Santa Clara County Grand Jury • 2024-2025

Falling Through the Cracks: Failing Santa Clara County’s High-Needs Youth

Published: June 17, 2025 39 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 10 findings

F1
The Civil Grand Jury commends DFCS and BHSD for producing a complete continuum of care plan for high-acuity youth that addresses the establishment of E-STRTPs within the County, enhances TrSCF staffing, and adds more ISFC+ homes.
No recommendations for this finding
F2a
The County has underperformed in delivering a complete continuum of care for high-acuity youth.
No recommendations for this finding
F2b
The current plan was only produced following a referral from the Board after years of failing to provide an in-county STRTP.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Because no one person has the responsibility and authority for the delivery of a continuum of care for high-acuity youth, there is no singular sense of urgency or coordinated priorities across departments to deliver solutions.
Related Recommendations (3)
R3a
The County should identify one senior leader with responsibility and authority over all departments involved to deliver on the features of the proposed plan. The senior leader should be identified
R3b
The County should produce a comprehensive timeline and provide quarterly public updates to the Board starting in October 2025. Updates should include tracking of progress and setbacks against milestones.
R3c
The “ISFC Workgroup” should be permanent and submit semi-annual reports to the Board starting in December 2025.
F4
There is no solution in the February 2025 plan to address the high cost of housing in the short term for existing ISFC+ families who are not in hosted homes.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4a
The County should provide existing ISFC+ parents who are not in hosted homes with an increased housing stipend
R4b
The ISFC+ caregiver financial package should be reviewed annually for cost-of-living adjustments starting September 1, 2025.
F5
For many years, the County experienced significant challenges with its TrSCFs, formerly known as “scattered sites.” The plan does not include a timeline for the County to add at least one staff member at each TrSCF with additional training and experience managing complex behaviors of the youth in these homes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
By September 1, 2025, the County should provide a detailed timeline to add skilled staff members to TrSCFs. The timeline should include all critical path milestones.
F6a
The County’s past experience demonstrates it needs more than one contractor providing E- STRTPs. Having multiple providers is a critical component of the plan to provide E-STRTPs.
No recommendations for this finding
F6b
The County’s timeline for establishing its own E-STRTP is significantly longer when compared to a CBO.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The establishment of the County-based E-STRTP requires multi-year funding from the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The County should make a multi-year financial commitment starting in FY 2025-26 to fund the E- STRTP component of the plan regardless of State or federal funding.
F8
The County does not know the total cost of the continuum of care across multiple departments for high-acuity youth and therefore cannot determine how effectively taxpayer dollars are being spent.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
The County should compile all costs across departments, programs, and contracts related to the continuum of care for high-acuity youth and report annually to the Board starting December 31, 2025.