Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
• 2018-2019
Honoring Commitments to the Public Review of 2015-16 Grand Jury Report Responses
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 16 findings
F1
Most respondents to the 2015-16 Grand Jury investigations fulfilled or partially fulfilled the commitments they made to analyze a recommendation within six months, or to implement a recommendation at a specified time in the future.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Board of Supervisors fulfilled its commitment to provide a summary of retirement costs and obligations in the Management Discussion and Analysis section of the CAFR.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The Board of Supervisors fulfilled its commitment to provide estimated pension costs and obligations in clear and understandable language in the 2018-19 Proposed Budget through an online version.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The Board of Supervisors and the Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled their commitments to fill all MHAB Board vacancies and to train both incoming and continuing members.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
The Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled its commitment to hold annual strategy meetings and address strategic plans and priorities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The Mental Health Advisory Board should hold an annual meeting to establish and evaluate strategic goals, prioritize those goals by focusing on problem areas, and establish committees to develop plans for problem resolution. The MHAB responded that it would hold annual meetings to evaluate and prioritize strategic goals. The MHAB held a strategy meeting in February 2017. It provided the Grand Jury with materials demonstrating that it had created strategies and priorities for resolving problem areas. The MHAB held a similar meeting in June 2018. The 2015-16 Grand Jury also found that the MHAB did not have an effective mechanism for sharing information on available programs and services with the community or local mental health professionals.
F6
The Board of Supervisors and Mental Health Advisory Board fulfilled their commitments to make more meeting materials and services information available online.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The Soquel Union Elementary School District did not provide documentation confirming that it had analyzed the Grand Jury’s recommendation within six months; however, in 2018 it took steps to address the complaint form issue identified in the recommendation.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The Board of Supervisors followed through on its commitments to analyze Grand Jury recommendations related to Domestic Violence Commission meeting times and reporting practices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The District Attorney (or their designee) should be the Domestic Violence Commission’s chair for at least the first year. The BOS committed to implementing these two recommendations in the future, although it did not provide a timeframe for implementation. During the three January - March 2017 meetings, the DVC working group considered these two recommendations. The ordinance drafted to address Recommendations 1 and 4 also addressed Recommendations 2 and 3 – it proposed to streamline the membership and make the District Attorney (or a designee) the first chair. The BOS has not adopted the draft ordinance as of June 2018, as it is still assessing Commission procedural issues.[28]
F9
A District Attorney designee met with the presiding judge of the Superior Court to explore the re-establishment of a Domestic Violence Court, thus fulfilling the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to do so.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The District Attorney (or their designee) should be the Domestic Violence Commission’s chair for at least the first year. The BOS committed to implementing these two recommendations in the future, although it did not provide a timeframe for implementation. During the three January - March 2017 meetings, the DVC working group considered these two recommendations. The ordinance drafted to address Recommendations 1 and 4 also addressed Recommendations 2 and 3 – it proposed to streamline the membership and make the District Attorney (or a designee) the first chair. The BOS has not adopted the draft ordinance as of June 2018, as it is still assessing Commission procedural issues.[28]
F10
The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office analyzed the Grand Jury’s Facility Risk Report
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The Sheriff-Coroner‘s Office fulfilled its commitment to build a fence to enclose the entire Main Jail.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office honored their commitments to make changes to the September 2016 provider contract for medical services for County detention facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The Sheriff-Coroner and Board of Supervisors should require in the contract that the medical services provider for detention facilities obtain and maintain accreditation from the California Medical Association- Institute for Medical Quality for adult detention facilities. In their responses to Recommendations 5 and 7, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner committed to changes to the medical services provider contract scheduled to go into effect in September 2016. The September 2016 contract eliminated the clause requiring the service provider to pay up to $15,000 per inmate admitted to a hospital[29] and added language that required CMA-IMQ accreditation.[30] CFMG received accreditation for the period June 21, 2017 through June 21, 2019.[31] The 2015-16 Grand Jury report also found that the Health Services Agency’s 2015 inspection did not address whether the Main Jail was in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations.
