Section IV Health and Social Services Committee

Recommendations 41

• R57

  Page 145
  The 2003/2004 Fresno County Grand Jury continue to monitor the progress of the implementation of security improvements throughout the County of Fresno.
• R60

  Page 145
  The 2003/2004 Fresno County Grand Jury continue to monitor the progress of the consolidation of school transportation.
• R62

  Page 91
  The Fresno County Human Services System expand the concept of “one stop” Regional Centers to other areas of the County of Fresno. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #62: The County of Fresno agrees with the findings regarding the Human Services System “One Stop” Regional Centers. The recommendation requires further analysis, and implementation will depend on funding availability and partnering with the community. The concept of expanding regional centers to other areas in the County reflects the long-term goals of the County and the Human Services System. Opportunities for partnering with community leaders, community-based organizations, and other governmental agencies continue to be explored. Implementation of the recommendation for new Center development in both rural and metropolitan areas will depend on available funding for both start-up and ongoing operational costs. FOSTER CARE IN FRESNO COUNTY Recommendations The 2002-2003 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
• R63

  Page 94
  A documented placement policy for foster children be completed and implemented by the Department of Children and Family Services. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #63: Fresno County agrees with the finding that at the present time there is no documented policy regarding placement of foster children. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented after a comprehensive review of placement practices has been completed. A commitment was made by Fresno County in April 2003 to adopt the Family to Family approach to redesign and reconstruct the local foster care system. Training and implementation of this approach is targeted to begin in January and continue throughout 2004. The goal is to use the Family to Family Model to develop policies and procedures for placement and monitoring of placement practices.
• R64

  Page 94
  A plan for increased supervisory visits to foster homes be established and implemented by the Department of Children and Family Services. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #64: Fresno County disagrees with the finding that oversight visits to foster homes are infrequent and usually in response to complaints and problems. Mandated visits in foster homes are addressed in the State Department of Social Services Regulations Manual, Division 31 policy. Current practice is based on, and in compliance with, Division 84 31 policies and applicable California Welfare and Institutions Codes. However, the recommendation for a plan for increased supervisory visits to foster homes deserves further analysis and will be evaluated in the context of placement policy development.
• R65

  Page 95
  The Fresno County Board of Supervisors continue to provide strong backing and active support to the Foster Care Standards and Oversight Committee. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #65: Fresno County agrees with the finding that there is a good working relationship and much interaction between the Foster Care Standards and Oversight Committee and the Department of Children and Family Services. The recommendation for the Board of Supervisors to continue to provide strong backing and active support to the Committee has been implemented and will continue throughout 2003-04. Supervisor Susan Anderson is an active member of the Foster Care Standards and Oversight Committee. Committee bylaws were taken to the Board of Supervisors in September 2003 for approval for Committee member participation in lawfully constituted multi-disciplinary review teams that review cases involving child abuse or neglect and in Department of Children and Family Services internal review committees. The Board's approval is indicative of the ongoing support provided to the Oversight Committee.
• R66

  Page 145
  Future Grand Juries continue to investigate the Department of Children and Family Services Foster Care System.
• R67

  Page 95
  Fresno County provide inpatient child and adolescent mental health facilities in the County of Fresno. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #67: Fresno County agrees with the finding that currently there are no facilities for child and adolescent mental health care in Fresno County and that inpatient care is currently being contracted out of the County. The recommendation requires further analysis. The Department of Children and Family Services Director, the local Mental Health Director, and Mental Health Board, in collaboration with Fresno Metro Ministries and community partners are currently exploring the feasibility of a child and adolescent inpatient unit and continuum of care in Fresno to support families and children/youth. A recommendation to pursue a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for the establishment of a local regional inpatient psychiatric service for children and adolescents was taken to the Board of Supervisors on September 30, 2003. The Board adopted a Resolution endorsing the pursuit of a JPA to establish local regional inpatient psychiatric services for children and adolescents and directing the local Mental Health Director and the Department of Children and Family 85 Services Director to take actions necessary, bringing together public and private resources, to operationalize a regional JPA.
• R68

  Page 95
  Fresno County Department of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Care continue to increase the number of child psychiatrists in this area. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #68: Fresno County agrees with the finding that the demand for child and adolescent psychiatric services is increasing. The recommendation has been implemented. The Department of Children and Family Services budget funds six (6) child psychiatrist positions: one (1) Chief Child Psychiatrist and five (5) full time Child Psychiatrist positions. Two positions are currently vacant. In the past year, three child psychiatrists have been hired and the County has begun to participate in the development of a local psychiatrist internship program. The County continues to actively seek other avenues for attracting more psychiatric services to Fresno County. SECTION V LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY ROOM Recommendations The 2002-2003 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
• R69

