📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 1 findings
F1
Page 48
Software and Staff. SACSS was a disaster. It could never be made to work, and the State abandoned it. Workers continually had to do by hand what the software originally claimed it could do automatically. Error rates were high. Excess resources were committed to corrections. Collections suffered. Morale declined. The Head of Family Support went in search of better software, learned of a new system originating out of San Francisco County called CASES, compared it with other available products and determined that it was best. They installed it and it works as well as they hoped it would. Collections soared. The new software brought them in compliance with fed- eral requirements for incentive moneys. Incentive in- come of 13.6¢ per dollar now funds the Family Support Department entirely. The Head of Family Support reports that staff levels are adequate and morale is much improved.
Recommendations 1
-
R1Page 48The entire Family Support Department is to be com- mended for its success. CONCLUSION: The Family Support Department has gone from near the bottom in statewide rankings to very near the top in five years. The evidence indicates they are highly moti- vated people doing an outstanding job. The Department Head advised the Judicial Committee, however, that the state still pursues a centralized soft- ware system. If Family Support should have to convert all file data, major disruption could result. 30-DAY RESPONSES REQUESTED FROM: the Family Support Department Head, the District Attor- ney. Response of the District Attorney To: John K. Letton, Superior Court Judge From: David L. Cross Date: March 19, 1999 Subject: Response to 1998/99 Grand Jury Judi cial Committee Final Report Family Support We certainly agree with the Grand Jury Report. The Family Support Unit has worked hard to make the im- provements necessary to create a successful program. They do indeed need to be commended for a job well done. David L. Cross Response of the Board of Supervisors April 16, 1999 Gerald L. Boosinger Trinity County Grand Jury P.O. Box 2455 Weaverville, CA 96093 RE: 1998-99 Grand Jury Judicial Committee Final Report Family Support Department Dear Foreperson: The Trinity County Board of Supervisors concurs with the Judicial Committee’s findings and is in total agree- ment on the recommendations due the department for their successfulness. I have personally relayed these find- ings to the California State Association of Counties Ju- dicial Committee in Sacramento on April 8, 1999. Conclusion: The Grand Jury conclusion regarding pos- sible major disruption due to a state centralized soft- ware system is so noted and we believe this should be monitored to prevent a breakdown of collection dollars. The Board of Supervisors appreciates the Grand Jury’s efforts in the preparation of this report. Sincerely, TRINITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Robert Reiss, Chairman _________________________________________________________________________________________________