agency. Other agencies and parents need to know who the responsible party is so they know whom to contact. The Grand Jury reviewed a 1996 DRAFT Memo of Understanding between Mental Health and the SELPA. The draft was never finalized.

No recommendations for this finding

F2

Recommendation E stated: “Mental Health research the possibility of coordinating with other County agencies to hire a staff psychiatrist for children, who would assess children, create treatment plans, and evaluate therapeutic interventions, as well as monitor medications.” The need for a child psychiatrist was not disputed, but the response stated it was unfeasible. They are not going to try. Having a child psychiatrist available in the County needs to be a future goal and Mental Health needs to find a way to collaborate with the Court, Probation Department, and the Department of Social Services, who also have a need for evaluation of children. Currently, County dollars are being spent for these services.

No recommendations for this finding

F3

Recommendation H stated: “Mental Health develop a means of evaluating their service delivery outcomes.” The Mental Health response stated they had submitted reports to the State. However, when asked for the reports, Mental Health stated that the “County submits raw data electronically to the State where it is transformed into a report.” Mental Health stated staff would obtain copies of the reports and forward them to the Grand Jury. The reports were never received. Nonetheless, raw data sent to the State is not an adequate basis for needed evaluations.

No recommendations for this finding

F4

Recommendation J stated “Children’s Mental Health develop and distribute to all school districts a specific written notice of services available to school districts and the procedures for obtaining those services.” Mental Health responded that the information had been given to the Special Education Local Plan Area Director; the BOS said the Grand Jury should ask the SELPA Administrator about how the information is distributed. The SELPA Administrator furnished minutes showing dates when Mental Health personnel gave presentations to the school district superintendents and an essay entitled “School Based Mental Health Services,” undated and no author noted. The three-page essay presents general statements about the need for school-based mental health services, but does not give specifics on what programs there are or who to contact at the Mental Health Department to arrange for services. Parents reported that Mental Health was not providing specified services for their children.

No recommendations for this finding

F5

Recommendation K stated: “Mental Health develop guidelines that are in accordance with the Education Code for positive behavioral interventions.” The response discounted the need for such guidelines; the

No recommendations for this finding

F6

Recommendation L stated: “Children’s Mental Health revise the Compendium of Services to be a readable, easily understood document that accurately provides a detailed list of services available.” The Recommendation Implementation Schedule for Recommendation L states: “Will develop a separate brochure/flyer focused on services for children,” in June 2002. Mental Health provided the Grand Jury with a revised Compendium of Services in May 2002. The Children’s Services section reports on some programs, but except for day treatment programs, contains no information about other services offered on school sites.

No recommendations for this finding

Comments 1

CO1

The Grand Jury commends the Ukiah Unified School District for installing a window in the quiet-room door of the Day Treatment Program classroom, and the classroom teacher for using positive behavior interventions and classroom procedures; when the Grand Jury visited the classroom this year, children were not isolated and no punishments were posted. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Department of Mental Health Director Mendocino County Special Education Local Plan Area Administrator 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 73

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

Mendocino College Board of Trustees Response and Title IX Review

July 18, 2002 • 93 pages • 3 responses • Score: +1 (+1, 0, 0) View Details ▾

PDF

3 responses to findings and recommendations

F1

The Mental Health response to Finding 6 states “In a collaborative effort it often appears that responsibilities are blurred.” This statement emphasizes the need for a written Memo of Understanding to clarify the roles of each collaborating agency. Other agencies and parents need to know who the responsible party is so they know whom to contact. The Grand Jury reviewed a 1996 DRAFT Memo of Understanding between Mental Health and the SELPA. The draft was never finalized.

Response: Unknown Score: 0

states in part: "The County does expect the Alliance to solicit contributions from the business community to be pooled with County funds." The Alliance response stated in part: "Private sector participants provide significant in-kind and cash resources as well." The Alliance has not provided information to the County to quantify private-sector participation and whether through cash or in-kind contributions. According to the Notes to Financial Statements September 30, 2001, the value of Donated Materials and Services included as contributions in the financial statements and corresponding expens...

F2

Recommendation E stated: “Mental Health research the possibility of coordinating with other County agencies to hire a staff psychiatrist for children, who would assess children, create treatment plans, and evaluate therapeutic interventions, as well as monitor medications.” The need for a child psychiatrist was not disputed, but the response stated it was unfeasible. They are not going to try. Having a child psychiatrist available in the County needs to be a future goal and Mental Health needs t...

Response: Agree Score: +1

also stated that at the end of the contract year "the Alliance is required to obtain the services of a Certified Public 2001-2002 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 78 Accountant to conduct a complete financial review of all books and records of the Alliance…. This requirement is usually cost prohibitive with minor funding requests." The Contract Item 8.A. states: "Contractor shall, at the end of the term of this Agreement, engage the services of a Certified Public Accountant for the purpose of conducting a complete financial review of all books and records of CONTRACTOR which pertain t...

F6

Recommendation L stated: “Children’s Mental Health revise the Compendium of Services to be a readable, easily understood document that accurately provides a detailed list of services available.” The Recommendation Implementation Schedule for Recommendation L states: “Will develop a separate brochure/flyer focused on services for children,” in June 2002. Mental Health provided the Grand Jury with a revised Compendium of Services in May 2002. The Children’s Services section reports on some program...

Response: Unknown Score: 0

states "In a collaborative effort it often appears that responsibilities are blurred." This statement emphasizes the need for a written Memo of Understanding to clarify the roles of each collaborating agency. Other agencies and parents need to know who the responsible party is so they know whom to contact. The Grand Jury reviewed a 1996 DRAFT Memo of Understanding between Mental Health and the SELPA. The draft was never finalized. 2. Recommendation E stated: "Mental Health research the possibility of coordinating with other County agencies to hire a staff psychiatrist for children, who would a...

Mendocino College Board of Trustees Response and Title IX Review

October 15, 2001 • 2 pages View Details ▾

PDF

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Mendocino County County