📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 6 findings
F1
The most overriding message that the Jury received during this (530) 841-2134 - Phone (530) 841-4094-Fax investigation was the need for a Representative Payee program in Adult Protective Services. Without the RP program many senior citizens whose Katherine O'Shea, Ph.D., Director only impairment is the inability to manage their financial affairs could end up Social Services Division subject to conservatorship. This not only costs the conserved senior their 818 South Main Street Yreka, CA 96097 right to self-determination, it also is far more costly to the county coffers. (530) 841-2700-Phone (530) 841-4399- Fax
F2
The SA6 is doing a good job of make seniors aware of elder abuse, but the Jury believes they need include a/J ages in their awareness campaigns. Several recent cases of elder abuse have been reported to authorities by grocery clerks, pharmacy technicians and bank tellers, indicating that people are willing to get involved provided they know what to watch out for.
F3
Participation in the SA6 monthly meetings has dwindled from a high of 45 or so people to a core group of 8 - 10, and many agencies have stopped coming at all.
F4
It is very important to have a permanent Jaw enforcement representative on the SA6. A lot of the initial impetus for SA6 came from a detective with the Sheriff's office. Due to changes in shift and responsibilities he is no longer able to participate at the previous level.
F5
While the emphasis on fighting elder abuse has been rightfully placed on its victims, it is also necessary to consider the perpetrators. Many elder abuse victims refuse to cooperate with authorities because they are protecting their relatives or friends. If some consideration was given Response to 2012-2013 Grand Jury RE: Elder Abuse September 11, 2013 to helping the perpetrators overcome addiction, assistance with job hunting, etc., victims may feel less reluctance in coming forward.
F6
Recommendation number six requests that all critical school and district personnel should become familiar with the CISD and CISM procedures. Unfortunately, the Grand Jury did not speak to the most "critical personnel" about CISD and CISM procedures and training. The district superintendent and the district's head counselor (along with two principals) have been trained in and are familiar. with the CISD and CISM procedures. In the event that a traumatic event takes place in one of our schools the superintendent (with the assistance of the district head counselor and principals) is responsible for orchestrating any and all critical incident stress management procedures and debriefings. It is my belief that finding number six is unfounded. I appreciate the fact that the Grand Jury spent time and energy investigating SVUSD and that the narrative portion of the report was, for the most part, accurate. However, I must respectfully disagree with all six of the findings brought by the Grand Jury. Sgince,re lty, r ~ Dr. Bryan L. Caples District Superintendent Scott Valley Unified School District October 17, 2013 Siskiyou County Administration Attention: Becky Sloan P.O. Box 750 Yreka, CA 96097 RE: Scott Valley Unified School District Watchdog Report by 2012-2013 Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury Dear Civil Grand Jury, County Administrator, Board of Supervisor's and County Counsel; On behalf of the Scott Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees and pursuant to the requirements of California Penal Code Section 933C, I have enclosed our required responses to the 2012-2013 Final Report of the Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury. We have carefully reviewed the Grand Jury's findings, and recommendations in accordance with subdivision (b) of Section 933 and have enclosed our responses within. Respectfully submitted, f!h~., tJflwi,y; Charnna Gilmore Scott Valley Unified School District Board of Trustee, Board President Cc: Dr. Bryan Caples, Superintendent, Scott Valley Unified School District Debbie Miller, Principal, Etna Elementary School, Fort Jones Elementary School Allen Carver, Principal, Scott Valley Jr. High, Scott Valley Community Day School Bruce Bishop, Principal, Etna High School, Scott River High School Kermith Walters, County Superintendent, Siskiyou County Office of Education Jennifer Thackeray, Scott Valley Unified School District, Board of Trustee Christine Hullquist, Scott Valley Unified School District, Board of Trustee Tammi Bennett, Scott Valley Unified School District, Board of Trustee Scott Pynes, Scott Valley Unified School District, Board of Trustee 11918 Main Street, Fort Jones CA 96032 530.468.2727 www.svusd.us RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT Report Title: Scott Valley Unified School District Watchdog Report Report Date: 2012-2013 