Contra Costa County Grand Jury • 2016-2017

to Public Legal Representation? Maintaining a Stable Environment for our Special Education 1611 School Children and

Published: June 17, 2016 350 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 74 findings

F1 Page 56
With the exception of Community and non-Community wells, the County is not required to provide oversight of individually owned wells; aside from permitting well construction and inspecting wells upon completion.
F2 Page 56
Improperly maintained wells or wells that are located too close to surface contaminants or failing septic systems risk contamination, which also may lead to the contamination of neighboring wells.
F3 Page 56
Improperly abandoned wells or undocumented wells can threaten groundwater quality because improper construction or maintenance may result in breaches in these wells that permit ground contaminants to reach potable water in lower water bearing strata.
F4 Page 56
The lack of a comprehensive and readily accessible County database of wells hinders the ability to track wells to assure they are either properly maintained or correctly abandoned.
F5 Page 56
EHD and the County Assessor can access DWR well log data, water district backflow preventer installation records, and related historical data that tie well locations to specific property parcels.
F6 Page 56
Residents of the County who live in disadvantaged communities are more likely to have their sole potable water source come from domestic wells, which have fewer checks on water quality than municipal water sources derived from surface water. County Flood Control and EHD have the data to assess those most at risk. With this information they would be able to develop projects eligible for Proposition 1 matching grants, i.e., projects that could enhance water quality and reduce risk of well contamination during flood conditions.
F7 Page 56
A “Groundwater Advisory Council” may coordinate stakeholders to help achieve the water-related goals and policies articulated in the County General Plan, as well as raise public awareness about groundwater issues in the County.
F8 Page 56
There is insufficient data to confirm either a maximum sustainable withdrawal rate or storage capacity for any of the groundwater basins within the County.
F9 Page 56
The County can choose to support the formation of GSAs for “low” and “very low” risk basins, even though not required by the SMGA.
F10 Page 56
GSAs can be helpful in elucidating how much available groundwater exists within a defined basin; how much water can be sustainably withdrawn on an annual basis or during an emergency and in helping stakeholders reach agreement about who is entitled to withdraw from a groundwater basin.
F11 Page 57
Three GSA agencies are in the early stages of formation: one for the East Bay Plain, one that incorporates the “thumb” of the Livermore Valley Basin, and one for the Tracy Sub-Basin.
F12 Page 57
Approximately $100 million has been allocated by Proposition 1 (2014) to support GSAs in developing sustainability plans.
F13 Page 57
Based on historical records and more recent hydrological studies, the City could access more groundwater for landscape watering and emergency purposes.
F14 Page 57
To help establish the Pittsburg Plain basin’s sustainable yield and storage capacity, the City of Pittsburg could initiate formation of a GSA for this basin.
F15 Page 158
Since early recognition of potential trouble spots and prompt repair work are critical to maintaining levee integrity, while resources for levee patrols are limited, the presence of an educated and aware residential population can supply additional eyes to provide the constant vigilance that is crucial to safeguarding the levees.
F16 Page 158
In addition to permitting procedures and intermittent newsletters, there are other opportunities to educate the public, and especially residents of reclamation districts, about the hazards that can damage or impair the levees.
F17 Page 158
Explaining the hazards to levees by multiple means at appropriate times -- i.e., just before the start of storm season in the fall – can help to keep awareness at a heightened and effective level.
F18 Page 158
Efforts to educate and raise public awareness could be enhanced by cross- departmental and/or cross-agency cooperation such as including Flood Control safety bulletins with other seasonally appropriate, apt-to-be-read or mandatory mailings such as property tax bills or voter information packets.
F19 Page 158
It takes nearly 2 years from the application date for reclamation districts to receive reimbursement for levee maintenance work approved by DWR under the Subventions Program.
F20 Page 159
The cost of the initial funding required of reclamation districts under DWR’s Subventions Program can be prohibitive for some reclamation districts, resulting in under-utilization of this highly beneficial program.