  Page 96
  The Fresno Police Department continue to train personnel in the use of the bar code system.
• R70

  Page 98
  The Fresno Police Department place computer stations at locations where needed.
• R71

  Page 98
  The Fresno Police Department conduct random drug testing of all property room personnel. Fresno City’s Response to Recommendations #69 - #71: See .
• R72

  Page 145
  Future Grand Juries visit and review the property room. 132
• R73

  Page 98
  Not used. CITY OF FRESNO POLICE CHIEF’S ADVISORY BOARD Recommendations The 2002-2003 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
• R74

  Page 98
  The Fresno Police Chief’s Advisory Board establish a wesbsite to include: • Mission statement • Board member names and term expiration dates • Agenda • Meeting minutes, excluding confidential information • Process for bringing concerns or complaints to the Board • Application for membership to the Board
• R75

  Page 98
  The Fresno Police Chief’s Advisory Board establish and publicize a procedure for citizens to file concerns or complaints.
• R76

  Page 98
  The Fresno Police Chief and City Council promptly replace members upon expiration of their terms or when vacancies arise. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #74 - #76: See . FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT CANINE UNIT Recommendations The 2002-2003 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that the Fresno City Police Department:
• R77

  Page 98
  Amend Divisional Order No. 4.1.23, entitled Canine Operations, issued on December 20, 2001, to include clearly defined procedures as to the use of canine with ballistic vests.
• R78

  Page 99
  Amend Standing Order 2.3.1, Canine Operations Manual, to include clearly defined procedures as to the deployment of canines with ballistic vests.
• R79

  Page 99
  Provide funds to purchase the most technologically advanced canine ballistic vests.
• R80

  Page 99
  Improve training for canines and their handlers, on the use and deployment of ballistic vests. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #77 - #80: See . ELKHORN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Recommendations The 2002-2003 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
• R81

  Page 99
  Fresno County Personnel Department modify the hiring process to give extra- help Juvenile Correctional Officers credit for a specific number of hours for on the job training, and be able to waive the County interview for a permanent position without taking the same entry written test a second time. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #81: Fresno County disagrees with the finding that extra-help Juvenile Correctional Officers (JCO) are required to retake the written entry examination to be hired as a permanent JCO. The recommendation to modify the hiring process will not be implemented because there is no basis for which to do so as defined by Fresno County Personnel Rule 4. Upon JCO candidates’ passing of the examination, an employment list is established in rank order of final scores composed of persons both in and out of County service. The employment list is established for a duration of three (3) months, and under ordinary circumstances may be extended for a like period. The listing may be extended for periods of time not to exceed 12 months from the initial expiration date of the list. JCO candidates whose names are on an employment list will be certified out to the hiring authority. The only instance where an individual would have to take an exam more than once would be if they were not selected from the employment list and the list 88 subsequently expires. Upon such time that a list expires and a vacancy occurs, a new employment list must be established as the list of eligible names no longer exists. In addition, a policy is already in place for extra-help employees who are subsequently hired for a permanent position to be given credit toward completion of their probationary period up to a maximum of three months. Chief Probation Officer’s Response to Recommendation #81: A formal answer to this question is within the jurisdiction of the Personnel Department. However, the Probation Department does have an opinion on this matter. The issue of giving some advantage to Extra Help employees has been discussed with Personnel on numerous occasions. Ideally, the Probation Department would like to choose permanent staff from the extra help pool before doing a permanent recruitment. Any employee who is working as an Extra Help Juvenile Correctional Officer has had to pass the same written and oral exams, as well as the background investigation, medical, and psychological exams as those on the permanent list. Currently, if we receive the name of an Extra Help employee for a permanent slot, the medical and psychological examinations are waived because they have already taken it. It seems that the same should apply to the written and oral. A background update may be in order. It has also been suggested that if, in fact, it is necessary for extra help employees to compete again, that they should receive extra credit, similar to the way veteran credits are given. It does not serve the County well, nor make good business sense, to hire someone as an Extra Help Juvenile Correctional Officer, demonstrate that they do a very good job, and then send them back through the competitive process to become a permanent employee.
• R82

