Sacramento County

Conclusions 11

• CL1
  The Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education did not fully explore, question nor understand the joint powers proposal presented by the Chief Financial Officer and supported by the Superintendent.
• CL2
  In approving the JPA, the Board authorized transfer of district classified employees to CASA.
• CL3
  The SCUSD Board, once CASA was established, paid little attention to issues of oversight and management of the JPA. For example: 6 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 a. The Board did not appoint representatives to the CASA board but delegated the selection to the Superintendent. b. The Board did not require periodic reports or yearly audits of CASA. c. The Board allowed CASA bylaws to be amended without approval. d. The Board allowed the CFO to assume the position of Executive Director of CASA while serving concurrently as the District CFO.
• CL4
  The Board opted to reward its three contract employees (Superintendent, Chief Financial Officer, Legal Counsel) by giving them inflated retirement benefits. For example: a. Granting 10 additional years of service credit which was excessive and unprecedented for public service positions. b. Granting mileage allowances, travel expenses, and vacation pay to be included in the final compensation calculation for retirement was inappropriate.
• CL5
  The CFO and the outside consultants she selected appeared to mislead the Board with incomplete information and strong assurances of cost neutrality of the CASA plan.
• CL6
  The Board authorized the issuance of an unnecessary $6.5 million pension obligation bond and incurred financial liability with little or no discussion or understanding of the possible financial impact to the District. The $420,709 cost to issue the bond could have been applied to educational purposes.
• CL7
  The Board of Education and top administrators were dismissive of community concerns regarding the JPA and CASA.
• CL8
  The Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education failed in its oversight responsibilities. It was negligent in its responsibility to protect the interest of all its constituents, including voters, students, parents, taxpayers and employees by authorizing a joint powers agreement ostensibly for retirement purposes. Inasmuch as Board members make decisions in complex areas, they depend on district administrative staff for advice and recommendations, including school finance, curriculum, student safety, personnel practices and facility use. In the case of the establishment of CASA, the Board did not receive or request a complete and balanced picture. By their own admissions, they were convinced by their administrative staff of the efficacy of a unique retirement program—a program that ultimately proved to be flawed, and a liability to the District. Although the Grand Jury reviewed the conduct of Sacramento City Unified School District, some of the recommendations could apply to the administrative functions of all school districts within Sacramento County. In order to strengthen the integrity of the administrative functions of school districts, the Grand Jury respectfully requests all school districts within Sacramento County consider the report’s recommendations. Findings and Recommendations Findings for the Board of Education: Finding 1. The Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education did not fully explore, question nor understand the joint powers proposal presented by the Chief Financial Officer and supported by the Superintendent. Finding 2. In approving the JPA, the Board authorized transfer of district classified employees to CASA. Finding 3. The SCUSD Board, once CASA was established, paid little attention to issues of oversight and management of the JPA. For example: 6 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 a. The Board did not appoint representatives to the CASA board but delegated the selection to the Superintendent. b. The Board did not require periodic reports or yearly audits of CASA. c. The Board allowed CASA bylaws to be amended without approval. d. The Board allowed the CFO to assume the position of Executive Director of CASA while serving concurrently as the District CFO. Finding 4. The Board opted to reward its three contract employees (Superintendent, Chief Financial Officer, Legal Counsel) by giving them inflated retirement benefits. For example: a. Granting 10 additional years of service credit which was excessive and unprecedented for public service positions. b. Granting mileage allowances, travel expenses, and vacation pay to be included in the final compensation calculation for retirement was inappropriate. Finding 5. The CFO and the outside consultants she selected appeared to mislead the Board with incomplete information and strong assurances of cost neutrality of the CASA plan. Finding 6. The Board authorized the issuance of an unnecessary $6.5 million pension obligation bond and incurred financial liability with little or no discussion or understanding of the possible financial impact to the District. The $420,709 cost to issue the bond could have been applied to educational purposes. Finding 7. The Board of Education and top administrators were dismissive of community concerns regarding the JPA and CASA. Recommendations to the Board of Education: Recommendation 1. The Board needs to fully investigate and research all proposals that incur financial obligations and have fiscal ramifications. A discussion of the pros and cons should be publicly presented with adequate provision for public input. Recommendation 2. Future attempts of the Board to compensate district individuals for outstanding service should be within the limits of what is generally given to people in education. Recommendation 3. The Board should monitor and control all agencies or entities that the school district creates and for which it assumes liability. The Board should not delegate its oversight responsibilities to others. The Board should demand timely reports and audits. 