📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ 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 74 findings
F1
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1602 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
F11
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
Approximately $100 million has been allocated by Proposition 1 (2014) to support GSAs in developing sustainability plans.
F13
Based on historical records and more recent hydrological studies, the City could access more groundwater for landscape watering and emergency purposes.
F14
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
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
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
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
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
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. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1607 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
F20
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Neither the Brentwood Schools nor the COE have a written protocol concerning who should complete, review, and respond to incident reports.
F28
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
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
Incident reports at the Brentwood Schools were sometimes completed by an Instructional Assistant.
F31
It was reported that police were called to the Brentwood Schools on a number of occasions.
F32
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
The Brentwood Schools do not provide their staff with a handbook to inform them of school protocols and complaint procedures.
F34
Instructional Assistants at the Brentwood Schools are not provided a handbook concerning rules and requirements related to the job.
F35
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
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
The attrition rate of families in the County who are willing to foster children is high.
F38
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. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1616 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
F39
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
The foster caregivers identified through FFAs are sometimes more experienced, and receive more support and training from the FFA.
F41
FFA social workers have lighter caseloads than County social workers.
F42
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
The County has not performed a “gap” analysis to specifically identify the type of foster homes most needed.
F44
There is a shortage of foster parents willing and able to take in teenagers.
F45
Foster family recruitment efforts have not kept up with the need for foster families.
F46
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
CFS is not accumulating information to help measure outcomes of County foster youth and determine which providers are the most effective (where applicable).
F48
Mental health professionals do not participate in the new CFS Continuous Quality Improvement process.
F49
The County Mental Health Department does limited screenings/assessments of new foster youth.
F50
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
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
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. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1616 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
F53
CFS is experiencing significant challenges in coordinating with all the necessary agencies involved to meet the requirements of AB 403.
F54
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
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
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
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
Based on chronic absences during the elementary school year 2014 - 2015, the County ranked last out of the nine Bay Area counties.
F59
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
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
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
(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
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
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. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1616 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
F65
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
[Some cities in the County do] not have a daytime curfew.
F67
[Cities that have] and enforce a daytime curfew see less daytime and juvenile crime.
F68
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
Parent and Truancy Courts offer attendance support and are one of the last opportunities to alter a student’s attendance behavior.
F70
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
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
There is currently no teen truancy court in the WCCUSD (West Contra Costa Unified School District) area.
F73
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
The present levels of personnel, support, and financing are inadequate to protect the County’s children in need.
Recommendations 18
-
R1As funds are identified or become available, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing EHD to update their website alerting domestic well owners about the risks of not periodically checking the water quality of their potable water wells, and preparing an informational brochure containing the same cautionary information.
-
R2As funds are identified or become available, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing appropriate County departments to review the well records and databases of DWR, water districts, and the County to document well locations, develop a county-wide database, and map the locations as an overlay on the County GIS.
-
R3As funds are identified or become available, the County Assessor should consider verifying that the assessed value of each parcel reflects the presence or absence of wells by reviewing assembled well data and, where discrepancies between records are identified, confirming whether a well exists and its status, active or abandoned.
-
R4As funds are identified or become available, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing EHD and the County Flood Control District to jointly review proposed flood control projects to determine how to design or modify the projects to protect local wells, and the groundwater below, in DACs.
-
R5The Board of Supervisors should consider establishing a Groundwater Advisory Council to further promote public awareness about groundwater conservation and protection.
-
R6The Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County Water Agency to become involved in the formation of GSAs in the County and to periodically report to the Board on the status of each GSA. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1602 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
-
R7The Board of Supervisors should encourage each water district whose sphere of Influence overlays “low” and “very low” priority groundwater basin in the County to form a GSA to analyze its groundwater basin and determine its potential for expansion and exploitation.
-
R8As funds are identified or become available, the City should consider consulting hydrological specialists to provide advice about the best locations for accessing groundwater for landscape irrigation and emergency purposes.
-
R9As funds are identified or become available, the City of Pittsburg should consider forming a GSA for the “low priority” Pittsburg Plain groundwater basin in order to establish its practical sustainable yield and maximum storage capacity.
-
R10The Board of Supervisors should direct CFS to formulate CSEC training programs, containing different emphases for different County departments, interacting with victims of CSEC.
-
R11City Councils and Sheriff’s Department should direct law enforcement to avail themselves of CSEC training programs formulated by CFS.
