Sacramento County Grand Jury
2009-2010
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (7)
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
0 The number of inmates in the minimum-security section at RCCC will likely continue to decrease as a percentage of the total inmate population as the courts pursue alternatives to incarceration for low-risk non-violent offenders. As a consequence an increase in the custodylevel of inmates will occur.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
2 The Sacramento CountyBoard of Supervisors, the Sacramento CountySheriff, and RCCC should develop and adopt a long-term comprehensive plan, to address the needs of the changing inmate population.
F2:
0 The aging infrastructure of RCCC, with its abundance of fences and key-locked gates, is labor intensive and requires higher staffing levels to insure the safetyof staff and inmates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 The Sacramento CountyBoard of Supervisors and the Sacramento County Sheriff should staff RCCC to the level recommended by the Corrections Standards Authority, the Inspector General and internal management.
F3:
0 The modular classrooms are remote and deputyresponse to an emergency situation maynot occur in sufficient time to avoid a major incident.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
1 The RCCC Management Team should provide a personal alarm device for summoning assistance to the adult education teachers.
F4:
0 The Sandra Larsen Facility for female inmates offers a vocational program not available at the SCMJ.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
1 Funding to house female inmates and the vocational education program at the Sandra Larsen Facility should continue. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court by October 1, 2010, from: · The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors · Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Steve White, Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court 720 9th Street, Dept. Sacramento, CA 95814 In addition, email the response to Becky Castaneda, Grand Jury Coordinator, at [email protected] 136
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
0 SCOE entered into a Settlement Agreement in which it agreed to remediate alleged failings and implement changes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1 SCOE needs to immediately complete, implement, and monitor a detailed comprehensive corrective educational action plan to include all SCDP students. The 127 plan is to be based on state standards, the Education Code (including E.C. 48645, et. seq.), and federal law. The results of this corrective action plan should be published yearly.
F2:
0 Students have missed classes because of court dates and medical appointments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 The proposed idea of SCOE senior management to implement an evening educational program needs to be immediately negotiated with SCOE staff, labor union, and the probation department. If this plan isunworkable, another plan should be developed and negotiated immediately to ensure that all students at juvenile hall have appropriate educational services.
F3:
0 Staff at SCPD and SCOE are mandated reporters and are required by law to report abuse or suspected abuse.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
1 Annual training on mandated reporting for all SCPD and SCOE personnel employed at juvenile hall needs to occur.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
0 ISD directors perform valuable service at minimal cost. However, this survey reveals inconsistent behaviors regarding compliance with sound management practices.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1 Directors should review their by-laws everyfour years to assure compliance with applicable laws, ethical practices, and appropriate behavior.
F2:
0 Some ISDs grant monetaryawards for education and training; many have inadequate evaluation of employees’ degrees and certificates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 All ISDs should encourage education and training, but should not make direct monetary(cash) awards for educational achievement.
F3:
0 ISD pension awards and Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) have increased markedly in the last decade. Some of these awards are unfair and unsustainable.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
2 To minimize unfair pension boosting, all ISDs should ensure that calculations of employees’ base pension awards are on actual base salaryearnings over their highest 36 months of earnings and urge CalPERS to promote this standard.
F4:
0 The majorityof the ISDs surveyed in this studyare neglecting their fiduciary responsibilityto taxpayers and ratepayers by excessive use of no-bid purchasing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
1 EveryISD in Sacramento Countyshould establish and adhere to a goal of minimizing no-bid purchasing. Essentiallyall purchases except utilities and emergencyconstruction should be bycontracts awarded to the lowest responsive responsible bidders.
F5:
0 ISDs have not consistentlyconducted and reported required Independent Financial Audit Reports and management audits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
1 All ISDs must complete and file the required annual Independent Financial Audit.
F6:
0 Sacramento CountyLocal AgencyFormation Commission (SacLAFCo) is responsible for oversight of government agencyfunctions and performance, and for all changes of agencyboundaries and functions. SacLAFCo has not completed the state mandated Municipal Service Reviews for the majorityof ISDs in Sacramento County. If special district malperformance is identified, SacLAFCo is often the last best hope for corrective action when ISDs fail to perform.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
1 SacLAFCo must conduct, and review as necessary, the state mandated Municipal Service Reviews for everyISD.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Sacramento County school district boards are not knowledgeable about the ultimate long- term fiscal impacts the unfunded liability for retiree health benefits will have on their districts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1 Sacramento County school district boards and superintendents, with advice from actuaries and accountants, should immediately assess and quantify their long-term OPEB obligations and ramifications.