7 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Recommendation 4. The Board of Education must guard against appearances of potential conflict of interest whether ethical or legal. Recommendation 5. The Board should establish a process to assure that community and constituent concerns are heard and addressed. Findings for District Administration: Finding 1. The Superintendent allowed the CFO to control the central office without necessary checks and balances. For example: a. The Internal Auditor reported directly to the CFO rather than to the Superintendent and the Board. b. The transfer of funds between the District and CASA went unsupervised by the Superintendent and the Board. Finding 2. The centralization of power in the hands of the CFO created a climate of intimidation and coercion within the administrative offices. For example, employees were discouraged from questioning the CASA plan and some stated they felt pressured into joining. Finding 3. The proposed retirement program and the enhanced retirement package put forward by the CFO for herself, the Superintendent and the Legal Counsel were self- serving. Finding 4. The appearance of a conflict of interest occurred when the CFO of the District served as the unpaid Executive Director of CASA. Recommendations to the District Administration: Recommendation 1. Community concerns regarding district administration actions or policies need to be fairly and openly addressed. A community oversight committee could be established to directly monitor the response to these concerns. Recommendation 2. The Superintendent must actively oversee the business administration of the school district, as well as the educational program. Recommendation 3. It is one of the responsibilities of the Superintendent to establish and maintain a positive climate within the district office. Communication lines should be structured in such a way as to encourage and permit employee access to the Superintendent, enabling all opinions to be heard. Recommendation 4. The Superintendent is responsible for assuring that a system of checks and balances is maintained so no one person or a group can bring undue or unfair influence on decisions. 8 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Recommendation 5. The internal auditor should be autonomous and responsible and accountable to the Superintendent and report directly to the Board on a quarterly or bi- annual basis. Response Required Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2004 from: · Board of Education, Sacramento City Unified School District 9 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 -- page left intentionally blank -- 10
• CL9
  Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Grant Joint Union High School District’s Inappropriate Use of Public Funds Issue The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging Grant Joint Union High School District (GJUHSD) was using its newspaper, Grant Today, to advocate one side of a political issue. Since the newspaper is supported by public funds, the Grand Jury looked into whether or not this use of funds was appropriate. Method of Investigation Reviewed: · Eight issues of Grant Today from April 2003 through February 2004. · The GJUHSD Mission Statement, “Communications Plan” of February 2002. · “Grant Select Commission Final Report,” July 15, 1998. · Sections of GJUHSD’s board policies, Community Relations, BP 1112, adopted February 6, 2002, and Personnel - Political Activities of Employees, AR 4119.25, adopted August 21, 2002. · Similar school newspapers from other districts within Sacramento County, including Sacramento City Unified School District’s The Connection, Galt Joint Union High School District’s Reflections, and the San Juan Unified School District’s San Juan Scene. · The school board policies regarding advocacy in political campaigns of Elk Grove Unified School District and Sacramento City Unified District and others from around the state, such as El Segundo Unified School District, El Dorado Union High School District, and New Haven Unified School District. · 73 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 255 (1990). · California State Education Code section 7054. · The publication of the California School Boards Association, titled Political Activities of School Districts, November 2001. Conferred with: · The District Attorney of Sacramento County. · The State Attorney General’s Office. 