📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
Page 26
As promised in their responses to the 2016-17 Grand Jury report, the COE and CSO collaborated with local law enforcement agencies to produce a thorough and well-written Countywide Threat Assessment Plan.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 21
The Plan’s detailed flow chart, assessment protocol, and related documents will be valuable resources for school districts to use in threat situations. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by June 11, 2018 18 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 22
The Santa Cruz County Professional Development Plan for School Safety demonstrates the COE and CSO’s commitment to adequately preparing school staff and local law enforcement to respond to future threats in our schools. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE – explain the disputed portion DISAGREE – explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Respond by June 11, 2018 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 19
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 26
Neither the Countywide Threat Assessment Plan nor the Professional Development Plan for School Safety explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in a non-threat situation, which may compromise the responders’ readiness in a threat situation. Response The Threat Assessment protocol has been modified to explicitly call for rehearsing the threat assessment protocol in non-threat situations. Please see pages 4 and 25 of the updated Threat Assessment Protocol (attached).
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 26
The COE should mandate rehearsals of the threat assessment process in every school district to improve the schools’ ability to determine the existence of a credible threat before violence actually occurs. (F4) Response Though the COE and CSO are not authorized to mandate school district staff rehearsals of the threat assessment process, we have included these tabletop rehearsals in the modified version of the Threat Assessment Protocol. 2 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 23
Additional Recommendations 5
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R1Page 23The COE and CSO should continue to work together to ensure that our schools and law enforcement agencies have up-to-date resources and training in threat response, assessment, and management. X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED – summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE – summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS – explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED – explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County Sheriff’s Office and the County Office of Education have worked collaboratively to update policies and procedures. While the Sheriff’s Office cannot mandate the adoption of policy by the school districts, these policies have been shared with school districts county-wide for them to modify/adopt as they need. The Sheriff’s Office, in cooperation with our law enforcement partners, offer site-specific training to schools throughout the county on threat response. The Office of Education has scheduled School Threat Assessment training for COE staff and School Districts in early May. We continue to meet quarterly as part of an expanded School Safety task force, with law enforcement agencies, school districts and now, fire agencies from throughout the county to facilitate on-going relationships, cross- training and pre-planning activities for response to school safety issues, including the threat of school violence. We have already seen these procedures in practice with several reported incidents of threats of school violence. The checklists were followed and appropriate staff involved from both law enforcement and school districts, resulting in successful resolutions. Respond by June 11, 2018 20 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Penal Code §933.05 1. For Purposes of subdivision (b) of §933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: a. the respondent agrees with the finding, b. 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 therefor. 2. For purpose of subdivision (b) of §933, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person shall report one of the following actions: a. the recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action, b. the recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation, c. the recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report, or d. the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 3. However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County department headed by an elected officer, both the 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 department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department. 4. A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the
-
R3Page 22However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a County department headed by an elected officer, both the 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 department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her department.
-
R4Page 23A Grand Jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the Grand Jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the Grand Jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the
-
R5Page 23During an investigation, the Grand Jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding that investigation unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the Grand Jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
-
R6Page 23A Grand Jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the Grand Jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. Respond by June 11, 2018 BOARD OF EDUCATION 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report Ms. Jane Royer Barr 21 Ms. Rose Filicetti Ms. Sandra Nichols Ms. Sue Roth Mr. Dana M. Sales Mr. Abel Sanchez Mr. Bruce Van Allen Michael C. Watkins, Superintendent • 400 Encinal Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 • 831-466-5600 • FAX 831-466-5607 • www.santacruzcoe.org May 4, 2018 Re: County Office of Education Response to 2017-18 Grand Jury Report The County Office of Education has carefully reviewed and considered the Findings and Recommendations set forth in the “2017-18 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Report, Threat Assessment in Our Public Schools.” This letter shall serve as the official response of the Santa Cruz County Superintendent of Schools and the Santa Cruz County Office of Education (collectively, the “COE”) to the Findings and Recommendations of the Santa Cruz County Grand Jury (“Grand Jury”). The County Office of Education and our partners in Law Enforcement, hold student and staff safety as our highest priority. We have been meeting actively since August 2017 with all local school Superintendents and Chiefs of Police, forming a committee we refer to as the School Safety Partnership, to coordinate the development and implementation of a Countywide Threat Assessment Plan for Schools as recommended by the Grand Jury Report. This collaboration between school and law enforcement leaders resulted in a countywide plan that addresses the
Conclusions 6
-
CL1Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (10 recommendations)
-
CL2Mental Health Advisory Board (3 recommendations)
-
CL3Soquel Union Elementary School District (1 recommendation)
-
CL4Sheriff-Coroner (5 recommendations)
-
CL5Felton Fire Protection District Board of Directors (1 recommendation) Published June 27, 2018 Page 10 of 19 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 119 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 Published June 27, 2018 Page 11 of 19 1 20 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Figure 2 shows that 12 of 15 submissions confirmed to the current Grand Jury that a
-
CL6In September 2017 an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel quoted a staff member in the County’s Human Services Department: We should be housing every youth we see. We should not be walking and stepping over the youth that are lying down or standing around who are homeless. We should be interacting with them, we should be engaging them and thinking about, ‘How can I personally, in Santa Cruz County, contribute to this cause?’ ‘How can I end youth homelessness on an individual basis?’[40] More than one in four of Santa Cruz County’s homeless is a young adult or an unaccompanied minor child. They are, for the most part, invisible members of our community. Recognizing the urgency to solve youth homelessness, there have been many well-intentioned efforts at the local, State and federal levels, some of which have been very effective but limited in their scope. Implementation of the HUD Continuum of Care model is a significant step toward resolving the problems identified in this investigation, as well as the other difficulties facing the children and young adults who are homeless in Santa Cruz County; however, while the grants and other funding have addressed some systemic deficiencies, additional resources will be required to achieve the County’s goal of ending youth homelessness by 2020. Published June 19, 2018 Page 12 of 18 2 017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 85
Commendations 3
-
CM1C1. The COE and CSO responded quickly and comprehensively to the recommendations of the 2016-17 Grand Jury report and drafted a plan that creates a firm foundation to address the safety of our students in the context of targeted school violence. C2. The COE and CSO have demonstrated clear commitment to providing ongoing training so that school staff and law enforcement can function collaboratively and respond effectively to threats of violence in our schools. Published April 12, 2018 Page 4 of 9 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 9
-
CM2C1. The Grand Jury commends our County’s law enforcement agencies for incorporating the new methodologies set forth in the CIT course and adapting their procedures to those methodologies.
-
CM3C1. The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrative Officer initiated, for the first time in Santa Cruz County history, a strategic planning process and performance improvement effort. Published June 7, 2018 Page 8 of 14 2017-2018 Consolidated Final Report 67