Grand Jury Continuity

The 2002-2003 Grand Jury was able to accomplish the following: a. Creating a Mission Statement to provide focus for its activities. b. Generating and summarizing a Complaint Log. http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0203/gjcontinuity.html (1 of 2)4/17/2007 3:07:49 PM County of Lake - 2002/2003 Grand Jury Report-Grand Jury COntinuity c. Indexing the past 12 years’ Final Reports. d. Reviewing Responses to the 2001-2002 Final Report. e. Indexing the contents of its office and organizing its files. f. Beginning a Procedures Manual specific to Lake County. g. Participating with the Grand Jury Coordinator in the interviews of potential members of next year’s panel. h. Writing a “Foreman’s Letter” to the new Foreman to share lessons learned. i. Attending the empanelment of the new Grand Jury and meeting with the Jurors.

The formal Responses of County departments/agencies and the Board of Supervisors to the prior year’s Final Report should be analyzed and tracked annually upon receipt by the following year’s Jury so as to evaluate what Recommendations were or were not implemented, and why. For the institution of the Grand Jury to have value, Recommendations must be devised that are implementable. If subsequent panels do not follow-up on earlier Recommendations, there will be less motivation for departments/agencies to act on them. RESPONSE REQUESTED: None RESPONSES: None. APPENDICES/HANDOUTS: Index of Final Reports Index of Responses to the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Final Report http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0203/gjcontinuity.html (2 of 2)4/17/2007 3:07:49 PM County of Lake - 2002/2003 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection 2002/2003 Grand Jury Report GRAND JURY SELECTION PROCEDURES PURPOSE: The Grand Jury was concerned about several aspects of its selection this term and wished to determine whether improvements could be made that would benefit future juries. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED: After identifying areas that interfered with our function and cohesion this term, consulting with the California Grand Jurors’ Association (CGJA) and other county grand juries, and formulating suggestions for changes, the Grand Jury met with Judge David W. Herrick, Presiding Judge of Lake County Superior Court and the Grand Jury’s supervising judge, and Eva Keiser, now officially the “Grand Jury Coordinator.” BACKGROUND: Although the term of each grand jury is set by statute to run from July 1 through June 30, the 2002-2003 Grand Jury was not seated until July 18, 2003. That date was just a week before the first of three training sessions held annually by the CGJA, which is as close to “official” training as is available to grand jurors. The late empanelment made logistics difficult for both jurors and County Administration. The Grand Jury also did not have enough time for local orientation and just simply getting to know each other better prior to the CGJA seminars. The more serious problems revolved around retention of jurors and filling of vacancies. The Grand Jury was comprised of its statutorily-required number of 19 only on the day of empanelment and ends up its term at 15 members, including only nine of the original panel. The total number actually seated over the year was 29. On several occasions, a quorum was not present for meetings. Juror attrition was caused most frequently by pre-selection misinformation regarding the time and attendance commitments necessary. This misinformation stemmed from the facts that the Court secretary assigned to selecting the Grand Jury had never performed that task before, was working with outdated Court materials, and had little direct communication with sitting grand jurors. Jury numbers were further decreased by the tragic death of one in an auto accident, the arrest of two, and the inevitable – but certainly predictable - http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0203/gjselection.html (1 of 3)4/17/2007 3:07:49 PM County of Lake - 2002/2003 Grand Jury Report -Grand Jury Selection toll of illness among the jurors or their families. Replacement jurors were hard to come by, despite the diligent efforts of Ms. Keiser to locate persons willing and able to serve. A number of the back-up jurors had changed their minds by the time they were later contacted. The continuing loss of so many jurors, including hold-overs, committee chairs, and those with CGJA training, not only was disruptive and disappointing, but substantially retarded the degree of cohesion and common knowledge and understanding necessary for effective functioning. The later jurors, having missed the CGJA training, and in the absence of organized formal in-house training, had only print materials and on-the-job-training available, resulting in longer learning curves. Even with CGJA training, at least six months is usually necessary to get up-to-speed. The Grand Jury commends Judge Herrick and Ms. Keiser for their commitment to, and energies on behalf of, improving the entire recruitment and selection process and for their openness to working with the Grand Jury to find solutions to the problems at-hand. FINDINGS:

The 2003-2004 Grand Jury should designate an ad hoc “Training Committee” to work formally with replacement jurors.