-
R12After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County’s Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to establish a task force or initiate a staff study to investigate ways to encourage and facilitate grant-seeking coalitions of urban water agencies and/or other beneficiaries of the levee system, on smaller-scale projects with shorter time horizons than those currently being investigated by the Delta Protection Commission (i.e. similar to but including even smaller-scale projects than the Bacon Island improvement coalition).
-
R13After identifying the necessary funding, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the County’s Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to establish a task force to investigate possible ways for the less-advantaged reclamation districts to obtain interim funding, including but not limited to grants or low-interest rate loans, to cover the initial two-year lag-time to obtain reimbursement for essential levee maintenance work from the Subventions Program.
-
R14The COE should consider requiring that information in forms completed during exit interviews concerning reasons for employment termination at the Brentwood Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1611 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Schools be categorized so that specific trends can be detailed for use in recruiting and retaining employees and this accumulated data can be reduced to an annual report to the CBOE and made available to the public; after identifying funds to do so.
-
R15The COE should consider creating SARCs applicable to Special Education programs that track data such as performance, progress of the special education programs and IEP goals met to give a true picture of the effectiveness of the programs offered.
-
R16The County should consider creating an easily accessible, online central repository with all relevant information on deed-restricted housing units to assure that inventory of AH is maintained, and identify funding to do so.
-
R17The City should consider adopting a policy to promulgate, enforce, and promote a daytime curfew. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1615 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
-
R22In many cases, students of different ages may be mixed together in a single classroom according to their mental capabilities, to sustain continuity of learning. It is vital that the learning environment in special education schools be one of compassion and serenity to foster the learning process, notwithstanding the behavior issues that may arise with special needs children. Those personnel involved with special needs children must be compassionate, properly credentialed, and trained to administer to the “special” needs of special education children. They must have the confidence and support of the students, their parents and school administrators. For at least the past three years staff reports persisted of a hostile work environment at two of the COE special needs schools, which are located in Brentwood (subsequently referred to in this report as the “Brentwood Schools”). During this period, a number of qualified teachers claimed they sought transfers, had retired or were forced out by the principal when they expressed concerns about the school environment. A number of these complaints were communicated through union representatives to the COE. However, the complaints were not resolved to the satisfaction of the teachers and staff at the Brentwood Schools until the complaints were aired at public meetings of the County Board of Education in the fall of 2015. At the Board’s October 21, 2015 meeting, a representative of the teachers’ union announced that a majority of teachers Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1611 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury at the Brentwood Schools had signed a “vote of no confidence” in the principal of the Brentwood Schools. The complaints were raised again by teachers and others at the County Board meeting on November 4, 2015. Shortly thereafter the principal of the Brentwood Schools resigned and a replacement was appointed by the County Superintendent of Schools. The matter took years to squarely address because teachers and staff at the Brentwood Schools perceived there was no clear and protected procedure in place for filing complaints with the COE about their principal without fear of retaliation. Further, the problem might have been resolved after it was first brought to the attention of the COE and CBOE had those bodies acted decisively at the onset of the complaints. The Grand Jury recommends that appropriate and well understood internal complaint procedures be put in place that assure employees and teachers that complaints about working conditions supported or tolerated by higher-level administrators will receive professional attention from the Superintendent’s office or the CBOE without fear of retaliation or adverse treatment. Acronyms COE = Contra Costa County Office of Education (Superintendent) CBOE = County Board of Education (Trustees) IEP = Individual Education Plan SELPA = Special Education Local Plan Area IA = Instructional Assistant (Classified employee) CTA = California Teachers Association (Teacher’s union) Local One = Classified employees union IR = Incident Report UCP = Uniform Complaint Procedures SARC = School Accountability Report Card
Conclusions 6
-
CL1Fair and sensible pension reform remains an urgent priority for the County. The costs of its pension obligations continue to rise despite the PEPRA reforms of 2013. The largest liabilities on the County’s most recent financial statement relate to pensions: its net pension liability of $925 Million and its outstanding pension obligation bonds of $329 Million. Despite the size of this obligation the County has only limited options to manage it. The size of the liability will depend each year on the investment results of the CCCERA pension fund. Because of legal precedent in California that has not yet been challenged, the County has not negotiated with its labor organizations over the rates of future pension benefits to be earned. Such benefits should in our judgment be included in collective bargaining negotiations. To do so, the Board should seriously consider various avenues to challenge the California Rule in court. Such a change would be supported by sound legal arguments and could yield the County, if successful, an important tool to move forward on pension reform through collective bargaining. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1603 Page 15 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
-
CL2Public assistance programs in the County totaled about $185 million in benefits in 2015 for roughly 10,000 recipients. Fraud detection efforts to weed out overpayments, fraud, and criminal activity have been underperforming compared to efforts statewide and in six (6) other bay area counties. Fraud referral cases declined to below 1 percent in 2015. This coincided with the drop in the number of welfare fraud workers and Welfare Fraud Investigators at EHSD. In July 2015, the County took the first step to improve welfare fraud prosecution by sending 300 referrals to the DA’s Office. Since the number of welfare fraud referrals Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1608 Page 18 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury has also increased, EHSD is actively recruiting additional Welfare Fraud Investigators and two additional full time staff in the overpayments unit. Most of the salaries and benefits of Welfare Fraud Investigators, EW, overpayment workers, and DA staff come at little cost to the County because they are reimbursable by CDSS. In addition, CDSS has increased the incentive for fraud recovery to 12.5 percent of all fraud recovered in the CalWorks, CalFresh and In-Home Supportive Services programs. Through these mechanisms, the County could fully staff welfare fraud programs at little cost. The issue of Public Assistance Fraud is an important one for the County, and one which must be addressed to ensure that public funds are awarded only to needy and qualified recipients, and that those who steal public funds are properly punished. Investigation and prosecution sends a message to the county taxpayers that their taxes are being used for problems that need to be fixed. Finally, when the County acts as a welfare fraud watchdog, criminals and people willing to commit fraud are discouraged from doing so.