F21 Page 159
Some reclamation districts that are unable to maintain the staff, equipment, and material stockpiles needed for emergency major repairs, rely on informal mutual- aid arrangements.
F22 Page 159
Planning agencies can require that developers who seek to develop areas within reclamation districts financially contribute to existing levees as a condition of approval of their proposed developments, as was done with the East Cypress Corridor Plan for residential development in the interior of Hotchkiss Tract, Reclamation District 799.
F23 Page 159
The feasibility of interagency cooperative ventures to accomplish levee improvements has been demonstrated by multi-agency coalition for to improve the levees in Reclamation District 2028, Bacon Island.
F24 Page 233
The Brentwood Schools, the COE, and the CBOE do not maintain a record by special education school location for the reason of staff turnover, e.g., transfer, resignation, retirement, etc.
F25 Page 233
The COE publishes School Accountability Report Cards (“SARC”) on its website that provide an annual picture of the schools in the County under the auspices of the COE.
F26 Page 233
While there are published SARCs for several special education locations, the data published, other than the front page, does not accurately pertain to the schools named.
F27 Page 345
Neither the Brentwood Schools nor the COE have a written protocol concerning who should complete, review, and respond to incident reports.
F28 Page 345
At times, incident reports at the Brentwood Schools have not been given to the school psychologist for review prior to being finalized, as required in the verbal briefings to school staff.
F29 Page 345
The incident report form used at the Brentwood Schools requires the class teacher of the student involved in the incident, school psychologist, and principal to sign the form.
F30 Page 345
Incident reports at the Brentwood Schools were sometimes completed by an Instructional Assistant.
F31 Page 345
It was reported that police were called to the Brentwood Schools on a number of occasions.
F32 Page 345
There is no written protocol requiring the Brentwood Schools to maintain a record of police visits, nor to require them to report the event to the COE.
F33 Page 345
The Brentwood Schools do not provide their staff with a handbook to inform them of school protocols and complaint procedures.
F34 Page 345
Instructional Assistants at the Brentwood Schools are not provided a handbook concerning rules and requirements related to the job.
F35 Page 345
The COE publishes School Accountability Report Cards (“SARC”) on its website that provide an annual picture of the schools in the County under the auspices of the COE.
F36 Page 345
While there are published SARCs for several special education locations, the data published, other than the front page, does not accurately pertain to the schools named. From report 1612, Foster Care: The Background section of the Foster Care report ( ) identifies approximately 1500 children who are under the jurisdiction of the County’s Welfare Services.
F37 Page 345
The attrition rate of families in the County who are willing to foster children is high.
F38 Page 345
Many potential foster parents have been eliminated from the list of currently available foster parents, after it was found that they were only interested in adopting and were not willing to take in older foster youth.
F39 Page 346
The County uses FFAs (non-profit Foster Care Agencies that are not County run) after first trying to locate suitable potential homes in the County system.
F40 Page 346
The foster caregivers identified through FFAs are sometimes more experienced, and receive more support and training from the FFA.
F41 Page 346
FFA social workers have lighter caseloads than County social workers.
F42 Page 346
There is a shortage of available, qualified foster homes in the County, as evidenced by the 384 youth that are currently located in out-of-county foster homes.
F43 Page 346
The County has not performed a “gap” analysis to specifically identify the type of foster homes most needed.
F44 Page 346
There is a shortage of foster parents willing and able to take in teenagers.
F45 Page 346
Foster family recruitment efforts have not kept up with the need for foster families.
F46 Page 346
The CFS recruiting position, which is the position that is responsible for foster parent recruitment, has not been filled and is currently staffed by one person on a half-time basis.
F47 Page 346
CFS is not accumulating information to help measure outcomes of County foster youth and determine which providers are the most effective (where applicable).
F48 Page 346
Mental health professionals do not participate in the new CFS Continuous Quality Improvement process.
F49 Page 346