F2:
Sacramento County school districts have a variety of approaches in addressing the unfunded liabilities for contracted retiree health benefits. Some of those approaches include: · Creating trust funds or other funding plans but stopping all contributions to them due to current economic conditions · Creating trust funds and contributing to them · Ignoring the problem · Regarding the GASB standards as a “plan” when in fact it is only an accounting statement · Utilizing an annual pay-as-you-go approach to these obligations, relying on their general funds for retiree health benefits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
2 School district boards must find means other than pay-as-you-go for funding these ongoing and increasing expenses.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
0 The program manager did forge signatures on voucher purchases but there was no evidence of other Child Protective Services employees doing the same thing.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1 None, since the individual involved has already been discharged.
F2:
0 The CPS procedures allowed discovery of the forgeries in a reasonable period of time and those procedures are currently being expanded.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 CPS should complete the expansion of control procedures and monitor future transactions continuously. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to indicated
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
0 The average number of placements for each foster child in Sacramento County remains too high, which results in poor outcomes for these children. When compared to the twenty largest counties in California for placement stability for the foster children in care for 12 to 24 months, Sacramento ranks last. 84
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
1 CPS should accelerate the implementation and mandate the use of the Centralized Placement Support Unit (CPSU) for all initial placements and placement changes.
F2:
0 The current organization of CPS results in too many social worker changes. This may be convenient for the organization, but it fails to effectively meet the individual human needs of the children.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
1 CPS should continue with the implementation of the change to the operational structure to have a single social worker follow a child throughout the CPS system.
F3:
0 Currently, a child who is in long-term placement and has a placement change, is visited once in the first few weeks, and then every six months thereafter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
1 Children in long-term placement who have a placement change should be visited bytheir social worker at the same frequencyas that on initial placement.
F4:
0 CPS does not have a good system to recognize health concerns and physical injuries that might indicate abuse or neglect of the children under their care.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
1 CPS should require each social worker to maintain a growth chart on each child in their care to help identify medical conditions or possible abuse or neglect. Any irregularities should be referred to the Public Health Nurses for review.
F5:
0 The Health and Education Passport (HEP) is not kept current.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
1 CPS social workers should hold the foster parents accountable for taking the HEP with them for all medical, dental, counseling, and educational visits for the child, and having the provider update and correct it as required.
F6:
0 Social workers work closely with foster parents and can lose objectivity when repeated allegations against a foster parent aremade and determined to be unfounded.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
1 When there are repeated allegations against a foster parent, a social worker from the CPS Foster Home Licensing Program should make an unannounced visit to the home to check on the welfareof the child and conditions in the home.
F7:
0 Recent state regulations have limited the number of children in county licensed homes to a total of six children (biological, foster, step, guardian, kin or adopted). Foster FamilyAgency(FFA) homes are not currently included in these limitations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
1 CPS should applythis six-child limit to all new placements in FFA foster homes.
F8:
0 Foster parents are not always given sufficient information about the children theyare receiving.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
1 In all cases CPS should, prior to placement, fully disclose all known medical, behavioral, educational and special needs of foster children to foster parents.
F9:
0 Foster parents need better training to help them care forchildren with special needs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
1 CPS should survey foster parents to determine the topics in which they need additional training in caring for special needs children.
F10:
0 In some cases, CPS did not follow up when Community Care Licensing (CCL) and/or an FFA found violations in a foster home.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10:
1 All CCL or FFA reported violations should be sent to CPS and entered into the Child Welfare Services/CaseManagement System (CWS/CMS) file.
F11:
0 CPS Foster Care does not have an interactive electronicdatabase to assist CPSU and social workers in the placement of foster children in the most appropriate foster home. 86
Related Recommendations (1)
R11:
1 CPS should develop a database that contains all the data needed to determine the best available foster home for each foster child. This can be developed in-house, contracted from another county, or a software developer.
F12:
0 CPS is not consistentlyentering data into and utilizing CWS/CMS.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
1 CPS management should require and enforce that all data concerning each foster child be entered into CWS/CMS as it becomes available.
