San Mateo County Grand Jury

2014-2015

5 reports

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F1: Academic credits earned by students while incarcerated do not always transfer to the student’s high school, or are applied to an “elective” classification rather than the specific course that was studied.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The COE should create a system to ensure that all academic credits earned while a juvenile is in detention are accurately transferred to that student’s correct course and school upon the juvenile’s release from detention.
F2: The COE is in the process of trying to get each of the three court schools officially accredited with Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Probation, BHRS, and the COE should work together to develop a more comprehensive transition plan to ensure necessary contact with a student’s family and school before the student is released from detention.
F3: The COE is working with a consultant company to introduce a system allowing online computer education to meet each individual detainee’s level of learning.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Probation and the COE should collaborate to set up an online computer education system.
F4: BHRS has only one staff member assigned half-time to help the boys at Camp Glenwood who may need mental health support.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Probation and BHRS should evaluate together the merits of creating a full-time position at Camp Glenwood to ensure that boys with mental health issues are receiving the complete and effective care they require, and that families could more frequently be involved in the child’s progress.
F5: Officials from Probation, the COE, BHRS, and CASA stated that once a juvenile is released from detention, the transition back to the community and family life is critical to the adolescent’s emotional development and well-being. Project Change also serves students who are working toward completing their diplomas or GEDs. Helping students to understand that when they complete high school, college is an option is a “powerful motivating factor.” 12 Project Change, Bridging the Gap from Incarceration to Education, College of San Mateo.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: According to its Agreement with the San Mateo County Bar Association, the County can conduct contract evaluations at any time, but they have not been done on a regular basis. No evaluation was done between 2003 and 2012.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Conduct formal evaluations of the indigent defense system at least every five years.
F2: None of the last three County evaluations (in 2001, 2003, and 2012) have specifically addressed whether state and national guidelines were considered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Include, as a component of such formal evaluations, a determination of whether the County’s approach to indigent defense is consistent with state and national guidelines.
F3: The County’s 2012 evaluation of the PDP limited public input to individuals and entities invited by the evaluation committee to participate. The evaluation process was not open to members of the public or community organizations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Include, as a component of such formal evaluations, input from community members and organizations. The process of receiving community input should be open to the public and not by invitation only.
F4: The County’s last three evaluations of the PDP did not report any review or conclusions of whether the PDP continues to be the best model for the County to provide indigent legal defense.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: Include, as a component of such formal evaluations, whether the current system continues to be the best model for the County for providing indigent legal defense.
Findings & Recommendations 12 findings
F1: SMC is at severe risk for flooding due to the gradual rise in sea level, projected at up to 65 inches (167 centimeters) by the year 2100. Catastrophic SLR of nearly 15 feet is a possibility this century.
F2: SLR is a threat countywide, including the upland areas. All residents depend on public infrastructure, especially wastewater treatment plants. Also, a significant portion of the countywide property tax base is within the area threatened by SLR.
F3: Although many local officials are now familiar with and concerned about the threat of SLR, there is inadequate public awareness of SLR’s potential impacts on this county.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County, each city in the county and relevant local special agencies43 should conduct a public education effort to increase awareness of SLR and its potential effects on this county. The Grand Jury recommends identifying a single organization to undertake SLR planning:
F4: Levees, including their financing, are currently the responsibility of each individual city or special agency with jurisdiction along streams, bay, and coast (the County is responsible for unincorporated areas).
F5: Flood risk is based on topography, not political boundaries. The safety of properties in one jurisdiction often depends on levee projects undertaken by another jurisdiction.
F6: Currently, no countywide agency exists to provide planning, facilitate coordination among jurisdictions, or to assist with securing funding for existing flood control projects. The same is true for future SLR-related projects.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County, each city in the county and relevant local special agencies44 should identify a single organization, such as a new joint powers authority or an expanded SMC Flood Control District, to undertake countywide SLR planning. It should be structured to ensure that: • The organization is countywide in scope • The organization is able to focus on SLR • Both the County and cities (and possibly relevant local agencies) are able to participate in the organization’s decision-making45 • The organization is sustainably funded
F7: To the Grand Jury’s knowledge, no local jurisdiction has adopted SLR projections or maps for specific local land use planning purposes.42 No consistent SLR projection has been adopted countywide by the County and cities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The organization’s responsibilities should include: • Adopt consistent SLR projections for use in levee planning countywide • Conduct and/or evaluate vulnerability assessments46 • Provide a forum for inter-jurisdictional coordination and exchange of information related to SLR • Undertake grant applications for SLR-related planning and projects • Facilitate raising funds on a countywide basis for SLR-related projects, to be passed through to agencies with direct responsibility for project construction 43 San Mateo County Flood Control District and San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. Ibid. The organization could also create a technical advisory committee with representatives of departments responsible for levee construction and management, as well as representatives of public facilities at risk, such as airports and wastewater treatment plants. A vulnerability assessment could (a) inventory areas at risk for SLR (commercial, residential, public facilities, and infrastructure), (b) determine the adequacy of existing levee protection, and (c) identify and prioritize the projects that will be needed to adapt to SLR. • Monitor actual SLR over time and any changes in SLR projections, based upon the latest federal, State, or regional government reports and scientific studies • Through the CEQA environmental review process, comment on major new developments proposed in the SLR floodplain • Advocate on behalf of the member jurisdictions with federal, State, and regional agencies regarding SLR issues • Assist the County and cities in public awareness efforts, as described in R1
F8: There is a recognized need for a countywide approach to SLR planning and coordination among jurisdictions.
F9: Several city managers and others interviewed did not support having a new countywide organization assume direct control of levee projects at this time.
