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
⚠️ 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 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
-
CL1The Grand Jury determined that the level of care provided by Group Homes Providers charged with providing care to the community’s At-Risk Youth throughout San Joaquin County range from very dedicated to the youth’s welfare and often exceeds their statutory obligations. Other Group Homes reviewed demonstrated through their day to day practices and lack of compliance with required regulations, appeared to be in the business only to make money. In view of the State’s deteriorating oversight of Group Homes during the last three years, it is incumbent upon San Joaquin County, through its Human Services Agency and Probation Department, to strengthen their current oversight of At-Risk Youth care. While much of the responsibility for regulation and oversight of Group Homes lies within State agencies, over which this Grand Jury has no authority, certain San Joaquin County agencies can takes steps to improve the evaluation of care for its youth’s environments. Whether alone, in cooperation with other counties having the same concerns, or taking the problem before State leaders, the County must institute corrective action as soon as possible. We cannot turn our backs on the most vulnerable youth of our community. As a society, we have an obligation to make sure that they are provided a safe, healthy, healing living environment. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). This report was issued by the Grand Jury with the exception of one member of the jury. This juror was excluded for all parts of the investigation, including interviews, deliberations, and the preparation and acceptance of the report. Response Requirements California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court by (within 90 days). San Joaquin County Human Services Agency, Child Protective Services All Findings and Recommendations San Joaquin County Probation Department All Findings and Recommendations Mail a hard copy of the response to: Hon. David P. Warner, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email the response to Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury, at: [email protected] Appendix A Group Home Administrators Education, Experience and Training Requirements: ADMINSTRATORS are the individuals designated by Group Home Providers’ Board of Directors to act on behalf of the Provider in the overall management of their facilities, and who must meet one of the following requirements in accordance with CCR’s Section 84064. (A) A master's degree in a behavioral science from an accredited college or university, plus a minimum of one year of employment as a social worker, as defined in CCR’s Section 80001s.(4), in an agency serving children or in a group residential program for children; or (B) A bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university, plus at least one year of administrative experience or supervisory experience over social work, child care, and/or support staff providing direct services to children in an agency or in a community care facility with a licensed capacity of seven or more; or (C) Completed at least two years at an accredited college or university, plus at least two years administrative experience or supervisory experience over social work, child care, and/or support staff providing direct services to children in an agency or in a community care facility with a licensed capacity of seven or more youth; or (D) Completed high school, or equivalent, plus at least three years administrative experience or supervisory experience over social work, child care, and/or support staff providing direct services to children in an agency or in a community care facility with a licensed capacity of seven or more youth. In order to retain an Administrators Certificate, an individual must complete 40 Hours of Continuing Education every two years, of which 20 hours may be taken through online courses from an approved vendor.