San Mateo County Grand Jury
2020-2021
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 (4)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F4:
Delaying sea level rise projects will increase costs. Response to F4. The respondent agrees with the finding.
F5:
To remain effective, OneShoreline needs steady, long-term, operational funding. Response to F5. The respondent agrees with the finding.
F6:
Coordination between neighboring jurisdictions is important to reduce costs and improve the effectiveness of a SLR project. Response to F6. The respondent agrees with the finding.
F7:
Competing budget priorities among the entities in a sea level rise project make the projects difficult to fund and manage, leading to risk of delays and missed deadlines. Response to F9. The respondent agrees with the finding.
F8:
Numerous hazardous material sites in the County must be protected from sea level rise flooding. Response to F8. The respondent agrees with the finding.
F9:
Storm surge and sea level rise threaten the County’s wastewater treatment plants affecting everyone in the County – even inland County residents. Response to F9. The respondent agrees with the finding.
F10:
OneShoreline is uniquely positioned to augment San Mateo County’s ability to combat sea level rise by its planning, funding, permitting expertise, and guidance. Response to F10. The respondent agrees with the finding.
F11:
Destruction of low-cost housing on the Bay and coast by flooding and erosion due to sea level rise will further increase inequities in communities such as Belle Haven (Menlo Park), East Palo Alto, Redwood City, and Pacifica. Response to F11. The respondent agrees with the finding.
F12:
OneShoreline effectively collaborates with the Office of Sustainability and others on public engagement campaigns to educate individuals on how sea level rise will affect San Mateo County. Response to F12. The respondent agrees with the finding.
F13:
A loan program to provide cities and towns funds for the required preliminary engineering necessary to obtain partial state or federal funding for SLR projects would be beneficial. Response to F13. The respondent agrees with the finding. Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations:
Additional Recommendations
3
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
At a public meeting, each city and town council, or board of supervisors should take at least one concrete action toward establishing a continuing funding source for OneShoreline, identify that action in response to this report, and potentially adopt a resolution expressing support for a parcel tax or property tax by June 30, 2022. Subject: City of Pacifica’s response to “Grand Jury Report: ‘San Mateo County: California’s Ground Zero for Sea Level Rise’” October 11, 2021 Response to R1. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The City will need to understand the future funding needs for OneShoreline before considering any action toward establishing a continuing funding source. Once that information is known, the City can analyze what options are available for establishing a continuing funding source. City staff will prepare an item for City Council consideration and action after receiving information on the future funding needs for OneShoreline and options for the City to support.
R2:
A coordinated lobbying strategy with participation by the County, by San Mateo County cities and towns, by OneShoreline, and by other interested Bay Area cities and counties for federal and state regulatory simplification by January 31, 2022. Response to R2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The City is willing and available to participate in a coordinate lobbying strategy for federal and state regulatory simplification. The timeframe of the coordination will depend on the availability of the participating parties, but City staff can be available to start participating in the coordination by January 31, 2022.
R4:
The County Board of Supervisors and each city and town council, should ensure that their general plans regarding SLR protection include transportation and utility infrastructure, schools, public safety facilities, and hazardous material sites by March 31, 2022. Response to R4. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The City is currently working to update its current 1980 General Plan. The General Plan will include coastal hazards policies that will consider transportation and utility infrastructure, schools, public safety facilities, and hazardous material sites in relation to sea level rise impacts. The City is scheduled to adopt the General Plan update by March 31, 2022. Additionally, the City Council has approved the LCLUP update for certification, which includes parallel coastal hazards policies. The City is currently working with the California Coastal Commission to certify the LCLUP update. Sincerely, KEVIN WOODHOUSE City Manager cc: Pacifica City Council 3
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
In 2020, the Board of Supervisors and the County Manager’s Office made public commitments to racial equity in San Mateo County.