F13
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office fulfilled their commitment to do a Title 15 inspection of the Main Jail in 2016.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The Health Services Agency should complete the annual 2016 Title 15 inspection and identify if the facility is in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Title 15, Section 1213), as required by state law. In their responses, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner committed to implementing Recommendation 6 in the future, indicating that the Health Services Agency would inspect the Main Jail The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office provided the 2017-18 Grand Jury with confirmation that a 2016 Title 15 inspection had taken place and that the Main Jail was in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Section 1213) in 2016.[32] Report: “Jails in Transition: 2015-2016 Jails Inspection Report” This 2015-16 report found that the Crisis Intervention Team’s Facility Risk Report lacked specific recommendations for inmates. The Facility Risk Report is a daily report for staff that provides alerts for inmates deemed “at-risk for suicide, escape, assault, medical issues, and other destabilizing behaviors.”[33]
F14
The Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner’s Office confirmed that the Main Jail was in compliance with Title 15 Detoxification Treatment requirements in 2016.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The Health Services Agency should complete the annual 2016 Title 15 inspection and identify if the facility is in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Title 15, Section 1213), as required by state law. In their responses, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff-Coroner committed to implementing Recommendation 6 in the future, indicating that the Health Services Agency would inspect the Main Jail The Sheriff-Coroner’s Office provided the 2017-18 Grand Jury with confirmation that a 2016 Title 15 inspection had taken place and that the Main Jail was in compliance with the Detoxification Treatment requirements (Section 1213) in 2016.[32] Report: “Jails in Transition: 2015-2016 Jails Inspection Report” This 2015-16 report found that the Crisis Intervention Team’s Facility Risk Report lacked specific recommendations for inmates. The Facility Risk Report is a daily report for staff that provides alerts for inmates deemed “at-risk for suicide, escape, assault, medical issues, and other destabilizing behaviors.”[33]
F15
The Felton Fire Protection District’s submission to the current Grand Jury of written policy and procedures regarding the acquisition and sale of real property contradicts the facts established in the 2016 Grand Jury report that the District lacked such documents, and is inconsistent with the District’s 2016 commitment to the public to adopt such policies and procedures in the future.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The Felton Fire Protection District has not yet fulfilled its commitment to post policies and procedures on its website.
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 4
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R1R7 Inspection Report[14] [15] Coroner Felton Fire Felton Fire Protection District’s Protection District – R3 Surplus Land Sale[16] [17] Board of Directors Investigation In this section we summarize the findings, recommendations, and responses from each 2015-16 Grand Jury investigative report listed in Table A. We then analyze the documents submitted to the current Grand Jury to determine what actions, if any, recipients ultimately took with respect to the 2016 recommendations. Figure 1 and Figure 2 provide summary views of how respondents fulfilled their commitments to analyze or implement Grand Jury recommendations as of June 2018. Report: “Reporting Santa Cruz County Retirement Costs and Obligations” This 2015-16 report focused on the presentation of information on Santa Cruz County retirement costs and obligations, and made the following recommendations:
-
R2– Supervisors Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board[4] [5] [6] Mental Health – R2, R5, R8 Advisory Board Soquel Elementary School Board: SUESD Board of
-
R4– Full Disclosure Not Optional[7] [8] Trustees Santa Cruz County Domestic Board of Violence Commission: Missing In R1, R4 R2, R3, R5 Supervisors Action[9] [10] Board of – R6, R7 Supervisors Another Death in Our Jail[11] [12] [13] Sheriff-Coroner – R5, R6, R7 Jails in Transition: 2015-2016 Jails Sheriff-
-
R8The Mental Health Advisory Board should increase efforts to raise community awareness of mental health issues through public announcements, publications, speaking engagements, and other forms of community outreach. The MHAB responded that this recommendation would be implemented in the future. The MHAB engaged with the public, beginning in the summer of 2017, through a public town hall meeting in August 2017; a televised presentation of the MHAB’s 2016-17 biennial report to the BOS in April 2018;[22] and online postings of monthly summaries from the Director of Behavioral Health.[23] In sum the BOS and MHAB have fulfilled their commitments to address the 2015-16 Grand Jury’s recommendations. Report: “Soquel Union Elementary School Board – Full Disclosure Not Optional” This 2015-16 report found that the Soquel Union Elementary School District (SUESD) did not provide guidance on how to file a complaint. The report made the following recommendation:
Conclusions 5
-
CL1 Page 10Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (10 recommendations)
-
CL2 Page 10Mental Health Advisory Board (3 recommendations)
-
CL3 Page 10Soquel Union Elementary School District (1 recommendation)
-
CL4 Page 10Sheriff-Coroner (5 recommendations)
-
CL5 Page 10Felton Fire Protection District Board of Directors (1 recommendation) As previously discussed, respondents to Grand Jury investigative reports do not have a statutory duty to provide verification that analyses or changes have been completed; therefore, the current Grand jury opened a new investigation to determine how government officials followed through on their 2016 commitments. We summarize graphically our findings in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 shows the number of recommendations that each government entity committed to consider within 6 months and whether it followed through on those stated commitments. Figure 2 shows the number of recommendations that each government entity committed to implement at a specified time in the future and whether it it followed through on those stated commitments. Figure 1 shows that four of the five submissions provided the current Grand Jury with documentation describing the actions taken to analyze a recommendation; the fifth submission showed that the organization addressed the issues identified in the 2015-16 Grand Jury’s recommendations at some point in time. Figure 1: Actions Taken to Analyze Recommendations Within 6 Months
No Responses Found 3
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office
Santa Cruz County District Attorney
Elected County Office
Santa Cruz County Sheriff
Elected County Office