San Joaquin County Grand Jury • 2012-2013

San Joaquin County Grand Jury Fractured Oversight Fails to Serve At-Risk Youth 2012-2013 Case No. 0412

Published: June 04, 2013 23 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 38 findings

F1
1 Citing budget cuts, CCLD’s fulfillment of its regulatory and oversight role has deteriorated to the point of allowing some Group Homes to go unmonitored or un-inspected for periods of up to four years.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
1 , CPS and Probation submit a written request to CCLD that it fulfill statutory requirements for annual Inspections of all Group Homes in San Joaquin County.
R5
1.1 , HSA/CPS and Probation, in conjunction with the Department of Human Resources, initiate the establishment of an enhanced Group Home Monitoring Program in San Joaquin.
F2
1.1 The distribution of the AFDC-FC Funds flow through HSA and are tied to a one page Placement Agreement between the Group Home Provider and HSA/CPS and or Probation Department.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
1.2 , HSA/CPS and Probation revise its current Placement Agreement with Group Homes to include a provision that HSA/CPS and Probation have a contractual right to rescind a Host Letter.
R3
1.1 , HSA/CPS and Probation develop an enhanced Placement Agreement to include the requirement that all Group Home Administrators complete the Mandatory Reporter training program developed by CDSS and the Office of Child abuse Prevention (OCAP) (known as the Child Abuse Mandated Reporter Training).
F3
1 An alarming number of Administrators demonstrated a lack of comprehension and/or a misinterpretation of their, as well as their staff’s obligations, under the Mandatory Reporting Laws.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
1.1 , HSA/CPS and Probation develop an enhanced Placement Agreement to include the requirement that all Group Home Administrators complete the Mandatory Reporter training program developed by CDSS and the Office of Child abuse Prevention (OCAP) (known as the Child Abuse Mandated Reporter Training).
F4
1 The contractual relationship between the Group Home Providers, HSA/CPS and Probation is the execution of a one page Group Home Placement Agreement which is inadequate to provide sufficient detail of living environment and allow for proper enforcement and oversight of the Group Home Providers and the At-Risk Youth that reside in them.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
1 , HSA/CPS and Probation develop a comprehensive and detailed Group Home Placement Agreement.
F5
1.1 Five counties in California have instituted enhanced local oversight of the Group Homes within their jurisdictions to provide better services and protection for At-Risk Youth in an effort to fill the void created by the State’s deteriorating oversight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
1.1 , HSA/CPS and Probation, in conjunction with the Department of Human Resources, initiate the establishment of an enhanced Group Home Monitoring Program in San Joaquin.
F1.1
Citing budget cuts, CCLD’s fulfillment of its regulatory and oversight role has deteriorated to the point of allowing some Group Homes to go unmonitored or un-inspected for periods of up to four years.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.2
There is no indication that CCLD provides follow-up review of the Group Home’s Program Statement to assure that it is in compliance with new laws or regulations.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.3
HSA/CPS and Probation do not receive copies of CCLD inspections unless they specifically request them.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.4
HSA/CPS and Probation do not routinely receive copies of investigations of Group Home violations by CCLD.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.5
Investigations and inspections do not take place on weekends or after regular business hours.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.6
Investigations of major incidents are not always handled by CCLD in a timely manner.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.7
CCLD performed unannounced audits of 21 of the 28 Group Homes under Grand Jury review between February 21, 2013, and March 20, 2013.
No recommendations for this finding
F1.8
CCLD issued 34 citations to the Group Homes under Grand Jury review between February 21, 2013, and March 20, 2013.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.3
Review of documents and sworn testimony revealed a number of providers were not operating in compliance with their approved Program Statements.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.4
There is a lack of comprehension and/or a misinterpretation of Group Home Providers and their staff regarding their obligations under the Mandatory Reporting Laws.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.6
. Caregiver’s testimony revealed they were occasionally required to care for up to six youths by themselves, which they attributed to an increase in the number of runaways during the periods of understaffing.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.8
Some Group Home Providers have created their own Non-Public School (NPS) to educate the special education youth in their charge.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.9
A Group Home Provider changed the educational placement of a county-placed youth without notification or consent of the placement agency.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.1
An alarming number of Administrators demonstrated a lack of comprehension and/or a misinterpretation of their, as well as their staff’s obligations, under the Mandatory Reporting Laws.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.2
Some Administrators responsible for multiple Group Homes throughout the County seldom visit these individual homes.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.3
One Administrator, by standing practice, had delegated most of the Administrative responsibilities to an individual classified as a Facility Manager who did not possess the prerequisite education or certification, in violation of CCR’s.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.4
Compliance for attendance at weekly training sessions developed to meet state mandated annual training requirements varied among the group homes.
No recommendations for this finding
F3.5
Some Caregivers who worked the night shift as well as those who were employed on a part- time basis did not regularly attend the weekly training sessions provided by the Provider. Nor were they required to make-up any sessions they failed to attend in order to comply with the 40 hour annual training requirement, as required by CCR’s.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.1
The contractual relationship between the Group Home Providers, HSA/CPS and Probation is the execution of a one page Group Home Placement Agreement which is inadequate to provide sufficient detail of living environment and allow for proper enforcement and oversight of the Group Home Providers and the At-Risk Youth that reside in them.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.2
CPS Social Workers and/or Probation Officers are required to visit their At-Risk Youth at least once a month, but they do not always comply with that requirement.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1.1
The distribution of the AFDC-FC Funds flow through HSA and are tied to a one page Placement Agreement between the Group Home Provider and HSA/CPS and or Probation Department.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.1.2
Neither HSA/CPS nor the Probation Department has the ability to rescind their original Host Letter. The only recourse a placement agency has with a non-compliant Group Home Provider is removal of the At-Risk Youth from the home and placing them elsewhere.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.5.1
Many State required incident report forms reviewed were filled out incompletely; specifically, the check-off sections indicating whether or not reporting requirements had been met.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.5.2
Cases reviewed reveal some incident reports were made by a supervisor, not necessarily the employee who witnessed the incident. This has resulted in delays in submitting the reports to CCLD, HSA/CPS and Probation.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.5.3
Unusual Incident/Injury Reports were found not to have been signed by both the writer and reviewer, as required by CCR’s.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.5.4
Some Supervisors modified reports prior to submittal to CCLD.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.5.5
Many Unusual Incident/Injury Reports failed to indicate if any follow-up had been undertaken to determine why the youth had run away.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.6.1
Facility Managers and staff from both large and small Group Homes were unaware of State’s minimum staffing ratio requirements.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.7.1
A number of caregivers were terminated by Group Home Providers during the period of 2007 through 2012 for sexual misconduct or violations of the At-Risk Youths’ personal rights.
No recommendations for this finding
F2.7.2
Group Home Providers are not required to conduct their own review of National Sex Offender registries as part of their hiring process.
No recommendations for this finding
F4.2.1
CPS Social Workers and/or Probation Officers visitations with the At-Risk Youth may take place other than at the Group Home.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.1.1
Five counties in California have instituted enhanced local oversight of the Group Homes within their jurisdictions to provide better services and protection for At-Risk Youth in an effort to fill the void created by the State’s deteriorating oversight.
No recommendations for this finding
F5.1.2
HSA/CPS and Probation management would embrace a collaborative approach to enhancing the Monitoring of Group Home Providers.
No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 1