F10: The County and cities can address SLR in their General Plans and Climate Action Plans, can map the threat, and can adopt relevant policies. See discussion of SLR planning in several San Mateo County cities in footnote 39.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The County and each city should amend its General Plan, as needed, to address the risk for SLR. The Safety Element48 should include a map of any areas vulnerable to SLR, as determined by measurements in the countywide Vulnerability Assessment [R3]. Further, it should identify policies that apply to areas threatened by SLR. San Mateo County Flood Control District and San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority. As an alternative, the City of San Carlos has addressed SLR in its Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City states that the CAP was developed as a “component of the 2009 General Plan update . . . a legally defensible approach to ensuring that the Climate Action Plan is implemented” (see City of San Carlos, Climate Action Plan, 2009, p. 2). The Grand Jury recommends that local governments champion SLR issues before regional, State, and federal governments and agencies:
F11: Many actions to address SLR are within the authority of regional, State, and federal agencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The County, cities, and relevant local special agencies, through their representatives on regional agencies, membership in state associations, lobbyists, and elected State and federal legislators, should pursue SLR-related issues with government bodies outside SMC.
F12: By acting now, SMC may be able to reduce future costs by integrating SLR-related projects with other programmed levee projects, and by using land use planning measures to mitigate future exposure to SLR.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: The County, cities and two relevant local special agencies47 should consider expanding the role of the organization beyond SLR to include planning and coordination of efforts to address existing flooding problems along the Bay, coast, and creeks that are subject to tidal action. It may be cost-effective to integrate SLR protection with other levee-improvement programs. The County and cities may also consider expanding the role of the new organization to include potentially compatible functions such as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), currently managed by C/CAG, and the new (2014) State requirements for local sustainable groundwater planning.
R5: The organization—its administration, staffing, and program expenses—should be funded on a sustainable basis by: • Member contributions • Contributions solicited from parties threatened by SLR, including corporations and agencies that operate public facilities such as wastewater treatment plants • Grants solicited from available potential sources such as the California Climate Resilience Account • Reducing administrative costs by contracting for services with the County or another agency The Grand Jury recommends that SLR be addressed in local land use planning:
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: As of May 2015 there are 812 inmates in the County jail. Approximately 19% are diagnosed with mental health illness. Seventy-eight of these inmates have been diagnosed with SMI and 27 of them are kept in administrative segregation away from the general population.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: Implement AOT, known as Laura’s Law in California. The San Mateo County Grand Jury further recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct the County’s Health System to:
F2: Studies have shown AOT to be effective in reducing the incidence and duration of hospitalization, homelessness, arrests and incarcerations, victimization, and violent episodes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: Implement coordinated and computerized medical records systems across its divisions (including but not limited to the San Mateo Medical Center, BHRS, and the Correction Health Services division) to the extent consistent with existing law.
F3: Laura’s Law, California’s form of AOT, has not been implemented by the County’s Board of Supervisors. County of Santa Clara Mental Health Department. http://www.sccgov.org/sites/mhd/Pages/default.aspx. San Mateo County Mental Health Coordinators, interview by the Grand Jury. San Mateo County Health Official, interview by the Grand Jury. M. De Hert et al., “Physical Illness in Patients with Severe Mental Disorders. I Prevalence, Impact of Medications and Disparities in Health Care,” World Psychiatry 10.1 (2011): 52-77.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: Design County Health System division websites to be more useful for individuals who need immediate help with behavioral issues and emergencies. Links to all providers should be well-placed and easy to access.
F4: Mental health jail diversion programs have emerged as a potential solution to the criminal detention of individuals with mental disorders. The County of San Mateo does not have a pre-plea mental health diversion program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: Develop a public awareness campaign regarding mental health services including which services are available to individuals with private insurance. The public should be aware of existing programs such as FAST and SMART as well as other programs under development. The San Mateo County Grand Jury further recommends that the District Attorney’s Office and the Health System coordinate their efforts to:
F5: Medical record keeping is not consistent among the Health System’s divisions. In particular, BHRS and the San Mateo Medical Center’s Psychiatric Emergency Services have separate electronic medical record keeping systems. The Correctional Health division, which provides services in the County’s jails, does not have a computerized system for medical records.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The San Mateo County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors: Develop a mental health pre-plea jail diversion program. To the extent that such a pre-plea program requires the cooperation of the Superior Court, the Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney’s Office and the Health System coordinate their efforts to obtain such cooperation.
F6: The County’s network of mental health services is highly complex and difficult to navigate with no central point of access. As an example, there are three Health Systems divisions that deal with adult mental health: San Mateo Medical Center, BHRS, and Aging and Adult Services, as well as many private mental health service providers that contract with the County.
F7: Public awareness of mental health services is insufficient. Websites regarding County services to the mentally ill are difficult to navigate. There is an information deficit for mental health services.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F1: Neurocognitive tests establish a baseline of the cognitive skills of student athletes prior to the beginning of athletic participation and with retesting help to ensure that students do not return to practice or competition too soon.48 Some San Mateo County High School Districts administer these tests to athletes prior to competition and after sustaining a head injury.49
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Require neurocognitive testing on all high school student athletes (pre- and post-injury) and provide full-time certified athletic trainers at all high school sporting events.
F2: The cost of neurocognitive testing is minimal in relation to overall school budgets.50
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Seek all funding sources in order to provide for the neurocognitive testing of athletes and for the hiring of full-time certified athletic trainers at all high schools.
F3: Certified athletic trainers can provide an important service in protecting student athletes.51
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: Collect and maintain data on head injuries sustained by high school athletes at the district level; report such data to PAL for summary and analysis, keeping all names of injured athletes confidential.
F4: Data regarding head injuries sustained by student athletes in San Mateo County high schools is not maintained in a central location.