Gran Jurado del Condado de San Joaquin

2001-2002

7 informes

Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.

Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F1: $270/month • One person living unit, shared bath (usually a hotel-type setting);
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The City of Stockton Housing and Redevelopment include in their downtown renovation plans for low-income housing.
F2: $285/month • One person living unit, special residence; $292/month • One person living unit, a non-shared apartment with private bath and kitchen. CONCLUSIONS The two hotels inspection reports that were reviewed, provided adequate proof
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos
F1: The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors change the future bidding process to a Request for Proposal as opposed to the current Invitation for Bid. This will allow for the contract to be awarded on quality service rather than Alowest cost.
F2: HSA provide specific elements for mandatory training to the contracted agency for the care givers including but not limited to: o Identifying and Reporting Elder Abuse o CPR o First Aid
F3: HSA conduct quarterly monitoring of the contracted agency to ensure that both the programmatic as well as fiscal elements of the contract met compliance.
F4: APS develop and implement a formal process for requesting conservatorship in cases of abuse and neglect.
F5: San Joaquin County Public Conservator/Guardian develop and implement a formal procedure for referrals from APS when requesting conservatorship.
F6: San Joaquin County Public Conservator/Guardian maintain a log of all referrals with documentation via a computer database.
F7: San Joaquin County Public Conservator/Guardian and APS develop a memorandum of understanding governing the procedure for referrals between the two agencies, which includes an appeal process in relationship to the handling of elder abuse cases where the possible need for conservatorship has been identified. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the Penal Code: The Human Services Agency, Department of Aging and the San Joaquin County Public Conservator/Guardian shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, the response indicates one of the following. As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasonstherefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of the analysis and a time frame not to exceed (6) six months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 10 hallazgos
F1: October 2001, with expected completion in the fall of 2003. Funding for the shelter is a partnership of county government, State of California and local community donations. State licensing requirement mandated in April 2001. MGCS received a provisional
F2: license July 31, 2001. Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division due to visit the facility in May, 2002 to determine if it is in compliance with state regulations. Provisional license is due to expire in July 2002, at which point either the provisional license will be extended or a State license will be granted. There was a recent staffing increase of one Administrative Assistant, one Program
F3: Assistant, five line staff, four Supervisory positions, one clerical and one housekeeper. All positions have been filled. Although plans were made for residential facilities for placement of aggressive residents
F4: of MGCS, there are still no facilities and no options for the relocation of children with behavioral problems. Four Personal Rights violations and one Lack of Supervision violation were found during
F5: investigation by the State. Two Directors of MGCS have resigned in the past 12 months. 6.
F6: Recommend a study be conducted on the current organizational structure of the Human Services Agency and explore the feasibility of a reorganization of the 1,043 personnel or possible division of departments and programs to allow for a more manageable workforce per department.
F7: New Director hired in April of 2002. Management of MGCS falls under the Human Services Agency (HSA) umbrella. There
F8: are 1,043 employees assigned to the subordinate departments. Board of Supervisors and Director of the Human Services Agency involved in a public
F9: disagreement of hiring policies and lines of accountability for the new Director assigned to MGCS. Consultant from Sacramento County hired in April 2002, to study the shelter and the
F10: departure of the Director. CONCLUSIONS:
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 3 hallazgos
F1: with the Board of Supervisors dated August 28, 2001, concurred with last year's Grand Jury on nine (9) of the ten (10) findings. This concurrence assured the Board of Supervisors that all nine findings had merit and would be implemented. Additionally, the response of the Board of Supervisors assured the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, County of San Joaquin, and last year's Grand Jury, that the Conservator's Office would not only implement said findings but would make additional recommendations, above and beyond those recommendations contained in last year's Grand Jury report. During our review, several times we requested documentation supporting the Public
F2: Conservator's claim that nine (9) of the ten (10) findings, in last year's Grand Jury Report CASE #1800 had been implemented. We received no such documentation. The Public Conservator purchased, at taxpayer expense, new, sophisticated software to