The 2003-2004 Grand Jury should invite Judge Herrick to Kelseyville for an informal session about mid-point in the year, as he is the one advisor who does not have a conflict of interest. The more he understands the issues confronting the Jury, the more knowledgeable and helpful he can be. RESPONSE REQUESTED: None RESPONSES: None APPENDICES/HANDOUTS: None http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0203/gjselection.html (3 of 3)4/17/2007 3:07:49 PM County of Lake - 2002/2003 Grand Jury Report - In-Home Supportive Services 2002/2003 Grand Jury Report IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (IHSS) PURPOSE The Grand Jury became aware of problems in the County’s IHSS program from the Clearlake Police Chief, newspaper articles, and the 2001-2002 Grand Jury Final Report. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED: The Grand Jury met with Cathy Maes, Chief of Social Services, and Norman Deter, Deputy Public Guardian/Adult Services Manager. They also obtained the IHSS Advisory Committee report on Public Authority Implementation, perused published articles and online reports regarding IHSS law and regulations, spoke with Kelly Cox, County Administrative Officer, and Carol Huchingson, Director, County Health Department, met with the Senior Law Project principal, and attended meetings of the Board of Supervisors to understand better the legal, financial, and political issues surrounding IHSS. The Grand Jury also talked to Detective Steve Brooks, the Sheriff’s Department’s chief investigator of elder abuse. BACKGROUND: The IHSS Program operates pursuant to the California Welfare and Institutions Code section 12300 and provides daily-living assistance to those eligible aged, blind, and disabled individuals who would otherwise be unable to remain in their homes without such assistance. IHSS is a mandated program in each county and is administered by the California Department of Social Services. County social workers determine eligibility for the IHSS program, assess a person’s need for specific services, and prescribe the time allotted for provision of those services. The Program consists of two components: The Personal Care Services Program (PCSP), which services are 50% federally reimbursable under the Medicaid program, and the Residual IHSS Program, which is funded exclusively with State and County monies. For the 2002-2003 fiscal year, statewide, about 75% of recipients are in the PCSP program and 25% are in the Residual program, whereas, in Lake County, 93% of the clients are in PCSP and 7% are in the Residual Program. Personal care services include assisting with administration of medications and with personal hygiene, eating, grooming, and toileting. http://www.co.lake.ca.us/generalinformation/grandjury/report0203/ihss.html (1 of 4)4/17/2007 3:07:50 PM County of Lake - 2002/2003 Grand Jury Report - In-Home Supportive Services Into the Residual group fall persons needing only domestic services (cleaning, laundry, shopping, and the like) needing protective supervision, those whose care is provided by spouses or relatives, those with incomes above a specified threshold, and recipients covered by third-party insurance. Clients can hire their own providers, and thereby become the provider’s “employer,” or can hire providers through a State-mandated “public authority” registry established by the County. Public authorities are required to do the following: The 1993 statute authorizing public authorities established that the State would continue its responsibility for payroll and for the provision of unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance. The legislation further provided immunity for the State and counties for personal harm to clients caused by IHSS providers. Counties were also required to create an Advisory Board that included IHSS consumers. Public authorities also offered providers new opportunities to bargain collectively with the counties for better wages and benefits. A bill passed in 2000, authorizes the State to pay 65% of the nonfederal cost of a series of wage increases for IHSS providers working in counties that have established “public authorities.” The wage increases began with $1.75/hour in 2000/01 (raising the base rate to $8.50/hour), to be followed by additional increases of $1 per year up to a maximum of $11.50/hour. The current wage is $ 9.50/hour. The bill also authorized State subsidy of health benefits worth up to $.60 per hour worked. IHSS is the State’s third largest, but is the fastest growing, social services program, due to caseload growth (more dramatically in the PCSP), increases in the hours of service per client, and higher wages for providers. Close to 60% of the recipients are seniors, and, as California’s population ages, the need to provide services to seniors will increase program costs. Another consideration is that, regarding the 40% of the caseload younger than 65, the younger clients are when they enter the IHSS program, the longer they are expected to receive services. The proposed 2003-04 State budget decreases the IHSS General Fund by about $1 billion, attributable to the Governor’s proposal to realign the IHSS program to the counties. Lake County’s share (not including the State or federal share) of IHSS is approximately 26% and is currently budgeted at $3.6 million, with Social Services expecting an overrun. There is always a two-year time lag between when the costs are incurred and when realignment funds are increased to cover higher caseloads. However, sales tax revenues dedicated to realignment fell short of funding the Sales Tax Account base amount in 2001-02 by 2.8%. As a result, counties will not receive any funds from the Caseload (growth) Sub- account, which reimburses county costs for entitlement programs, including IHSS.

Perform any other function related to the delivery of IHSS, and

Ensure that the requirements of the PCSP are met. FINDINGS