F2:
The Department of Human Resources maintains data on the racial, ethnic, and gender identity of SMC government employees, through a robust online enterprise human resources management platform, to report on the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of employees in all job categories and departments of San Mateo County government.
F3:
The Department of Human Resources has reported significant underrepresentation of specific racial, ethnic, and gender categories of employees at management levels within the San Mateo County government workforce, relative to the San Mateo County government workforce overall, and the causes of these variances should be analyzed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Manager’s Office to create, and annually present, a report detailing the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of management and leadership positions within the San Mateo County government workforce, change from prior years, and the effectiveness of specific programs to remediate any gaps, by January 31, 2022.
F4:
The Department of Human Resources reports significant underrepresentation of various racial, ethnic, and gender categories of employees for different job categories within the San Mateo County government workforce, relative to the available San Mateo County workforce, and the causes of these variances should be analyzed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Manager’s Office to create, and annually present, a report detailing the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of management and leadership positions within the San Mateo County government workforce, change from prior years, and the effectiveness of specific programs to remediate any gaps, by January 31, 2022.
F5:
San Mateo County’s Equal Employment Opportunity Plan, published every four years, is outdated and does not communicate sufficient timely information to the public, lacks clear, measurable goals, and lacks accountability mechanisms.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Manager’s Office to require an annual report from each department of San Mateo County government (including performance measures, and accountability), detailing the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of that department’s workforce and the efficacy of its programs to remediate any gaps, by January 31, 2022.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Manager’s Office to create, and annually present, a report recommending potential improvements to San Mateo County’s current practice of reporting to the public on the status of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the San Mateo County government workforce, and associated performance goals, by January 31, 2022. Racial Equity-Related Recommendations
F6:
The Department of Human Resources’ work related to diversity and inclusion is focused on legal compliance and recruiting and training for other departments, and the Department of Human Resources depends on other departments and San Mateo County government leadership for guidance on racial equity initiatives.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Manager’s Office to develop a set of recommendations, such as a model racial equity action plan, to help departments accomplish organizational change promoting racial equity in their work, by January 31, 2022.
F7:
The Health Department’s experience implementing cultural competency, organizational change, and services delivery utilizing a racial equity lens provides examples of organizational best practices that could be used as models by other San Mateo County government departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should discuss, in an open public meeting, the advisability and practicality of the measures identified as best practices in the Discussion section of this report, by January 31, 2022.
F8:
The training in racial equity that Health Department personnel began in 2017, and currently continue, has been a valuable step for the Health Department to help build capacity and expand its racial equity activities.
F9:
Health Department personnel have specific training, institutional knowledge, and experience with racial equity planning and administration that could be adapted by other departments for their racial equity objectives.
F10:
The Health Department’s Cultural Competence Plan and annual strategy updates effectively demonstrate how a department can monitor and administer ongoing efforts to achieve racial equity objectives.
F11:
The Health Department’s Racial Equity Action Plan is a useful example of how a department can plan for organizational change while incorporating measurable performance indicators and organizational accountability.
F12:
The Health Department’s Health Equity Initiatives are designed to promote racial equity in the delivery of services to communities being served.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
Beginning in January 2017, and each year thereafter, the Sheriff’s Office generated a Sexual Assault Kit Testing Report and sent it to the County Manager, with a copy to the Board of Supervisors, detailing select data points in the analysis and testing of sexual assault kits.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
Beginning in May 2022, the Sheriff’s Office should adjust the timing of the release of the annual Sexual Assault Kit Testing Report from January to May of each year so that the report reflects complete data from the previous calendar year.
F2:
The annual Sexual Assault Kit Testing Report has been released by the Sheriff’s Office too early in the calendar year to comprehensively reflect the status of all of the previous (calendar) year’s sexual assault kits, some of which are shown as “currently in progress” on the report.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Beginning in May 2022, the Sheriff’s Office should expand the content of the annual Sexual Assault Kit Testing Report to include: the total number of sexual assaults in the County as reported to the FBI; the number of sexual assaults in each city as reported to the FBI; and the reasons sexual assault kits were not processed. The information should not include the victims’ information or city of origin and only include the number of kits cancelled by category.
