📋
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.

Sacramento County Grand Jury • 2017-2018

Review of Responses to the 2017-2018 Grand Jury

Published: June 14, 2019 16 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 13 findings

F1 Page 103
CPSU has experienced, compassionate and dedicated staff whose priority is the welfare of the children they serve.
F2 Page 103
The current location of the CPSU is in a high crime neighborhood that places CPSU staff and traumatized youths in undue danger.
F3 Page 103
Since the enactment of SB 855 in 2014, no measurable progress has been made to find suitable options that address the unique treatment and placement needs of the expanded population of high risk children.
F4 Page 103
There is a lack of communication on spending priorities between senior management and the needs of the service providers.
F5 Page 103
CPS and DHHS are still focused on ineffective recruitment strategies rather than considering innovative approaches to gain more placement models for the expanded population it serves.
F6 Page 103
CPS personnel hired to recruit placement opportunities for children are unable to focus their efforts due to other job activities. 101 2017-2018 RECOMMENDATIONS
F7 Page 105
The Audit Committee is comprised of department heads.
F8 Page 105
The Internal Audit Unit, as well as the Department of Finance as a whole, are understaffed in IT support. 103 2017-2018 RECOMMENDATIONS
F9
After voting to award health benefits to Board members, no further action was taken, no policies were created, and no health insurance benefits were awarded to Board members. The Board could institute health benefits for themselves with no further public discussion.
F10
The practice of conducting closed sessions after open sessions at the Board meeting may lead to an uninformed public and forestalls knowledge or comments. This practice does not encourage public engagement.
F11
Candidate pools for Board Member seats are so low that elections are sometimes not required. As a consequence, Board members are appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, denying a voice to the public in selection of those who represent them.
F12
The lack of adequate Board member awareness of regulations, operations, and institutional history can lead to poor decisions on the part of the Board and leads to an over-reliance on the General Manager and staff.
F13
There is a pronounced lack of public oversight of the FRCD, as shown by poorly attended meetings and few Board candidates.

Recommendations 11