Notice and Receipt Date: August 21, 2013 Response Date: October 20, 2013 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: • I (we) agree with the Findings and Recommendations: None • I (we) disagree wholly or partially with Findings and Recommendations: Finding 1, Finding 2, Finding 3, Finding 4, Finding 5, Finding 6 We, the Scott Valley Unified School Board, understand and appreciate the purpose and the intention of the Siskiyou County Civil Grand Jury and reporting process. It assures the community for which we serve that we are performing the duties of a school board, in a manner accordance to federal and state policies. We viewed this process as an opportunity to be analyzed and to get direct feedback and possible criticism on areas, which we may have fell short on and/or areas needing improvements. It is appears that Scott Valley Unified School District (SVUSD) may have been chosen for this process as a result of our unification process. We thank you for your comprehensive look at our school district, and your recognition of the many fine programs and services we offer for our students, employees and communities. We would also like to thank you for your recognition of our exemplary test scores, which are a reflection of the hard work of our students, their teachers and other school employees, and the dedication and expertise of our administration. The last section of the report has six findings and subsequent recommendations. It is this portion of the report, which we are responding to, pursuant to the requirements of California Penal Code Section 933C, and would like our response noted and accompany all future use of the said Grand Jury report. Response to Grand Jury Report - SVUSD School Board 1 FINDING 1: "After unification, one of the most difficult tasks was taking the various policies and procedures from each of the individual school and writing a single, comprehensive set of policies and procedures. Whenever a new State or Federal law or regulation is enacted, that must be incorporated into the District's policies and procedures. The California School Board Association may also send out new policies, which must be reviewed and adopted into the District policies and procedures. The Superintendent oversees the revisions and presents them to the School Board for review and ratification. Revising and rewriting policies and procedures is a continuous process." RESPONSE: Reviewing policy and procedures is a constant and continual activity within the Scott Valley Unified School District It involves the Superintendent, the District staff, teachers, classified staff, community members and the SVUSD Board. SVUSD has and still does, subscribe to the California School Boards Association's recommended policy program, Gamut Online, which allows us to incorporate all mandated State and Federal regulations into our board policies. We can and do revisit, revise and/or replace policies as needed or as set by law. There is no finding stating SVUSD is not actively "revising and rewriting policies and procedures" as this process is done on a continual basis, therefore we reject this finding.
Recommendations 9
-
R1The Human Services Agency should investigate the relative costs of Representative Payee versus Conservatorship and decide which is better for the individual and the county. If it is not feasible to have an in-house RP program, the HSA should investigate contracting with a private RP.
-
R2Elder Abuse awareness campaigns should include speaking with all segments of the community. In addition to talks given at senior citizen lunches, SA6 should also target service organizations, businesses and high schools. The more people who are watching out for our senior citizens the harder it becomes for those who prey on them. A booth at the county fair and pamphlets outlining the problems and possible solutions should also be considered.
-
R3An attempt should be made discover why so many agencies have dropped out, fix those problems and get them involved again. Agencies that have ceased involvement due to territorial or philosophical disputes need to get over themselves and remember that compromise is not a dirty word. Cooperation, not competition is the key to combating elder abuse.
-
R4The Sheriffs Office should assign a deputy or detective to attend the 1-hour per month SA6 meeting. It would also be nice if a representative of the Yreka Police Department also attended. Perhaps a rotation can be worked out allowing law enforcement personnel from other agencies to attend.
-
R5As is the case with domestic violence, elder abuse can only be fought, and hopefully eradicated by paying attention to both the abused victim and the abuser. The safety of the victim must come first, but if nothing is done to improve the circumstances of the abuser then the vicious cycle will be perpetuated.
