2003-2004 Grand Jury Final Report

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F30, F33, F36

Comments 8

• CO1
  During a tour, the Grand Jury noted the apparent positive attitude, mutual trust, and respect among the staff.
• CO2
  The Grand Jury commends the Juvenile Hall for low staff turnover, which maintains a consistency of care important to youth.
• CO3
  The Grand Jury encourages the staff of Juvenile Hall to review this Report.
• CO4
  The Grand Jury recognizes the Juvenile Work Program was a valuable program for Juvenile Hall, Probation Department, and the Juvenile courts. Response Required Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Response Requested Chief Probation Officer Juvenile Hall Superintendent 14 Mendocino Transit Authority Overview Introduction The Mendocino County Grand Jury performed an oversight of Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA). The last oversight of MTA by the Grand Jury was performed in 1986. Methods of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the MTA Administration and various MTA employees, performed an onsite visit to the Ukiah MTA facilities, reviewed Budget and Operations documentation, the 2003 fiscal audit, and the Joint Powers Agreement between the Mendocino County Administrator and city governments, and interviewed the Executive Director of Mendocino Council of Governments, (MCOG), which is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) responsible for distributing transportation funds to MTA. Background Information In 1972, the State of California formed state-wide RTPA to make sure dollars were available to provide transportation throughout the state. This legislation designated one quarter cent of the sales tax be set aside for 48 state-wide RTPAs. This amounts to approximately $2.5 million for MCOG, depending on sales tax revenue. MCOG’s priorities are:
• CO5
  The Grand Jury recognized the County budget constraints and the need to trim budgets, however not to provide fire suppression for these mission critical services while promoting and funding private business interests presents a significant risk to the County operations that depend on DIS services. Response required: Board of Supervisors Response Requested: Department of Information Services 7 A Review of the Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Planning and Building The Code Enforcement Division (CED) of the Department of Planning and Building (DPB) is mandated by and responsible to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) to enforce building and code regulations in Mendocino County, ensuring the health and safety of the public. Introduction The Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Planning and Building does not make a meaningful contribution to the DPB primary responsibilities, as articulated by the DPB. The 1997-1998 Grand Jury found the DPB was unable to adequately monitor code violations and the DBP concurred. These conditions remain uncorrected today. Code Enforcement Officers (CEO) view their mission as one of goodwill ambassadors rather than enforcing building and zoning code regulations. The DBP has been burdened for many years with a perennial and growing backlog of unresolved violations/complaints for building and zoning code violation cases. Each year this backlog has increased while the number of cases opened has declined by 33 percent over the past four years. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury did not include the vehicle abatement function of the division in its investigation. The Grand Jury interviewed the Director of Planning and Building, Code Enforcement Officers, supporting staff of the Code Enforcement Division and staff from the County Counsel’s Office. Detailed reviews were conducted of departmental records including over 450 opened and closed violation/complaint cases, that were filed by the public as well as those filed by the Department’s Building Inspectors for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. 8 The Grand Jury reviewed Code Enforcement Division policies and procedures, past Grand Jury reports and vehicle maintenance records.
• CO6
  The Grand Jury commends the MTA general manager for his excellent grant writing skills. Response Requested: Mendocino Transit Authority 19 MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACTED SERVICES FOR CHILDREN/YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES IN MENDOCINO COUNTY Introduction The 2003-2004 Grand Jury conducted an overview of the mental health contracted services available for Children/Youth, and their families in Mendocino County. Mendocino County Department of Mental Health, contracts with three organizational providers: A. Mendocino County Youth Project B. Redwood Children’s Services Inc. C. Tapestry Services Inc. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury interviewed the Director the Mental Health Department, Assistant Director Mendocino County Department of Social Service. The Directors of the following; Organizational Providers; Tapestry Family Services Inc., Redwood Children’s Services Inc., and Mendocino County Youth Project. The Grand Jury visited Mental Health Department Crisis Service Center, Tele-psychiatry center, Tapestry Family Services, Redwood Children’s Services, and the Mendocino County Youth Project. The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: State of California Codes, charts, budgets, Mental Health Department 2003-2004 Compendium of Services, Organizational Providers Policy and Procedure manuals, and Memorandum of Understanding and contracts. Organizational Providers Organizational Providers Services under the Managed Care Plan are required to follow regulations as defined in Title 9, Section 1810.227 of the California Code of Regulations. Each organization provides a qualified staff member to serve on the Multi-Provider Screening Team.The Mental Health Department Organizational Provider manual defines the following three designated levels of service; Level One is for families seeking counseling regarding issues that result in behaviors classified as “mild”. Level Two services is for families seeking counseling regarding behaviors that are moderate and chronic (lasting more than 6 months). Level Three services are for severely emotionally disturbed. 