11 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Interviewed: · The Director of Communications/Community Relations for GJUHSD. · GJUHSD Legal Counsel. · Directors of Information or Communication/Public Relations from Sacramento City Unified School District, Elk Grove Unified School District and San Juan Unified School District. Background and Facts The organizational structure of many school districts in Sacramento County has been a continuing issue. Presently, the Grant Joint Union High School District (grades 7-12) is fed by five elementary school districts: Elverta Joint, Rio Linda Union, Robla, Del Paso Heights, and North Sacramento. Concerned parents and citizens recently formed a coalition, Families for Better Education, to reorganize the GJUHSD into two separate 7-12 districts. One of the proposed districts would serve the Elverta Joint, Rio Linda Union, and Robla school districts. The other would serve Del Paso Heights and North Sacramento school districts. In 2003, the coalition organized a petition effort to put its proposed plan before the Sacramento County Board of Education, and ultimately before the California State Board of Education. The role of the State Board is to review proposed plans and decide whether a referendum is placed on a ballot for a vote by the citizens in the designated districts. At the time of this Grand Jury report, the State Board of Education is reviewing a plan for reorganization. The GJUHSD board has publicly opposed splitting the district. In a monthly newsletter, Grant Today, articles appeared which strongly opposed the reorganization plan put forth by the coalition. Partiality and bias were observed in several articles headlined, “We cannot live with what they’re proposing” (Vol. 3, No. 5, August 2003), and “Who really benefits from the reorganization of Grant District?” (Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2003). The articles contained no attempt to present a balanced, fair or objective viewpoint. The newsletter articles reflected only opposition to the proposed reorganization plan. Grant Today is an official district publication, supported by public funds, and is mailed to 55,000 residents within the boundaries of the Grant Joint Union High School District. District officials reported the cost of publishing 11 issues of Grant Today in 2002 was in excess of $100,000. Most school districts have published policies governing political activities that are readily available to the public and employees. The Grand Jury asked GJUHSD to provide policies governing the publication of the Grant Today newsletter. Written documents provided included the “Grant Select Commission Final Report,” the Mission Statement of the “Communication Plan,” and the board policy dealing with community relations. None of these documents made mention of policies governing political activity. However, in further 12 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 research, the Grand Jury found that GJUHSD policies relating to this report were on its web site. The GJUHSD policy in part states, …“district employees shall not use district funds, services, supplies or equipment to urge the passage or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate; or use district time to urge the passage or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate.” The California School Boards Association (CSBA), in its handbook, Political Activities of School Districts, recommends the following: “The district may disseminate information about a ballot measure as long as it provides the public with a ‘fair and impartial presentation of relevant information’ that is neutral in tone. This information may include an objective analysis of how a ballot measure impacts the district.” The GJUHSD’s Legal Counsel stated that he had reviewed school policies and laws governing political activities by a school district and concluded that the proposed articles in Grant Today did not technically violate state law because an election had not been scheduled for the initiative. The Grand Jury reviewed legal references suggested by CSBA in an attempt to clarify how political activity by school districts should be conducted. In reviewing 73 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 255 (1990), this opinion states that public funds of a city, county, or district may lawfully be used to draft an initiative or referendum measure but concludes that such funds cannot be used to promote such measures. The use of public funds by a school district to advocate or present only one side of a political issue in a district newsletter constitutes improper campaign activity. Findings and Recommendations Finding 1. Grant Joint Union High School District has used public monies inappropriately by advocating against the redistricting plan of Families for Better Education in articles published in its monthly publication, Grant Today. The articles did not include any information about the opposing point of view. Recommendation 1. Officially disseminated information from a school district regarding a contested issue should be fair, impartial and balanced. Finding 2. Grant Joint Union High School District has specific written policies regarding the use of district resources for advocating political issues and activities, but these policies were not followed in several articles published in Grant Today. Recommendation 2. Grant Joint Union High School District should make its employees aware of these policies and ensure all personnel understand and interpret these guidelines as 13 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 intended by state law and case law. Employees should refer to publications by the California School Boards Association to give them direction. Finding 3. In the August 2003 newsletter of Grant Today, GJUHSD’s Legal Counsel was a visible advocate opposing the coalition’s reorganization plan. Recommendation 3. The District Legal Counsel should not advocate for a political issue or activity that affects the District. Legal Counsel should ensure that a political issue discussed in district public communications be fair and balanced. Response Required Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2004 from: · Board of Education, Grant Joint Union High School District 14