  Page 100
  Fresno County Probation Department allocate additional positions for Juvenile Correctional Officers to meet staffing needs for 200 cadets. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #82: Fresno County agrees with the findings regarding staffing of Juvenile Correctional Officers for the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. The recommendation will not be implemented at this time due to budgetary constraints. The County recognizes the benefit of accommodating additional juveniles, but the current fiscal condition of the County and the State is not conducive to operating at maximum capacity. As additional funds become available, Fresno County will review capacity and staffing issues of the facility. Chief Probation Officer’s Response to Recommendation #82: The Elkhorn Correctional Facility currently has a rated capacity of 200 from the California Board of Corrections. However, due to budget restrictions, the Boot Camp is currently staffed for 185 cadets. It would be an excellent benefit to the County, the Courts, and the Probation Department if Elkhorn could house 200 cadets. In the current economic environment of the county and the state it is more likely in the next two fiscal years that we would have to consider reducing the budgeted capacity of Elkhorn below 185. 89
• R83

  Page 100
  Fresno County Probation Department allocate additional positions for staff to assist at special events, transportation of cadets, and farming. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #83: Fresno County agrees with the finding that cadets participate in special events, and recognizes that supervision and transportation are required. The recommendation will not be implemented at this time due to budgetary constraints. No new positions are planned at this time. Chief Probation Officer’s Response to Recommendation #83: The Elkhorn Correctional Facility utilizes extra help when necessary to directly supervise cadets or backfill permanent employees that are supervising special events in the community, provide transportation, and coordinate the farming operation. A position that would be very beneficial to the Elkhorn program would be the establishment of a Juvenile Correctional Officer - Farm Manager. Currently, the Elkhorn Correctional Facility is fully staffed and has been so for several months. Programming at the facility is being carried out at a sufficient level at this time.
• R84

  Page 101
  Fresno County Probation Department modify the current philosophy of the program at Elkhorn to assure the criteria for commitments be tightened to reduce the flow of cadets into Elkhorn so a consistent program can be taught and cadets are provided with an improved chance to become a productive citizen. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #84: Fresno County disagrees with the findings regarding completion of programs by cadets. The recommendation to modify the current philosophy will not be implemented, as the basic philosophy has not changed since its inception, as stated in the response from the Chief Probation Officer. Chief Probation Officer’s Response to Recommendation #84: The population of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility, during the course of a twelve- month period, will have a high point above rated capacity and a low point below. At the writing of this response to the Grand Jury, there are only 165 youth in the Elkhorn Correctional Facility. We went through a brief period in 2003 wherein the population was high and some youth were being released prematurely before completing the final phase of the program. Even though they were released from custody early, they still transitioned into the after care program known as Forward Bound Academy. Philosophically the program has not changed at ECF. Programmatic changes have occurred during the past fiscal year due to sporadic periods of high numbers of referrals. The majority of the referrals have, in fact, been consistent with the adopted sentencing criteria.
• R85

  Page 101
  Fresno County Probation Department modify the current philosophy of the program at Elkhorn to assure that Delta Cadets be kept separated from the regular Boot Camp Cadets. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #85: Fresno County agrees with the finding that regular Boot Camp Cadets and Delta Cadets share classrooms and cafeteria facilities. The recommendation will not be implemented 90 at this time due to budgetary constraints; however, the planned construction of the new Juvenile Justice Campus will allow the separation of these two groups. Chief Probation Officer’s Response to Recommendation #85: The Delta program consisting of the use of one barrack was implemented to provide a next level for those that failed the regular boot camp program and for those that were very borderline to be recommended to the California Youth Authority. It was felt that the Delta program was needed as a program in between to add integrity to the continuum of sanctions available to the Court. The layout of the Elkhorn Correctional Facility campus is not ideal for these two programs. There is no practical way to separate them without increased costs. Currently, both the ECF cadet program and the Delta Program youth go to school together and eat in the dining room together. The cadets in the Delta Program wear different and identifiable uniforms and all Delta Program youth are housed in the same barracks. We only have one place to feed the cadets, however, the Delta cadets do sit separately together in the dining room. Our records indicate that the Delta cadets have fewer incidents of acting out behavior on the campus than those youth in the regular program. In the opinion of this writer, there has been a lot of miscommunication or, in more simplistic terms, unfounded rumors regarding the severity of crimes committed by those in the Delta Program. Without a separate campus, we have no solution to this current recommendation by the Grand Jury. However, it should be noted that when the new Juvenile Justice Campus opens in 2006, those youth currently in the Delta program will be classified into the new commitment facility on the new Juvenile Justice Campus and free up all four barracks at the Elkhorn Correctional Facility for the regular program.
• R86

