The Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (sarms)

Commendations 1

• CM1
  The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recognizes the exceptional performance by the Director of the Health and Human Services Agency and the Director of Child Welfare Services, and their staffs. During the course of a separate investigation that did not generate a report, the Grand Jury focused on the issue of disproportionality of minority children in the foster care system and what percentage of these children were in fact reunited with their immediate families. CWS staff, acutely aware of this problem, is actively participating in the California Disproportionality Project and has implemented two region-specific projects to combat the disparity. Though the number of minority children in the foster care system is high, the efforts to reunify the family unit is a central focus and the numbers are directly in line with those reflected on the State level. We found that measures are in place to ensure a high probability of family reunifications. The Director of the Health and Human Services Agency and the Director of Child Welfare Services and their staffs, are hereby recognized for their focus, dedication and exemplary work in both understanding and facing the challenges associated with the issue of disproportionality of minority children in the juvenile justice system, foster care services, and successfully managing family reunification efforts during the height of this budgetary crisis. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such 9 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009/2010 (filed May 25, 2010) comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) 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) 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 time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame 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 time frame 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. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code §933.05 are required from the: Responding Agency Recommendations Date Chief Administrative Officer 10-55 through 10-59 8/23/10 County of San Diego 10 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009/2010 (filed May 25, 2010) BIBLIOGRAPHY Children’s Advocate, Drug Court is Beautiful! Nov.-Dec. 2003, Leslie Albrecht Painting The Current Picture: A National Report Card On Drug Courts And Other Problem- Solving Court Programs In The United States, National Drug Court Institute, Bureau of Justice Assistance; C.West Huddleston, III, Douglas B. Marlow, J.D. Ph.D., Rachel Casebolt, May 2008, Volume II, No. 1 Effective Management of Parental Substance Abuse in Dependency Cases, 2004, Hon. James R. Milliken (RET.), Gina Rippel, J.D., M.S.W. Human Services In A Time Of Economic Crisis: Human Services Spending Stimulates The Economy, Beacon Economics Report, April 2009 Spending On County Human Services Programs In California: An Evaluation Of Economic Impacts, Jon Haveman, Beacon Economics, Eric O’N.Fischer, Ph.D. Cal. Polytechnic State University, Fannie Tseng, Ph.D., Berkeley Policy Associates, March 17, 2009 “A cost-Effectiveness and Cost Benefit Analysis of Contingency Contracting – Enhanced Methadone Detoxification” by the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Hartz, D.T., P Meel, Etc. (1999) NIDA, Principles Of Addiction Treatment, 1999. 11 SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRAND JURY 2009/2010 (filed May 25, 2010)

No Responses Found 1

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