• CL10
  Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Sacramento County Jail Health Inmate Psychiatric Services Issue As part of the Sacramento County Grand Jury’s responsibility to review county detention facilities, it was decided to determine if psychiatric services are being administered in an efficient and effective manner at the Sacramento County Main Jail. The number of suicides that occurred early in 2002 was also a concern. In addition, the Grand Jury examined whether the recommendations made in the Lindsay M. Hayes Report concerning these suicides have been addressed. Method of Investigation The following reports and documents were reviewed: · “Technical Assistance Report on Jail Suicide Prevention Practices Within the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department,” by Lindsay M. Hayes, May 30, 2002. · “Recommendations and Response to Technical Assistance Report by The Suicide Prevention Task Force,” June 26, 2002. · “Suicide Prevention Task Force Action Summary,” January 21, 2003. · “The Medical-Mental Health Inspection Report, Main Jail,” December 5, 2003. · “Medical-Mental Health Inspection Report,” January 14, 2004. · “Main Jail Inmate Handbook,” February 2003. · Local Detention Facility Health Inspection Report, 2003. · Revised intake and screening forms. · An incident report of an attempted suicide. The following individuals were interviewed: · Medical Director, Correctional Services. · Commander of Staff Services Division. · Chief of Correctional Health Services. · Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Training Manager and Training Assistant. · Assistant Chief, Director of Nursing, Correctional Health Services. · Interim Medical Director, Jail Psychiatric Services, University of California at Davis. · Chairperson of the Suicide Prevention Task Force. 15 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 The following sites were visited at the Main Jail: · Intake Unit. · Psychiatric Care Unit. · Medical Housing Unit. Background and Facts In 2002, public attention was focused on the increase of suicides at the county’s Main Jail. In the short period from January through April, four suicides occurred. In 2003, a significant organizational shift took place, taking the responsibility for inmate health care from the Coroner’s Office and putting it under the direct authority of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department (SCSD). The Grand Jury was interested in determining what kind of impact this made regarding the health care of inmates, particularly in the area of mental health. In an effort to be pro-active in stopping suicides at the Main Jail, the Sheriff’s Department sought the assistance of an outside consultant to conduct an assessment of jail practices and to make recommendations regarding its suicide prevention policies and procedures. The Assistant Director of the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives, Lindsay M. Hayes, was selected. In addition to hiring a consultant, the Sheriff’s Department formed a Suicide Prevention Task Force in February of 2002. The multidisciplinary task force is chaired by the Clinical Director of Psychiatric Services. It includes as its members the Medical Director and staff of Jail Psychiatric Services (JPS), two representatives from the Sheriff’s Citizen Advisory Committee and jail management staff from custody, health care and mental health. The report by consultant Lindsay M. Hayes was completed in May of 2002. The report determined that the spike of suicides was a statistical aberration, based on the average daily jail population during the time period of January through April 2002. During the years from 1996 through May 2002, the average rate of suicides in the Main Jail was 51.5 per 100,000 inmates. Recent national data on county jail suicides is approximately 54 deaths per 100,000 inmates. The Sacramento County Main Jail was below the national average. Consultant Hayes noted that the general population of the Main Jail includes: 1) pre-trial inmates awaiting adjudication, and 2) other inmates transferred from the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center because of special needs such as mental health, suicidal behavior, administrative segregation, disciplinary confinement, etc. These “special needs” inmates are recognized as being at a much higher risk of suicide. It should also be noted all the suicides occurred in the cells of the general inmate population. The responsibility for direct observation of these inmates falls to the custodial officers. Inmates housed separately under JPS supervision were not casualties of suicide. Hence, it would seem 16 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 the initial screening of inmates in conjunction with the mental health training and increased awareness of the