The County Mental Health Department does limited screenings/assessments of new foster youth.
F50 Page 346
CFS Placement staff often does not have a complete mental health diagnosis, suggested treatment plan, or prognosis prior to placing a new foster youth with foster parents.
F51 Page 346
Ongoing mental health therapy for foster youth is frequently not as effective as it could be because it is difficult to arrange and often interrupted due to the movement of youth between foster homes.
F52 Page 346
Out-of-county placement strains the resources of CFS both monetarily and in terms of staff time as CFS staff have to travel to wherever the foster youth is located.
F53 Page 347
CFS is experiencing significant challenges in coordinating with all the necessary agencies involved to meet the requirements of AB 403.
F54 Page 347
Current MOUs or job classifications do not permit sufficient flexibility to allow for mental health professionals to respond after hours to situations that arise in the treatment of foster youth.
F55 Page 347
Based on the current costs of Group Home care, millions of dollars of State support money will be saved when foster youth transition to individual foster families.
F56 Page 347
High level executives at FFAs frequently recruit foster parents, whereas lower level line personnel usually perform this function at the County. From report 1615, Truancy:
F57 Page 347
Based on truancy rates during the 2014 - 2015 school year, the County ranked among the worst in the State, 46th out of 58 counties.
F58 Page 347
Based on chronic absences during the elementary school year 2014 - 2015, the County ranked last out of the nine Bay Area counties.
F59 Page 347
Not all County school districts comply with the requirement found in California Education Code section 15497 that each district collect, track and report its chronically absent rates in an annual LCAP.
F60 Page 347
The COE (County Office of Education) does not currently know the chronically absent rates for all of the County’s school districts because the COE lacks relevant data needed to perform the analysis.
F61 Page 347
To identify students with attendance issues and quickly address these issues, the school district needs complete and accurate data about attendance and a well- developed support infrastructure.
F62 Page 347
(Each) school district has its own software system for collecting attendance information and its own process and standards for collecting, storing and utilizing the truancy attendance information gathered, which are not necessarily the same as other districts in the County.
F63 Page 347
Without a centralized attendance system or compatible software among school districts, it is challenging to get a complete picture of a student’s attendance profile and patterns over multiple years or across districts.
F64 Page 347
Some school districts have little communication with other school districts and the COE about best practices, common achievement goals, and best data systems regarding attendance.
F65 Page 348
The California Attorney General, Kamala Harris’ 2015 report, “In-School and on Track”, indicates that over 80 percent of chronically absent students in kindergarten and 1st grade are unable to read at grade level by 3rd grade. These students are four times more likely to drop out than children who can read at grade level.
F66 Page 348
[Some cities in the County do] not have a daytime curfew.
F67 Page 348
[Cities that have] and enforce a daytime curfew see less daytime and juvenile crime.
F68 Page 348
Chronically absent or truant students, who do not get back on track before age 18, are more likely to drop out of high school before graduation.
F69 Page 348
Parent and Truancy Courts offer attendance support and are one of the last opportunities to alter a student’s attendance behavior.
F70 Page 348
Attendance improvement programs used by the County’s Juvenile Courts, such as the Lincoln Child Center, ankle monitors, drug and mental health counselors, and tutoring classes, lack long-term funding.
F71 Page 348
The school districts that have Truancy or Resource Officers who connect directly with students, help get chronically absent or truant students back on track.
F72 Page 348
There is currently no teen truancy court in the WCCUSD (West Contra Costa Unified School District) area.
F73 Page 348
The WCCUSD does not provide sufficient staff to process chronically absent students through the Parent or Truancy Court in Martinez. NEW FINDING IN THIS REPORT, BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS.
F74 Page 348
The present levels of personnel, support, and financing are inadequate to protect the County’s children in need.

Recommendations 17

Conclusions 8

No Responses Found 1

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

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office