F13:
0 CPS supervisors and managers are not taking full advantage of SafeMeasures® to track social worker performance.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
1 CPS management should require and enforce greater utilization of SafeMeasures® and evaluate supervisors and managers on their use of the program.
F14:
0 The development of an online CPS Policies and Procedures Manualwas started last year and considerable progress has been made, especially in the EmergencyResponse sections. The remaining sections including Foster Care are far from complete.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
1 CPS management should accelerate the effort to complete all sections of the CPS Policies and Procedures Manual. 87 8.0 Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to indicated findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court by October 1, 2010, from: · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors · Director of Health and Human Services · Deputy Director, Child Protective Services Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Hon. Steve White, Presiding Judge Sacramento County Superior Court 720 9th Street, Dept. Sacramento, CA 95814 In addition, email the response to Becky Castaneda, Grand Jury Coordinator, at [email protected] 88
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
0Based on data supplied by city employees, a consultant's draft report estimated that the city's annual cost of potential violations is more than $5 million. The present worth cost of one-time projects and recurring costs over the last three years is in excess of $21 million. The mayor and members of city council received copies of this report in July 2008. No action was taken. Response:The Citydisagrees in part with this finding. The referenced engineering consultant was retained to review cost data associated with various practices identified by Citystaff, and prepared and submitted a draft report in Mayof 2008 quantifying the cost associated with these practices. However, the analysis provided in the draft report consisted solelyof cost estimating. The draft report expressly stated that it was not intended to provide an opinion regarding compliance with Proposition 218, and for this reason the various cost estimates in the consultant's draft report were not necessarilyindicative of anyactual violations of Proposition 218. To the extent that this finding suggests otherwise, the Citydisagrees. In addition, actions were taken after the consultant's draft report was received, as noted in the response to Recommendation 1.2, below. Grand Jury Response: The grand jurydisagrees with the city’s response. There was more than adequate information available to the city manager and the city council to warrant greater action than was taken.
F2:
0Once the city manager and the assistant city manager over the Department of Utilities (DOU) learned that there were potential and substantial Proposition 218 violations, they had a duty to pursue the issue and determine the existence and extent of any actual violations. They failed their duty. Response:The Citydisagrees with this finding. As noted in the response to
F3:
0 For years DOU has supplied water to city parks at a reduced rate of only 15% of the usual rate of providing water to other metered users. The grand jury is of the opinion that this is a violation of Proposition 218, which limits fees or charges to ratepayers for property related services. Providing water at reduced rates to the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is not a property related service to ratepayers. The April 2009 agreement between DOU and DPR provides for this violation to be corrected over a 15 year period. The grand jury finds this timeline to be too lengthy. Response: The Citydisagrees in part with this finding. Citystaff undertook this phased approach to lessen the significant general fund impact of increasing the Department of Parks and Recreation' annual water costs, and as of July 1, 2009, the annual amount paid for water by the Department of Parks and Recreation has already been significantly increased. Given these circumstances and the 38
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
1 The city council should disclose the entire consultant's report to the public. Response:The entire consultant's draft report, with minor redactions of privileged and confidential matter, has been publicly disclosed. Grand Jury Response: The grand jury is satisfied that the draft report was released, but the city did not publicize the procedure for obtaining a copy. It was later learned that a citizen must request a copy from the city attorney.
R2:
1 The city council should admonish the city manager and the responsible assistant city manager for this failure. Response:During the CityCouncil's January26, 2010, public meeting, City staff presented a written report to the CityCouncil concerning the Grand Juryreport and Proposition 218 issues, as well as verbal presentations bythe City Manager and the Director of Utilities. At this meeting, CityCouncilmembers publicly admonished staff and directed them to move forward to address these issues. Grand Jury Response: The city manager and his staff were admonished in a public city council meeting but NO action was taken against the city attorney, who in the grand jury’s opinion was equally if not more culpable for not bringing the issue to the city council. One of the city attorney’s primary responsibilities is to advise the city council when illegal acts are being taken by the city. The grand jury found no evidence the city attorney performed this duty. It is recommended the city attorney be admonished by the city council. Additionally, the grand jury recommends the city attorney provide the city council a list and summary of all legal opinions issued on a monthly basis.