San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury • 2003-2004 • Agency Response

Vehicular Manslaughter Case Grover Beach Police Department The Grover Beach Police Department is required to respond to

Published: February 07, 2005 52 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 1 findings

Documentation from other agencies concerning children's situations is not consistently represented by CWS in the reports and recommendations it submits to the court. County Social Services Response: The Department wholly disagrees with this finding. The statutory responsibility of the Social Worker is to consider all available information- including the positions of other agencies and professionals-and to provide the Court with a recommendation. In an adversarial process, conflicting opinions are the norm more often than the exception; this is why each party in the courtroom-including the child, the child's parents, the Department and, sometimes, the foster or adoptive parents-is represented by an attorney. Individuals disagree and offer conflicting recommendations to the Judge or Commissioner who ultimately must make the decision. Some reports, e.g., any report submitted by the CASA, are provided directly to the Court and are not subject to "inclusion" by the Social Worker in the Department's report. It is not the job of the Social Worker to offer a menu of choices for the Court; it is the job of the Social Worker to consider the menu of choices and to provide a

Related Recommendations (1)

The GBPD should make every reasonable effort to train additional field personnel so that citations may be written at the scene, when appropriate. Grover Beach Police Department Response: All field personnel have been sent to a 40 hour traffic school that enables them to write a citation at a traffic collision scene if appropriate. In this case it would have been inappropriate to write a citation. A serious accident was under investigation that would take several weeks to complete. When citations are issued it is because the investigation is done at the scene, there is no additional follow-up and a violation has been committed. This case is a perfect example of why a citation should not be issued because it raises the spectrum of double jeopardy for the following reasons: A. Citation issued. B. Violator goes to court and pays fine for minor offense. C. District Attorney files major case against violator. D. Violator has major case dismissed because he has already plead to a lesser included charge and "double jeopardy" applies. For your information, there were supervisors at the scene and an Advanced Traffic Reconstruction Officer from Pismo Beach, who could have issued a citation if it had been 2 appropriate or necessary. The Chief, Lieutenant and Sergeant at the scene did not consider a citation as an option due to the seriousness of the accident and the ongoing investigation. A check with the experts in this field, the California Highway Patrol, confirmed that the issuing of a citation in this incident would have been inappropriate.

Comments 3

CO1

The Grand Jury mistakenly refers to the Department's revenue shortfall as a "CWS budget shortfall." In fact, as a review of the information related to that Board item would have revealed, the revenue shortfall had virtually nothing to do with Child Welfare Services.
CO2

The Grand Jury mistakenly states that the Department "reduce(d) CWS by 18.5 positions." In fact the reductions were absorbed almost entirely by divisions outside of CWS, and that no CWS Social Work positions were affected.
CO3

The Grand Jury might have considered reviewing the budget for Redesign; such a review would have revealed that the bulk of the funds received by the County has been used to support and maintain Social Work staff. Grand Jury Finding 15 With the current workload requirements, it is unrealistic for social workers to be expected to complete their work within the hours of a normal work week. County Social Services Response: The Department partially disagrees with this finding. In comparison to other counties and in comparison to the State's caseload standards, the Social Work staff of San Luis Obispo County is not carrying a disproportionately high caseload. Even so, the Department acknowledges that the State's caseload standards are unrealistic, and continues to work with the State and with our legislative delegation in an attempt to implement the results of the Legislatures caseload study. To that end, the Director of the Department has authored an article that will appear in a statewide publication in October, drawing attention to the issue of underfunding in Child Welfare Services. Grand Jury Finding 16 Some CWS social workers are working above their job classification. County Social Services Response: The Department wholly disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury offers no evidence in support of this finding. Individuals who believe that they are performing duties inconsistent with their classification have access to a process by which their concerns may be reviewed. No Social Worker has chosen to invoke that process. Grand Jury Finding 17 No social worker job analysis has been conducted to reflect the current technology and the work requirements under the Redesign. County Social Services Response: The Department wholly disagrees with this finding. The State of California commissioned an independent study of Social Work caseloads, pursuant to 1998's SB2030 (Costa); this study determined that caseloads would have to be reduced by as much as one-half in order to provide appropriate levels of service to children and families in Child Welfare, yet State leadership still has not enacted the study 41 results. Child Welfare caseloads continue to rise, even as funding for social worker staffing is reduced. The Department remains committed to advocating for the implementation of the study's findings. Training Grand Jury Finding 18 Newly-hired CWS social workers are not given adequate time for caseload and procedures orientation. County Social Services Response: The Department partially disagrees with this finding. We agree that the amount of preparatory education and training are insufficient to provide new Social Workers with the complete and comprehensive preparation for the job that only experience can provide. Nevertheless, the Department has taken steps to improve new worker orientation and training. In 2002, in response to a staff recommendation to establish a training unit, a Social Worker was moved into the Social Worker Trainer position. One of the tasks for this Social Worker was to work with supervisors and line staff in developing comprehensive induction training for all newly hired social workers. This task was completed in early 2003. The new hire curriculum includes a basic orientation to Child Welfare and outlines a progressive caseload increase to 100% over a 3-month period. Due to budget constraints, when this Social Worker left, her position was not refilled. A staff group continues to look at what is needed for a new Social Worker to succeed. We have not hired any new social workers during this period. Grand Jury Finding 19 Neither relevant training nor transition time is provided for CWS employees when they are reassigned to new work units or positions. County Social Services Response: The Department partially disagrees with this finding. The Social Worker Trainer position described above was used to assist in this function. Since that position has been vacant, the new supervisor assesses need, conducts and coordinates training. Staff Development has assisted when requested by the supervisor. Grand Jury Finding 20 Relevant training and continuing professional education for CWS social workers is limited. County Social Services Response: The Department partially disagrees with this finding. CWS Social Workers attend the Central Academy "Core" Modules. This training is given to all Public Social Services Social Workers throughout the state to meet the statewide standards of competencies needed to be a public CWS social worker. In addition, each year our Department offers opportunities for training that meet the licensure requirements of many of our staff. Examples of trainings that were offered last fiscal year include 42 Ethnic Parenting Practices and Domestic Abuse: Dynamics and Intervention. As stated before, we offered, on-site in our county, a complete series of the Core Modules and the Foundations of Supervision Modules to ensure that all of our staff has this important foundation. In addition to these "professional" trainings we train on new procedures and processes as we implement the required changes for AB636. Grand Jury Finding 21 There is no provision for training social workers or managers for: a) the culture change required by the Redesign, and b) team dynamics to support the demands of CWS requirements for teamwork. County Social Services Response: The Department wholly disagrees with this finding. Since 1998, the Department has educated/trained staff on the cycle of change, team processes and conflict resolution techniques. As part of the change process, all CWS staff participated in a SWOT process to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats within the organization. As a result of the SWOT, several staff driven committees were formed to address the identified issues and needs. These committees included but were not limited to ones to address communication and staff support. This participatory process has allowed numerous staff