F3: track and inventory citizen assets under the Conservator's control. On numerous occasions the Grand Jury asked for, and failed to receive, a printout showing that this new software had been installed and is being used correctly. Failure to utilize this software to its capacity will continue to perpetrate an environment wherein employee theft and/or embezzlement has and will continue to occur. CONCLUSION: The 2001 - 2002 Civil Grand Jury conducted an extensive six (6) month review of the Office of the Conservator. During this review we met with, interviewed, and consulted all the main participants associated directly or indirectly with the Conservator's Office. It was the Grand Jury's expectation to report that the numerous and serious accounting irregularities reported in previous Grand Jury reports and external audits had been corrected. Regrettably, we are unable to do so. It is this Grand Jury's conclusion that many, if not all, accounting irregularities previously reported, and subsequently acknowledged by senior administration at the Conservator's Office, with the assurance to correct, remain.1 1 Letter of Response as required by Penal Code Section 933.05, dated 09/12/01, Chairman Marenco, Board of Supervisors. As such, the Grand Jury concludes that efforts to correct these problems have received only token attention from administration. The Grand Jury recognizes that Messrs. Speed and Hopperstad are extremely busy and the Conservator's Office is but a small department under their control; however they have appointed a department head in Public Conservator, Mr. Gessell. The Public Conservator should be held accountable for failing to implement recommendations from previous Grand Jury reports, when through communication with the Board of Supervisors, he indicated that said recommendations had merit and would be implemented. During the course of our review we received at least one more citizen complaint concerning similar irregularities as to the nature of the business practices at the Conservator's Office. The basis of this complaint, alleging inappropriate language, lack of candor, and aggressive physical behavior, although hearsay, does nevertheless parallel citizen complaints of the last several years. It is clear that if any corrective measures have been taken, they are not nearly enough, nor do they go far enough to clear the dark cloud hovering over the Conservator's Office.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 7 hallazgos
F1: The Office of Emergency Services is located on the sixth floor of the County Courthouse building. The 2001 - 2002 SJCCGJ is concerned that OES is located in a building which receives a disproportionate amount of fictitious threats.
F2: The first line of alerting emergency response is by dialing 911. Currently, all outgoing calls in county facilities require dialing 9 first to get an outside line before placing calls. These facilities house critical support services and at any time during the business day are occupied by large numbers of the general community. As such, if an emergency did occur, there is a high probability that the initial emergency call may be made by a person or persons not familiar with the correct telephone protocol. The phones in these facilities do not indicate the requirement to dial 9 to get an outside line.
F3: In the last three (3) years the number of facilities directly under the control of OES has increased from nine (9) to twenty four (24), yet the coordination of emergency evacuation is still designated to Director Ronald Baldwin, with no increase in staff. CONCLUSION: The 2001 - 2002 SJCCGJ is confident that the disaster recovery plans currently in place at OES meets or exceeds accepted Federal protocol. Further, this Grand Jury commends the Board of Supervisors and the OES for its commitment to training and education of all county employees in the area of mass emergency evacuation. The Grand Jury strongly encourages the Board of Supervisors and OES to continue their commitment to simulated emergency evacuations. The Grand Jury believes OES’s evacuation plan could be easily modified to accommodate other mass civilian facilities within the county, i.e., private hospitals, shopping malls and colleges.
F4: The 2001 - 2002 SJCCGJ recommends that the physical location of OES headquarters meet all Federal standards concerning suitability of location. If not, the Grand Jury recommends an action plan that addresses said suitability.
F5: The 2001 - 2002 SJCCGJ recommends all phones that require the caller to first press 9 to receive an outside line have emergency markings on the phone to remind callers that in case of emergency they must dial 9-911.
F6: The 2001 - 2002 SJCCGJ recommends that OES be adequately staffed to meet or exceed the expectations of the Board of Supervisors, as it pertains to employee training, education, and disaster readiness.
F7: The 2001 - 2002 SJCCGJ recommends that future Grand Juries review the Office of Emergency Services to assure compliance with the ever-changing Federal and State mandates and/or laws. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05 The Office of Emergency Services shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin Superior Court, in writing and within 90 days of publication of this report, the response indicates one of the following: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reason therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of the analysis and a time frame not to exceed (6) six months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanation therefore.
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The County Office of Substance Abuse develop a plan for record storage to be in a single secured location.
F2: The County Office of Substance Abuse install storage racks for the file boxes to make location and identification of the contents less onerous, and to provide a safer environment for staff members.
F3: The County Office of Substance Abuse develop and implement a written policy for record retention that includes a procedure to inventory the records.
F4: The County Office of Substance Abuse develop and implement a policy assigning authorized staff members the responsibility of maintaining the storage facility and insuring the proper destruction of confidential records. RESPONSE REQUIRED: Pursuant to Section 933.05 of the Penal Code: The Office of Substance Abuse and Health Care Services shall report to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin Superior Court, in writing and within ninety (90) days of publication of this report, the response shall indicate the following: As to each finding in the report a response indicating one of the following: a. The respondent agrees with the finding. b. The respondent disagrees with the finding, with an explanation of the reasons therefore. As to each recommendation, a response indicating one of the following: a. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the action taken. b. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be with a time frame for implementation. c. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope of the analysis and a time frame not to exceed 6 months. d. The recommendation will not be implemented, with an explanationth erefore.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.