custodial officers are two of the most important factors in preventing jail suicides. Mental health assessment of inmates remains key to preventing future incidents. In October 2002, the Suicide Prevention Task Force issued a response to the recommendations made in the Lindsay M. Hayes Report. The task force followed up in January 2003 with an “Action Summary” describing the continuing efforts to meet the recommendations in the Lindsay M. Hayes Report. On January 14, 2004, a state- mandated, bi-annual inspection report evaluating the current health conditions at the Main Jail was released. The Jury used these three reports as a benchmark in determining improvements in jail health services. Findings and Recommendations In its investigation, the Grand Jury looked into: A) inmate screening, B) training, C) inmate monitoring and assessment, D) prescription drug storage and dispensing, and E) reorganization and delivery of jail health services pertaining to suicide prevention specifically, and mental health generally. A. INMATE SCREENING Finding 1. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report found that the intake forms being utilized were inadequate. In addition, these forms were not automatically being forwarded to the Jail Psychiatric Services (JPS). In response, the Main Jail staff has revised its current intake forms in accordance with national standards. All appropriate and relevant medical screening forms are now transmitted by fax to the JPS in a timely manner. Also, arresting officers complete newly developed forms to communicate medical information to the county jail medical staff. Recommendation 1. A yearly review should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of intake screening forms. Finding 2. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report stated that classification deputies conduct inmate interviews, examine forms and review two screening fields to capture information on an inmate’s prior history. These deputies then use individual discretion to make referrals to the JPS staff. These referrals are not always made on consistent criteria. In response to the Lindsay M. Hayes Report, new classification forms have been implemented, which include questions regarding mental health and suicide. Recommendation 2. A software program should be developed to access quickly and accurately an inmate’s prior health history for use by the classification deputies to ensure consistency in evaluation and referral. 17 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Finding 3. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report states that contrary to some national correctional standards, JPS staff does not conduct a mental health assessment on each inmate within 14 days of confinement. In response, the Suicide Task Force indicated that it would be cost prohibitive to conduct reviews of health records for every inmate. However, there is a mental health screening of all inmates at intake. Recommendation 3. Inmates who have been in the system before should have their records checked for mental health issues within 14 days. B. TRAINING Finding 1. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report found that only two hours of suicide prevention training was included in the basic Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department academy training. The burden of suicide prevention falls on the custodial officers. Intensive training of custodial officers is essential in detecting mental health issues and in the prevention of suicides. The national recommendation for such initial training is eight hours. In response, the Main Jail staff has since instituted a multi-session approach for new officers consisting of eight hours of suicide prevention training. These sessions are divided between the academy and the Main Jail orientation of new custodial officers. Suicide prevention training for all other jail staff consists of one-hour yearly training in addition to fifteen-minute quarterly sessions offered during briefings. Recommendation 1. The quarterly trainings should be increased from 15 minutes to one half hour. Attendance should be required and records kept in each officer’s training file. Attendance at makeup sessions should be required. Finding 2. One area of concern identified by the jail staff is the line of communication between the courts and the correctional staff when the inmate is returned to jail after court proceedings. Court actions can have a detrimental effect on the mental state of an inmate. Recommendation 2. A process of communication should be developed that alerts the correctional staff to the result of court proceedings regarding a particular inmate, when the inmate is returned to the Main Jail. Finding 3. The SCSD should be commended for its efforts in evaluating and revamping its training program and increasing the attention focused on suicide prevention. In addition to the increased training, they have created a “Suicide Risk” informational pocket card for officers and correctional health staff. A workshop for public defenders has also been developed and will be given annually. Great efforts have been made to improve communications between the correctional staff and the JPS. 18 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Recommendation #3. None. C. INMATE MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT Finding 1. