Mendocino County Grand Jury • 2017-2018 • Agency Response
Response to: In-Home Supportive Services

Required Response Form Grand Jury Report Title: Mendocino County Juvenile Hall Report Dated: May 8, 2018 Response Form*

Published: May 08, 2018 6 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 12 findings

F1
\boxtimes I (we) disagree wholly or partially with the Findings numbered below, and have attached a statement specifying any portion of the Finding that are disputed with an explanation of the reasons therefore.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The following Recommendation(s) have not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future; attached, as required, is a time frame for implementation: GRAND JURY REPORT RESPONSE FORM PAGE TWO The following Recommendation(s) require further analysis, and attached, as required, is an explanation and the scope and parameters of the planned analysis, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared, discussed and approved by the officer and/or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed: (This time frame shall not exceed six (6) months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury Report) The following Recommendations will NOT be implemented because they are not warranted and/or are not deemed reasonable; attached, as required, is an explanation therefore: I have completed the above responses, and have attached, as required the following number of pages to this response form: Number of Pages attached: 4 I understand that responses to Grand Jury Reports are public records. They will be posted on the Grand Jury website: www.mendocinocounty.org/government/grand-jury. The clerk of the responding agency is required to maintain a copy of the response. I understand that I must submit this signed response form and any attachments as follows: First Step: E-mail in pdf file format to: The Grand Jury Foreperson at: [email protected] The Presiding Judge: [email protected] Second Step: Mail all originals to: MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT TITLED: MENDOCINO COUNTY JUVENILE HALL
F2
experienced, dedicated, and committed staff. The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with finding F2. The Board of Supervisors believes that if Juvenile Hall were to be closed every effort would be made to assist County employees in securing appropriate positions within the County. The Board of Supervisors is not aware of factual information to the contrary.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The closure of the facility would be a devastating loss to our juveniles and their families. The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with finding F3 which appears to be more a statement of opinion than a finding of fact. The Board of Supervisors agrees that closure of Juvenile Hall would result in a loss of convenience for some family members, who would have farther to travel to visit their children, but is not aware of any factual information presented by the Grand Jury that supports the opinion that closure of juvenile hall would be a devastating loss. Closing the Mendocino County Juvenile Hall and reducing costs by contracting
No recommendations for this finding
F4
with another county treats the youth of our county as commodities. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with finding F4 which appears to be more a statement of opinion than a finding of fact. The Board of Supervisors is not aware of any factual information presented by the Grand Jury that supports this statement of opinion.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Funds set aside for the Information Technology reserve for potential future needs are more than adequate to keep Mendocino County Juvenile Hall open. The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with finding F5. The Board of Supervisors believes it is poor public policy and fiscally unsustainable to use reserve funds to support ongoing operations. Decisions for our children appear to be cost driven and lacking in concern for
No recommendations for this finding
F6
their welfare in terms of separation and isolation from family, school, and local support services that are essential to their successful rehabilitation. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with finding F6 which appears to be more a statement of opinion than a finding of fact. The Board of Supervisors considers many factors, including cost, when allocating available resources among the many services that the County is expected or required to provide.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Juvenile wards will spend hours in cars, handcuffed, while being transported between counties. The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with finding F7. The Board of Supervisors is not aware of any factual information that quantifies the additional hours that will be spent in transport.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Because the geographical size of Mendocino County may require extended transportation time for law enforcement after the arrest of a juvenile, there could be periods when areas of the county are without law enforcement coverage. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with finding F8. The Board of Supervisors notes that during budget hearings on June 5 and 6 it was stated that law enforcement personnel assigned to patrol duties would not be responsible for out of County transport.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
The county's proposal to spend $1.1 million for the juvenile hall budget forfeits the responsibility for our juveniles to a distant county. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with finding F9 which appears to be more a statement of opinion than a finding of fact. The Board of Supervisors believes that closure of Juvenile Hall, as a matter of law and policy, will not alter the responsibility of the County for its juvenile wards.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Adding $1.2 million to the proposed net county cost would enable a safe and efficient operation of juvenile hall and fulfill the county's duty to care for and protect its wards. The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with finding F10. The Board of Supervisors agrees that expenditure of an additional $1.2 million of Net County Cost, in addition to the $1.1 million presented in the Proposed Fiscal Year 2018- 19 County budget will enable safe and efficient operation of Juvenile Hall but disagrees that this is the only course of action that can fulfill the County's duty to care for and protect our juvenile wards.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
A county decision to send its troubled youth to another county's facility is diametrically opposed to the state policy of community-based detention that enables juveniles to better reintegrate into local support systems. The Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with finding F11 which appears to be more a statement of opinion than a finding of fact. The Board of Supervisors notes that the Mendocino County Grand Jury cites "very favorable reviews by the Lake County Grand Jury and the Lake County Superior Court Judge assigned to juvenile court" of out of county placement of Lake County juvenile wards.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
It is shortsighted to dismantle a highly praised program and to close a facility that may need to be reopened in the future. The Board of Supervisors disagrees with finding F12 which appears to be more a statement of opinion than a finding of fact. The Board of Supervisors does not believe it would be fiscally prudent to make budget decisions based on speculation regarding potential changes to state policy that may or may not occur an indefinite number of years into the future. Response to Recommendations: Keep Juvenile Hall open and continue its operations in Mendocino County. (All
No recommendations for this finding

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.