20 Mendocino County Youth Project Introduction Program services include: Share Youth Crisis, Crossroads Youth Drop in Center, Schools, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment, Juvenile Hall, Family Enhancement, and Peer Helping Programs. Offices are located in Ukiah, Willits, Fort Bragg and Point Arena.
• CO7
  The Grand Jury recognizes the Mental Health Department Compendium of Programs and Services publication for Mendocino County, as a valuable resource. The Grand Jury commends organization providers for the valuable services they provide to children/youth and their families in Mendocino County. The Grand Jury recognizes the Crossroad Program was a valuable service for youth in Mendocino County. The Grand Jury commends RCS for pioneering a very specialized Transitional Housing Placement Program as one of nine statewide agencies that participated in a pilot program to prepare older adolescents, with special needs, for independence and for the ten THPP graduates, employed or/and attending school. Response Requested Mendocino County Department of Mental Health Department of Social Services Mendocino County Office of Education 25 Parlin Fork and Chamberlain Creek Conservation Camps Introduction Pursuant to Penal Code Section 919(b), the Grand Jury is mandated to inquire into the conditions and management of the prisons within the county. Method of Investigation Grand Jury members toured both Parlin Fork and Chamberlain Conservation Camps including the Water Treatment plant and the working sawmill, located at Parlin Fork and the cabinet shop located at Chamberlain Creek. The Grand Jury interviewed California Department of Corrections (CDC) and California Department of Forestry (CDF) officers and several inmates. The 2002-2003 reports of the State Board of Health, Board of Corrections and State Fire Marshal’s reports and inspections were reviewed.
• CO8
  The Grand Jury commends the staff for extensive mentoring and skill development programs offered to inmates. The volunteer work and donations to charitable groups such as the Make-A-Wish Foundation and Victims of Crime is to be commended. 27 The work crews of these minimum-security camps are to be applauded for their efforts that enhance and contribute to saving lives, homes, and property through forestry maintenance, fire prevention and protection. Parlin Fork and Chamberlain Creek Conservation Camps are well maintained, organized and are an impressive asset to Mendocino County and the State of California. Response Requested California Department of Forestry California Department of Corrections 28 2002 – 2003 Grand Jury Final Report Editing Production Distribution Summary The Mendocino County Grand Jurors Manual, Mendocino County Foreperson’s Handbook, Penal Code Sections 916, 933, 933.05, Charge to the Grand Jury by Presiding Judge, opinions of the District Attorney and County Counsel provide ample structure and guidance for the process of editing, production and distribution of the Grand Jury’s Final Report. Ineffective leadership allowed a small group to violate the Grand Jury report process outside of mandated and agreed upon procedures and guidelines. Some Grand Jury reports were edited and publicly distributed without the consent of knowledge of the Grand Jury. A Grand Jury report that was disapproved by the fuill panel was included in the final bound report. Grand Jury reports were not always approved by the Presiding Judge and County Counsel. The Final Report distribution did not comport to Penal Code Section 933 or Grand Jury Rules of Procedure for mandated documentation including admonitions, confidentiality statements, and instructions for responding. The Final Report public distribution was by personal delivery, postal mail, and e-mail and did not include several subjects of the investigation or the Presiding Judge. The Board of Supervisors (BOS) were provided with a report that was represented as a final public report. That report was subsequently altered prior to public release. Reason for Investigation The 2003-2004 Grand Jury noted only partial compliance with Penal Code 933.05 in the responses to the Grand Jury’s 2002-2003 Final Report. Method of Investigation The Grand Jury reviewed the Mendocino County Grand Jurors Manual, Mendocino County Foreperson’s Handbook, Penal Code Sections 916, 933, 933.05, the Charge to the Grand Jury by Presiding Judge, opinions of the California Attorney General, District Attorney and County Counsel. The Grand Jury Interviewed past Grand Jury members as well as sitting members of the 2003-2004 Grand Jury. Past Grand Jury files and computer records that related to the editing, production, and distribution of its reports were reviewed. In addition report distribution documentation was acquired from County Counsel and subjects of the past 29 Grand Jury’s investigations. The 2002-2003 Grand Jury Final Report posted on the county web site was also reviewed.

No Responses Found 1

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