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report stated that monitoring of the inmate population is the primary responsibility of the custodial officers. Inmates housed in special housing units, where most suicides have occurred, are presently required to be observed once an hour. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report recommended that the custodial staff be required to physically observe inmates placed in special housing units at 30-minute intervals. In response, Main Jail staff concluded that to conduct 30-minute cell checks in designated high-risk special housing units would demand an additional 35 custodial deputies. The Suicide Prevention Task Force stated it was unknown what the financial effects or feasibility of such an increase would be. Correctional officers have since been directed to walk the floors and observe inmates with greater frequency. Recommendation 1. Main Jail staff should adopt the suggested standard of observation of the Lindsay M. Hayes Report due to the possibility of suicide among high risk inmates. Finding 2. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report noted that inmates discharged from the JPS acute inpatient psychiatric unit back to the general population of the Main Jail should have regular follow-up assessment. In response, JPS does a follow-up within 72 hours but has not adopted the standard as outlined due to the cost of additional personnel. However, there has been an effort to centralize outpatients so they can be more closely monitored. Inmates with suicidal ideation assigned to the medical unit receive a 15-minute check. Recommendation 2. An effort should be made to develop a regular monitoring and assessment schedule for every inmate released from the acute psychiatric unit. Currently, the nurse doing pill delivery has been delegated the added responsibility of assessing the inmate’s condition. This policy is unsatisfactory due to the time constraint on nurses. Finding 3. The Lindsay M. Hayes Report noted the need for more beds designated for outpatient mental health housing. This need was corroborated by the “Medical-Mental Health Inspection Report” of December 5, 2003. In response, the jail staff has stated that space limitations of the present jail and budget restraints are barriers to fully address this issue. However, additional beds have been found for inmates discharged from acute psychiatric care, and needing closer supervision than can be supplied in a regular jail unit. Recommendation 3. Since space at the jail is at a premium, the County should aggressively pursue plans to build another tower to accommodate the general need, as 19 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 well as the need for appropriate housing for inmates requiring medical and psychiatric care. D. PRESCRIPTION DRUG STORAGE AND DISPENSING Finding 1. The “Medical-Mental Health Inspection Report” indicated that there are some serious problems with the storage of drugs and the dispensing program at the Main Jail. Recommendations made over the past several years have not been fully implemented. The County has contracted with a software company to develop a database program to aid the health staff with prescription records. This program has yet to be developed. Recommendation 1. The County should explore other contractors to develop this database program if the contracted company cannot deliver in a specified period of time. E. REORGANIZATION AND DELIVERY OF JAIL HEALTH SERVICES Finding 1. In the spring of 2003, the reorganization of Jail Health Services resulted in the transfer of management from the Coroner to the Sheriff. The improvement in coordination and communication between the health and custodial staff has been noted by the chief administrators and staff members, and is verified by the less frequent health care complaints made by inmates. In its December 2003 report, the Medical-Mental Health Inspection team also commented on the improvements in jail health services. Training is better coordinated as well as the communication between custodial and health care staff regarding the status of inmate health issues. Most importantly, the health care providers have been given more autonomy in the areas of health issues and decision making. Problems are solved more rapidly because of the open lines of communication and the frequent meetings between health care and custodial staff and their administrators. The creation of a Suicide Prevention Task Force, including a mortality review of inmate suicides, has been a force for change. Medical staff has been increased as their needs were communicated. All of these changes have contributed to improvements in jail health care and hopefully the lessening of future suicide attempts. Recommendation 1. Even though the County of Sacramento is facing budget cuts, the Board of Supervisors should maintain the present level of staffing of the Medical Housing Unit and its support of Jail Psychiatric Services. Recommendation 2. The Suicide Prevention Task Force should remain in service and continue to review the progress of implemented changes and to monitor jail policies and procedures. 20 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Response Required Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2004 from: · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors · Sacramento County Sheriff · Medical Director, Correctional Services · Medical Director, Jail Psychiatric Services, UCD 21 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 -- page left intentionally blank -- 22
