Orange County Grand Jury • 2010-2011 • Agency Response
Response to: CHILD ABUSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE EFFECTIVENESS

Child Abuse Emergency Response Effectiveness

Published: May 18, 2011 15 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 7 findings

F1 Page 13
Even though there has been a 22% decrease in personnel assigned to Emergency Response Units I and II (2008-2010), the needs of children who are referred to Emergency Response Units I and II in Orange County are being met.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 13
Conduct workshop(s) jointly with law enforcement to enhance the role of each and ways to seek more efficient interaction when working together on child abuse cases.
F2 Page 13
While case load has not increased in ERU, workload has increased due to increased reporting requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 13
Review and analyze procedures concerning the transportation of children in social workers personal automobiles in terms of liability and possible alternatives.
F3 Page 13
Response time to address child abuse, both 10 day and immediate, consistently exceeds mandated State requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 14
Continue analyzing the ERU reporting requirements using social workers from both units to reduce redundancy and increase efficiency. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Sections 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are requested from the: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations Social Services Agency F.1 through F.7 R.1 through R.3
F4 Page 13
The percentage of children who receive a monthly visit for whom a visit was required, exceeds State standards.
No recommendations for this finding
F5 Page 13
The interaction between Emergency Response Units I and II, the Child Abuse Registry, Child Abuse Services Team, Intake and law enforcement are working effectively.
No recommendations for this finding
F6 Page 13
Mandated in-service training for social workers (40 hours every two years) is perceived by some social workers as redundant.
No recommendations for this finding
F7 Page 13
Social Workers sometimes use their personal vehicles to transport minors when removing them from their home, causing them concern about their liability. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requests responses from the agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based upon its review of the ERU of the Children and Family Services of the Social Services Agency, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations:
No recommendations for this finding

Agency Responses 2

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.