-
CL3As attention to the extent and consequences of human trafficking has grown, law enforcement in Contra Costa County has made significant strides in investigating suspected trafficking and prosecuting the traffickers. Identifying and assisting the victims remains a significant challenge, requiring the coordinated efforts of both law enforcement and the community. The operating guidelines for victim identification and assistance under development by the Zero Tolerance Coalition should include a comprehensive action plan for addressing both law enforcement issues and victim needs similar to that used in Alameda County. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1609 Page 12 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
-
CL4Being a foster parent is not easy and requires special skill sets and training to succeed. While there are many reasons people become foster parents, some people do so because they have a higher calling based on love of another human being or as a commitment to their spiritual faith. The deadline for full implementation of AB 403 is January 2019. This allows the County limited time to react and respond to the challenge of finding, training and supporting enough parents willing to foster children who have extreme mental health or other needs. The County needs to redouble its efforts to locate, recruit and support more kinship and foster care givers, enhance its current programs, seek more funding to support the transition of youth now in group homes, as well as to provide in-county space for those youth placed in out-of-county care. This work must be done in time to comply with the January 2019 deadline set and to provide the County’s most vulnerable youth with more permanent care, and avoid what one interviewee described as “a train wreck waiting to happen”. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1612 Page 13 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
-
CL5We can no longer afford to ignore the housing crisis in the County. AH is imperative as we plan for the future. Middle class families and professionals cannot afford to enter the housing market in the communities in which they work. Evicted renters become homeless, because they cannot afford escalating housing cost increases. The Bay Area News Group reports almost daily about the shortage of AH. Cities and counties do not generally build the houses. However, we look to our city and County boards and planners to lead us into a future community where we can all afford to live and thrive. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1614 Page 21 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
-
CL6An empty seat in the classroom means a child is not getting the education they deserve and need to succeed in life. The reason a child does not attend school regularly can vary, be complex and require significant support, or be as simple as needing a bus pass. If we never find out what the barrier is then we have failed to help that child receive the education they deserve. And if we do find out, but then lack the infrastructure or ability to help, then we have failed. The County has caring and competent school administrators who understand the importance of a child being in school. District superintendents and staff understand what is required of them. With the new LCAP, which requires more structure and purpose around taking attendance, many struggle with a lack of a well-developed strategy and infrastructure. Districts with certain (State designated) student populations qualify for LCFF funding and have an opportunity to use those funds to significantly reduce their chronically absent rates. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1615 Page 19 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury The COE could provide strong leadership to train, facilitate and assist school districts in working more closely with each other to improve the County’s ADA. A higher ADA rate is a “win-win” result that deserves greater resources and attention by the districts and the COE. With a modest investment, and strong leadership the County can help the school districts improve their overall attendance. Attendance is not just something we should do but rather an indicator of how a child is doing in life. In this fast-paced modern society, there is little time to catch up once you fall behind. Early focus on elementary school attendance is a cost effective way to improve long- term educational outcomes, and in turn, improve lives. With a concerted effort and a designed plan, student attendance can improve. The County’s school districts should make sure they have done all they can to provide its children with the educational skills needed to compete and succeed in today’s rapidly changing world. Contra Costa County 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report 1615 Page 20 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Contra Costa County
County