• CL11
  Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 10-Year Final Report Index SACRAMENTO COUNTY County of Sacramento 2003-2004 Sacramento County Jail Health Inmate Psychiatric Services 2002-2003 School Safety in Jeopardy 2001-2002 Bureau of Family Support Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental Health Services Encroaching Land Use Imperils Sacramento’s Airport System Unequal Treatment of Sentenced Female Inmates in Sacramento County 2000-2001 Sewage Discharge into the American River 1999-2000 9-1-1 1995-1996 Campus Commons Golf Course Lease Capitol Area Development Authority Mismanagement Custodial Mental Health Survey 1994-1995 County Food Service Operations County Owned Golf Facilities 1993-1994 Financing of Local Government Coroner’s Office 2002-2003 Death Investigation in Sacramento County: The Coroner’s Office 1999-2000 Fees for Transporting Bodies 1998-1999 Review of Vendor Contracts and a Request for Proposal 1996-1997 Abuse of Dependent Adults in an In-care Home District Attorney’s Office 2001-2002 Bureau of Family Support 1999-2000 Crime Lab Staffing 1997-1998 Child Abuse and Neglect Child Support and Welfare Agencies 1996-1997 Use of American River Flood Control District Property for Personal Gain Child Support Collection and Enforcement Political Activities in School Districts 1995-1996 Child Abuse in Sacramento County Department of Finance 2002-2003 Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’ Accountability Department of General Services 1997-1998 Policy on Emergency Forms in County Vehicles County Office of Education 1993-1994 Community Schools Usage 23 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Department of Health & Human Services 2001-2002 Adult Protective Services What is the Future of our Elder and Dependent Adults? Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental Health Services 2000-2001 Transitional Assistance for Aging-Out Foster Children Recruitment and Retention of Foster Parents 1999-2000 Child Protective Services at the Crossroads 1998-1999 Children’s Receiving Home of Sacramento Mental Health Treatment Center Review of Operations 1997-1998 Child Abuse and Neglect Employee Harassment 1996-1997 Abuse of Dependent Adults in an In-care Home Senior and Adult Services Division Operations 1995-1996 Alcohol and Other Abuse Treatment Initiative Child Abuse in Sacramento County 1994-1995 Family Maintenance and Reunification Public Guardian and Conservatorship 1993-1994 Children at Risk Department of Human Assistance 1997-1998 Child Support and Welfare Agencies Department of Medical Systems 2000-2001 Mental Health Services in the County Juvenile Justice System Environmental Management Department 2002-2003 Letter Grades for Restaurants 1999-2000 Mismanagement at the Environmental Management Department 1998-1999 Enforcement of the No-Smoking Law 1996-1997 Review of Conflict of Interest Statement Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) 2001-2002 Encroaching Land Use Imperils Sacramento’s Airport System Office of Communications & Information Technology 1998-1999 Sacramento Regional Radio Communications System Office of Economic Development 1996-1997 Economic Incentive Policy Probation Department 2001-2002 Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental Health Services Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment Programs in Sacramento County Unequal Treatment of Sentenced Female Inmates in Sacramento County 2000-2001 Mental Health Services in the County Juvenile Justice System 1999-2000 Juvenile Justice Facilities and Staffing 1994-1995 Boys’ Ranch and Carson Creek High School 24 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Public Defender’s Office 2001-2002 Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment Programs in Sacramento County 2000-2001 Use of Public Office for Private Gain By An Attorney in the Public Defender’s Office Public Works Agency 1997-1998 Sacramento International Airport Expansion Conflict of Interest Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System 2001-2002 The Directed Brokerage Program of the Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System Sacramento Public Library 1999-2000 Sacramento County Library Authority Sacramento-Yolo Port District 1994-1995 Administration and Operations Sheriff’s Department 2003-2004 Sacramento County Jail Health Inmate Psychiatric Services 2002-2003 School Safety in Jeopardy 2001-2002 Unequal Treatment of Sentenced Female Inmates in Sacramento County 1999-2000 Main Jail Work Release Facility: Alternative to Incarceration Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center Off-duty Work by Law Enforcement in Sacramento County 1998-1999 Sacramento Regional Radio Communications System 1997-1998 Use of Prostraint Chair at the Main Jail Child Abuse and Neglect Review of Escape at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in April 1997 1996-1997 Abuse of Adults in an In-care Home Women’s Holding Cells at the Main Jail 1995-1996 Child Abuse in Sacramento County 1994-1995 Jail Training for Police Officers 1993-1994 Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center Women’s Detention Facility Sacramento Airport System 2001-2002 Encroaching Land Use Perils Sacramento’s Airport