F3:
The annual Sexual Assault Kit Testing Report only reports information about sexual assault kits received by the Forensic Laboratory; as a result, it may mislead the reader because the number of kits is only a small subset of how many sexual assaults occur in the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
To increase public transparency, the Sheriff’s Office should, commencing no later than May 2022, announce the availability of the annual Sexual Assault Kit Testing Report in a manner designed to maximize public awareness.
F4:
The prior Grand Jury’s recommendation to include the originating agency or the reason a sexual assault kit was not tested has not been part of the Sheriff’s Office report.
F5:
The annual Sexual Assault Kit Testing Reports were added to the Forensic Laboratory’s webpage in December 2020, during the Grand Jury inquiry. 35 “(The Sheriff’s Office) provides contract law enforcement services for the cities of Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, San Carlos, Eichler Highlands, the towns of Portola Valley and Woodside, as well as for the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board and the San Mateo County Transit District,” https://www.smcsheriff.com/patrol-services 36 See
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
11 findings
F1:
In San Mateo County, the ethnic diversity of teachers does not closely mirror that of the students they teach. A Countywide demographic report, generated by the San Mateo County Office of Education, including teacher/student ethnicity, would be of value to all school districts in their recruiting efforts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The San Mateo County Office of Education should expand its outreach to school districts and publicly share the demographic data of all learners and educators in the County when its planned report is completed, but no later than the end of the 2021-22 school year. 2020-21
F2:
Teachers frequently leave schools in San Mateo County for higher pay in other districts, to the detriment of the students being taught.
F3:
School districts in San Mateo County compete nationally for a limited pool of teacher candidates; those diminishing candidate pools result in limited-teacher diversity. 2020-21
F4:
Cost of living and housing affordability in San Mateo County are two major barriers which continue to impede our school districts’ ability to attract, recruit, and retain a diverse teacher workforce.
F5:
Public-school districts in the County are not permitted by State law to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in hiring. It is common practice for districts to interview all candidates who meet the qualifications for an open teaching position, further complicating hiring to meet diversity goals.
F6:
The San Mateo County Office of Education has an opportunity to articulate and guide an educational vision for the entire County to the benefit of school districts and without direct involvement in individual school district staffing and policy decisions.
F7:
Teacher residency and internship programs take time to produce results but school districts could benefit by increased participation in these programs.
F8:
School districts invest varying degrees of effort into the process of recruiting a diverse teaching pool. While some rely on traditional strategies, others have found creative solutions to increase diversity in the teaching workforce.
F9:
The San Mateo County School Boards Association Equity Network, created in 2019-20, has been, for much of its existence, restricted to meeting online due to the pandemic. As a result, the group has had limited opportunities to work collaboratively to help build capacity for thoughtful, equity-driven decisions. Consequently, as of January 2021, their ability to both identify and deliver on stated outcomes has been limited.
F10:
School district superintendents and human resource personnel in San Mateo County agree that students of color benefit from having educators who look like them but are not always certain how to recruit or retain teachers of color.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The San Mateo County Office of Education should regularly sponsor teacher diversity forums, and invite superintendents, district human resource managers, principals, and school board members to participate. The forums should address current challenges districts face with regard to recruiting teaching staff in general, and teachers of color, and share best practices and strategic solutions. This should begin in advance of next year’s recruiting cycle, no later than April 30, 2022.
F11:
A majority of school district strategic plans and other aspirational documents do not address teacher diversity nor are those plans easily accessible by the community.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By June 30, 2022, school districts should include a commitment to teacher diversity in their strategic plans, goals, and/or objectives, using the Strategic Plan developed by the San Mateo County Office of Education as an example. These aspirational documents should be prominently and publicly displayed on their website.