-
R6''All critical school and district personnel should become familiar with both the CISM and CISD procedures. These procedures should implemented when traumatic events occur in the Scott Valley communities." RESPONSE: We will continue ensure proper training on our procedure effectiveness for dealing with future traumatic events. Response to Grand Jury Report - SVUSD School Board 7 Office of Public Administrator matter:
-
R7-The obvious recommendation would be to provide alternate route to the visitation area and individual secure cubicles for visitation; again, totally impractical in the present facility. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION #7 The visitation area and individual secure cubicles will be reconfigured as part of the preliminary planning for the new jail facility.
-
R8- The Jury commends that the maintenance be continued even though the facility is old and will eventually be replaced. The jury further recommends that the site selection, funding, design and construction of a new jail proceed with utmost haste. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION #8 The Board of Supervisors concurs with Grand Jury Recommendation #8 and site selection for a new jail facility has been completed and the county is in initial stages of selection an architectural firm for design services. Final construction will be dependent on available funding and future resources for operation.
-
R9- It is recommended that CCO provide statistics on the success rate of these programs and the costs per successful rehabilitation. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION #9 The Board of Supervisors concurs with Grand Jury Recommendation #9. Brandon Criss Ed Valenzuela Michael Kobseff Grace Bennett Marcia H. Armstrong District 1 District2 District3 District4 Districts COUNTY OF SISKIYOU PROBATION DEPARTMENT CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER TODD HEIE MEMO TO: SISKIYOU COUNTY GRAND JURY ADULT DMS!ON 805 JUVENILE LANE YREKA, CA 96097 FROM: TODDHEIE ~ (530) 841-4155 CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER~ fax (530) 841-4157 DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 RE: RESPONSE TO SISKIYOU COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT: SISKIYOU COUNTY PROBATION JUVENILE DMS!ON 269 SHARPS RoAD Response to Recommendation #1: YREKA, CA 96097 (530) 841-4180 With regards to contracting with other Counties to place ·minor's in our fax (530) 841-4188 juvenile hall, the idea has been considered numerous times over the years. We actually did have a contract with Modoc County a few years ago but they only used it for one minor. The primary problem is that most Counties do not have general fund dollars sitting around to pay the $100.00 average daily cost to house a minor in another County. Even if they did, the amount of revenue would nowhere near balance out the cost of staffing the currently CHARI.IE BYRD empty pod, which has been estimated to be in excess of one million dollars YOUTH CORRECI10NS CENTER per year. Nonetheless, I meet regularly with the Chief Probation Officers' of 269 SHARPS Ro. neighboring Counties and will certainly keep my ears open for any interest in YREKA, CA 96097 housing their youth in our juvenile hall. (530) 841-4185 fax (530) 841-4188 Response to Recommendation #2: As referenced above, it has been estimated that it would cost over one million dollars per year to open the currently unused pod in the juvenile hall. You essentially have to double your juvenile hall staff, as minimum staffing requirements would apply to each pod at all times. We would also be extremely hard pressed to keep an appreciable amount of youth in a second pod given the lack of need and money for other Counties to place their youth in our facility. Also, if the idea were to only open the second pod every time the population exceeds 20 minor's, it would create a logistical nightmare as far as staffing goes. In other words, it would have to either always be open and staffed, or not at all. Each pod contains 20 beds, and our population has been as low as six youth in recent months. Nonetheless, I will continue to brainstorm ways of utilizing the space which, it is my understanding, cannot be re-purposed until at least 1O years after the grant DEPT. MAnlNG was awarded. Re-purposing the facility is also extremely problematic as ADDRFSS: there are strict rules on not mixing adults with juveniles within a facility. ~~!\:1'0c,OUNTY 805 JUVENILE LANE YREKA, CA 96097 ~ "':> . ' r ' J , • ) ju. J s~: -?,; -<::> &>M-1 ••• --~ .~<:i~ Board of Supervisors Response to the FY12/13 Grand Jury Juvenile Hall matter: