Yolo County Detention – What Can Be Improved?

Recommendations 15

• R1

  Page 146
  By December 31, 2019, each reclamation district website should highlight its purpose, history, and the important work done or planned, in order to improve transparency. Response from Board of RD 537: Recommendation has been implemented. A website as described for Reclamation District No. 537 was established May 2019 (www.rd537.specialdistrict.org) Striving to Make a Difference: Responses to the 2018-2019 Yolo County Grand Jury Report Response from Board of RD 900: Recommendation has been implemented. Reclamation District 900 has established a website which it is working to enhance to make it more useful and transparent to the public.
• R2

  Page 147
  By October 1, 2019, General Managers for RD 537 and RD 900 should have regularly scheduled formal meetings (minimally quarterly) with the City Manager to discuss joint directives and goals. Response from West Sacramento City Council: Recommendation has been implemented. The City Council will direct the City Manager to implement the Grand Jury Recommendation R2. Response from Board of RD 537: Recommendation requires further analysis. Based on YLAFCo action on July 25, 2019 and statements made by the City of West Sacramento's attorney, the City Manager will have zero involvement in the management of a consolidated RD900. Furthermore, the area of RD537 within the City will detach and be annexed into RD900. RD 537 will coordinate with the management of RD900 on this process. Response from Board of RD 900: Recommendation has been implemented. Reclamation District No. 900 would be pleased to attempt to schedule quarterly meetings with the city manager of the City of West Sacramento to discuss joint directives and goals.
• R3

  Page 147
  By February 1, 2022, YLAFCo should revisit and publish the MSR/SOI for RD 537 and 900 earlier than scheduled to ensure whatever final decision in governance is made, the result is not detrimental to the functioning of flood protection. Response from YLAFCo Commissioners: This recommendation requires further analysis. The earliest possible date the RD 537 and RD 900 boundary changes will take effect is July 1, 2020. Currently, LAFCo has the MSR for the reclamation districts scheduled for fiscal year 2023/24. Therefore, the current schedule would provide for an MSR three years after the boundary changes would occur. LAFCo reviews this schedule every year at a minimum or anytime as needed and can assess if an earlier review is warranted. Response from Board of RD 537: Recommendation requires further analysis. Agreed. Although RD537 will cease to have territory and operations in the West Sacramento Basin with YLAFCo's 07/25/19 actions; we will continue to have concerns for the wellbeing of the property owners we have served there. Outside oversight will be more important than ever to insure adequate flood protection is being provided. Striving to Make a Difference: Responses to the 2018-2019 Yolo County Grand Jury Report Response from Board of RD 900: Recommendation requires further analysis. Reclamation District No. 900 is not opposed to Recommendation 3. However, should the alternative reorganization proposal made by Reclamation Districts 900 and 537 (to detach the city portion of RD 537 and annex that territory into RD 900, with RD 900 working with the Department of Water Resources to take over maintenance area 4) be adopted by Yolo LAFCo it would appear that revisiting the MSR/SOR for RDs 537 and 900 would be unnecessary.
• R4

  Page 148
  By January 1, 2020, increase the size of the WSAFCA Board from three to seven members and include a public member. Response from West Sacramento City Council: Recommendation requires further analysis. YLAFCO acted in July 2019 to reorganize the reclamation districts. Until such time as the reorganization if fully complete, it is premature to entertain changes to the WSAFCA Board given that the subject reclamation districts are members of the current WSAFCA Board. Response from Board of RD 537: Recommendation requires further analysis. RD537 believes that increasing the size of the WSAFCA Board to include public members is appropriate, but should be an increase from three (3) to five (5) members rather than seven (7). RD537 will continue to participate in the WSAFCA JPA until a potential reorganization of its membership and Board structure is unanimously agreed to and approved by the necessary agencies and the CCVFPB. Response from Board of RD 900: Recommendation requires further analysis. RD 900 believes that increasing the size of the WSAFCA Board to include public members is appropriate, but should be an increase from three (3) to five (5) members rather than seven (7), with one (1) public member to be appointed by the City of West Sacramento and one (1) public member to be appointed, jointly, by RDs 900 and 537. RD 537 should remain a member of WSAFCA with one Trustee on the Board, both for continuity and to avoid the difficulty of withdrawal given the position of the California Central Valley Flood Protection Board as expressed in the Amendment to the WSAFCA Joint Powers Agreement. To accomplish this the WSAFCA Joint Powers Agreement must be amended, which will require the unanimous agreement of the three members. This should be addressed following Yolo LAFCO's decision on the competing reorganization proposals currently before Yolo LAFCO: (i) the City of West Sacrament (sic) proposal to make RD 900 and the City portion of RD 537 subsidiary districts of the City of West Sacramento, and (ii) RD 900 and 537's alternative proposal to detach the City portion of RD 537 and annex that territory into RD 900. Striving to Make a Difference: Responses to the 2018-2019 Yolo County Grand Jury Report
• R5

  Page 149
  By January 1, 2020, YLAFCo should create an internal procedure/policy to conduct an independent, third-party examination when confronted by an extremely impactful or unique issue on topics such as costs and liability, before any final recommendation is made by the YLAFCo Commission. Reliance on opinions paid for by affected parties should only be one basis for consideration. This new procedure/policy ensures due diligence, best practices, and is in the public’s best interest. Response from YLAFCo Commissioners: Recommendation has been implemented by LAFCo. Notwithstanding the response to Finding F9, at its August 22, 2019 meeting LAFCo adopted a new Yolo LAFCo Project Policy 6.13 as follows: One of LAFCo's purposes is to make studies and to obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local agencies in each county and to shape the development of local agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities. During the preparation of an MSR and/or SOI, LAFCo may consider obtaining any needed analysis or studies by soliciting or hiring consulting services.
• R6

  Page 149
  By January 1, 2020, YLAFCo should ensure a mechanism exists, if legally feasible, for funding independent, third-party examinations when considering impactful or unique proposals (such as billing the affected or impacted parties). Response from YLAFCo Commissioners: Recommendation will not be implemented because it already exists. LAFCo's fee schedule already provides a mechanism to pay for such an examination as follows, "Any additional expenses incurred by the Commission, in excess of the deposited amount, will be billed to and paid by the applicant before completion of the LAFCo proceedings, including final recordation and filings." This includes any additional studies or analysis deemed necessary by LAFCo.
• R7

  Page 149
  By January 1, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should lead the creation of a multi-agency and stakeholder flood committee or working group to facilitate collaboration among all Yolo County communities on all flood topics, plan for global warming flood changes, and present these discussions to the citizens. Since two Yolo County Supervisors are YLAFCo commissioners, those supervisors should present the formation of this committee to the full board. Response from Yolo County Board of Supervisors and YLAFCo Commissioners: The recommendation requires further analysis. This year, Yolo County reinitiated FloodSAFE Yolo 2.0, a coordinated comprehensive flood management planning effort for the west side of the county. One of the goals is to establish a sustainable Striving to Make a Difference: Responses to the 2018-2019 Yolo County Grand Jury Report governance structure. Once that is established, it may offer an opportunity for greater coordination, but for now, it is the desire of the parties involved to start with a smaller area and demonstrate success before expanding. Should, however, the cities express interest in a countywide approach in the near term, the County stands ready to participate. Meanwhile, many agencies and stakeholders in Yolo County, including the County, participate in the following flood coordination groups: Westside Sacramento Integrated Regional Water Management (Lake, Solano, Napa and Yolo counties with Yolo County chairing the effort) Lower-Sacramento/Delta North Regional Flood Management Planning Group (Yolo and Solano counties, Reclamation District 2068/2098, WSAFCA, SAFCA, Solano County Water Agency) Central Valley Flood Control Association (50+ reclamation districts, 6 counties and 4 flood control agencies; Yolo County holds a seat on the Board) Central Valley Ag Floodplain Task Force Executive Committee Water Resources Association of Yolo County (County, all cities within Yolo County and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation) 2. Missed Funding Opportunities: West Sacramento Flood Control Projects The Yolo County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) identified that the flood control projects in the West Sacramento area did not receive the requested federal funding for levee improvement projects. The missed funding opportunities were significant and could have totaled in the millions of dollars. The Grand Jury tracked the funding requests in an attempt to determine why this occurred. The State of California has large-scale flood management plans. However, each community has the responsibility to secure funding for their flood protection. West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA), an agency comprised of the City of West Sacramento and Reclamation Districts 537 and 900, attempted to obtain funding for flood protection projects. WSAFCA lacked extensive knowledge of the funding process and had little critical collaboration from regional, state, and federal agencies. The Grand Jury found that the process local government agencies must take to secure state and federal funding is complicated and subject to change. The Grand Jury also found that specialists in flood control funding are essential at the lobbying and consulting levels. WSAFCA failed to secure federal funding for its flood protection projects in the last two budget cycles. However, in late 2018, WSAFCA received $400,000 from the U.S. Army Striving to Make a Difference: Responses to the 2018-2019 Yolo County Grand Jury Report Corps of Engineers (USACE) for project design. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) received its entire requested amount. When neighboring urban centers, such as Sacramento, strengthen their flood defenses, flood risk could be transferred to neighboring unimproved levees. In this case, the unimproved levees of West Sacramento and Yolo County could be at risk. RECOMMENDATIONS
• R8

  Page 158
  By January 1, 2020, the JDF should provide youth with therapists independent of ORR to enable youth to speak freely about their problems and obtain counsel without fear that normal teenage emotional problems are criminalized and used as justification for continued confinement. Response from Yolo County Board of Supervisors: We are unable to implement this recommendation due to the very nature of the ORR program. ORR is the legal guardian of all undocumented youth and ORR provides consent for and oversight of all services in the same manner as any guardian. Of note, behavioral health services are provided by Yolo County clinical staff; they are not direct employees of ORR. Additionally, youth do not remain in secure placement due to their emotional problems; rather, only youth who continue to present a danger to others, based on clinical assessment, remain in secure placement in order to ensure the safety of all youth. Striving to Make a Difference: Responses to the 2018-2019 Yolo County Grand Jury Report
• R9

  Page 159
  By October 1, 2019, the JDF should provide youth with a means for anonymously submitting complaints independent of detention officers, including by computer. Response from Yolo County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation requires further analysis. The Probation Department is committed to affording youth various avenues to submit complaints and will further consider ways to facilitate an anonymous process.
• R10

  Page 159
  By January 1, 2020, the JDF should enact procedures to mandate attendance of behavioral therapists during post use-of-force incidents to allow feedback at a critical time when they could coach detention officers on potentially better methods to de-escalate such situations. Response from Yolo County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation was implemented in March 2019. The Probation Department is currently updating its Policies and Procedures Manual to reflect this mandate.
• R11

  Page 159
  By January 1, 2020, the Board of Supervisors should convene an independent interdisciplinary group to ensure youths’ privacy and to improve environmental conditions at the JDF. Response from Yolo County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation will be implemented utilizing the existing Juvenile Justice Commission, comprised of members of the public with varying interests and areas of expertise who are appointed by the Court with the mission to inquire into the administration of the juvenile court law in Yolo County and to assist in efforts toward prevention and reduction of juvenile delinquency, as required by law.
• R12

  Page 159
  By January 1, 2020, the Probation Department should consider posting its policy and procedures manual and the JDF’s Youth Handbook on the Yolo County website. The County should thereafter keep updated versions on the website, and provide a means for the public to freely offer suggestions for improvement. Response from Yolo County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation requires further analysis. While the Probation Department is committed to transparency, it is also committed to maintaining the security of the institution and will consider additional measures while ensuring this balance.
• R13

  Page 159
  By January 1, 2020, Yolo County should provide a procedure that allows non- ORR related health workers access to youth for mental health treatment, Striving to Make a Difference: Responses to the 2018-2019 Yolo County Grand Jury Report which allows youth to freely discuss their problems without fear that their medical condition is criminalized. Response from Yolo County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation will not be implemented. Under no circumstances are youth's medical conditions criminalized, and as such, no outside intervention is called for in this matter.
• R14

  Page 160
  By January 1, 2020, Yolo County should allow access to ORR youth by its medical advisory committee, the Yolo County Health Council, to ensure youth are being properly treated. Response from Yolo County Board of Supervisors: This recommendation requires further analysis. While this is not the purview of the Yolo County Health Council, the Yolo County Health & Human Services Agency (HHSA) is playing an increasingly active role in oversite (sic) of ORR mental and medical health services. HHSA contracts with a third party provider to conduct chart reviews and provide recommendations for improvement. HHSA has also increased oversite (sic) via the Quality Assurance Committee Meeting process by instituting a mechanism to respond to concerns from partners regarding quality of care. This recommendation will be further analyzed in collaboration with the Public Health Officer and HHSA.
• R15

  Page 160
  Because few local and ORR youths are being detained in the JDF, and one pod is empty, it should be considered for use as the transitional adult facility proposed by the probation department to enable continued funding of the JDF by the ORR. Response from Yolo County Board of Supervisors: The recommendation requires further analysis. Utilizing the vacant living unit for a transition age program is being considered by the Probation Department and County stakeholders, however, implementation of a transitional age program in the facility is an issue fully independent of the matter of continuing the ORR program in Yolo County.