  Page 102
  The City of Fresno continue to fund one million dollars each year for Elkhorn. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #86: Fresno County agrees with the finding that the City of Fresno has not committed to continue funding for the Elkhorn facility. Fresno County fully supports the recommendation and will continue discussions with the City of Fresno for ongoing funding of the facility. Chief Probation Officer’s Response to Recommendation #86: The response to this recommendation should come officially from the Fresno County Administrative Office. The terms and conditions for the one million dollar a year payment for Elkhorn from the City of Fresno was an agreement between the City Council and the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. That agreement is set to terminate at some point in the near future. It is the opinion of the Chief Probation Officer, that since the Elkhorn Correctional Facility population is approximately 85% of youth from the City of Fresno, that there should be some sense of obligation by the City of Fresno to assist the County in providing a suitable juvenile justice/public safety program for the youth living in the City. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendation #86: See . SECTION VI TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AND RELATED ISSUES Recommendations The 2002-2003 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
• R87

  Page 102
  The Fresno City Police Department allocate more police officers to traffic safety enforcement and related education activities.
• R88

  Page 104
  The Fresno City Police Department continue to compile statistics which will provide additional information to determine the effectiveness of “Red Light” cameras.
• R89

  Page 104
  The Fresno City Police Department, in compliance with the 2002 revenue sharing agreement on traffic fines and forfeitures between the City and County of Fresno, use a portion of its revenues for traffic education activities.
• R90

  Page 104
  The County and City of Fresno assist the traffic court in an effort to expedite the processing of traffic fines. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #90: Fresno County agrees with the findings that an increase in the filing of traffic infractions created a processing backlog and that the backlog continued to rise until the City of Fresno provided the courts with added assistance. The recommendation has been implemented. In accordance with the current agreement, the City and County of Fresno pay an equal share of one clerical position to assist the Courts with the increased workload. As the backlog increased, the City provided four additional contract staff resulting in a reduction of the backlog from 6,786 at the time of the Grand Jury report, to 1,080 as of September 5, 2003. The County will continue to monitor the processing of traffic citations and the backlog situation. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #87 - #90: See .
• R91

  Page 105
  See . Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School District’s Response to
• R92

  Page 106
  The City adopt a new bidding procedure for selection of low bidders on projects requiring competitive bidding.
• R93

  Page 106
  The City involve the Public Works Department much more intimately in connection with major construction projects within the City, including hiring specialists for such projects, instead of contracting with consultants for overall management.
• R94

  Page 106
  The City carefully monitor possible conflicts of interest of parties involved in City projects.
• R95

  Page 106
  The City aggressively pursue its claims for liquidated and other damages. City of Fresno’s Response to Recommendations #92 - #95: See . TRANSIT CONSOLIDATION Recommendations The 2002-2003 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
• R96

  Page 106
  The Council of Fresno County Governments and affiliated agencies continue their discussions directed toward consolidation of the transit services in the County, and that those discussions specifically include school busses.
• R97

  Page 107
  A transit district, rather than a Joint Powers Authority, be formed in the interests of efficiency in management, cost effectiveness, and to better serve the environmental needs of the valley in the future.
• R98

  Page 107
  The transit district include areas outside the County, such as portions of Madera County.
• R99

  Page 107
  The Board of Directors of the Council of Fresno County Governments appoint a transportation expert to organize and promote a new countywide transit district. Council of Fresno County Government’s Response to Recommendations #96 - #99: See . Fresno County Rural Transit Agency’s Response to Recommendations #96 - #99: See . JOINT JURISDICTIONAL STREETS BETWEEN COUNTY AND CITY OF FRESNO Recommendations The 2002-2003 Fresno County Grand Jury recommends that:
• R100

  Page 107
  The City and County of Fresno enter an agreement that addresses the maintenance of joint jurisdictional streets to replace the terminated Agreement. Fresno County’s Response to Recommendation #100: Fresno County agrees with the findings that the City and County have been performing street maintenance activities independently on shared jurisdictional streets, which has created a loss of efficiency for both agencies since termination of the former cooperative agreement. The recommendation requires further analysis and negotiations with the City. County and City staffs have recently held several meetings together for the purpose of developing a mutually supported 95 agreement. Progress to date includes the creation of a Fresno metropolitan area base map, which precisely identifies the location of all roads that involves both jurisdictions. The City and County will continue to meet in an effort to negotiate the details of an agreement that can be recommended for approval by the County Board of Supervisors and City Council.