System Department of Airports 1997-1998 Sacramento International Airport Expansion Conflict of Interest 1993-1994 Sacramento Executive Airport 25 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Fire Districts in Sacramento County 1995-1996 Firefighters: Our Local Heroes Cities 1993-1994 Certificates of Participation Financing of Local Government City of Citrus Heights 2000-2001 Credit Card Usage – City of Citrus Heights City of Folsom 2001-2002 Folsom Sewage Spills Continue 2000-2001 Credit Card Usage – City of Folsom 1996-1997 Industrial Incentives Economic Impact City of Galt 2002-2003 Misuse of Appointive Power by the Galt City Council 2000-2001 Lighting and Landscaping Districts Galt-Arno Cemetery District Operations 1997-1998 Review of Galt-Arno District Operations 1996-1997 Galt-Arno Cemetery District Operations City of Isleton 2000-2001 Traffic Stop Practices of the Isleton Police Department 1998-1999 Policies & Procedures of the Police Department and City Government 1997-1998 Questionable Behavior Between a Police Officer and a Citizen 1994-1995 Administrative/Fiscal Problems City of Sacramento 2002-2003 School Safety in Jeopary 2001-2002 Encroaching Land Use Imperils Sacramento’s Airport System 2000-2001 Sewage Discharge Into the American River 1998-1999 Review of Sacramento Regional Radio Communications System 1997-1998 Use of Time and Resources in the Mayor’s Office 1996-1997 Financial Incentive for Targeted Businesses Sacramento Convention Center Operation Industrial Incentives Economic Impact Police Department 2002-2003 School Safety in Jeopardy 1995-1996 Child Abuse in Sacramento County Special Districts 2000-2001 Retained Earnings – Sacramento County Special Districts 1993-1994 Certificates of Participation Financial of Local Government 26 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Remuneration to Special District Board Members American River Flood Control District 1996-1997 Use of District Property for Personal Gain Carmichael Water District 2002-2003 Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’ Accountability 1996-1997 District Operational Issues Citrus Heights Water District 2002-2003 Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’ Accountability Del Paso Manor Water District 2002-2003 Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’ Accountability Fair Oaks Water District 2002-2003 Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’ Accountability Florin County Water District 2002-2003 Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’ Accountability Galt-Arno Cemetery District 2000-2001 Administration and Fiscal Management 1997-1998 Review of Operations and Business Procedures 1996-1997 Review of Operational Procedures McClellan Air Force Base 1998-1999 Base Conversion Office Regional County Sanitation District 1996-1997 Industrial Incentives Economic Impact Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District 1997-1998 Inappropriate Use of Funds for the Development of a Community Water District 2002-2003 Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’ Accountability Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency 1993-1994 Capitol Area Development Authority Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission 1993-1994 Open Meeting Laws (The Brown Act) Sacramento Municipal Utility District 1996-1997 Economic Development Plan 27 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Sacramento Suburban Water District 2002-2003 Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito & Vector Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’ Control District Accountability 1998-1999 Review of District Operations San Juan Water District 2002-2003 Recommendations for Improving Public Water Districts’ Accountability Wilton Fire Protection District 2001-2002 Status of Volunteer Firefighters Serving as Members of the Board of Directors of the Wilton Fire Protection District Schools Center Unified School District 2002-2003 School Safety in Jeopardy 1997-1998 Violations of the Brown Act Elk Grove Unified School District 2002-2003 School Safety in Jeopardy 2002-2003 Elk Grove Unified School District’s Failure to Recognize Fiscal Irresponsibility Prompting a Second Grand Jury Investigation 2001-2002 Elk Grove Unified School District Fails Fiduciary Responsibilities Grant Joint Union High School District 1993-1994 Policies, Procedures and Administration 2003-2004 Grant Joint Union High School District’s Inappropriate Use of Public Funds Sacramento City Unified School District 2002-2003 School Safety in Jeopardy 1994-1995 School District Maintenance Management, Fiscal Problems San Juan Unified School District School Safety in Jeopardy Sacramento Unified School District 2003-2004 Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education Was Negligent In the Establishment and Oversight of the California Administrative Services Authority 1997-1998 Allegation of Dual Employment with Two Public Agencies 1996-1997 Lack of Response to Requests for Public Information 28 Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2004 Non-Profit Organizations Sacramento Handicapped Parking Patrol, Inc. 1994-1995 Unsatisfactory Conduct/Performance, County’s Bidding Process, Contract Safeguards, and Provisions State Prison System in Sacramento County 2001-2002 Transportation of Prisoners for Non-Emergency Medical Care by California Department of Corrections 29