Shasta County Grand Jury
2014-2015
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F1:
The turf for each of the four soccer fields needs to be replaced within two-three years;
F2:
There is insufficient money in the “Replacement Fund” to replace the turf;
F3:
Several amendments to the original Soccer Park Lease over five years have not resulted in adequate monies to the Replacement Fund;
F4:
The COR has failed to perform its fiduciary duty to its citizens to protect the $10 million investment required by the original Soccer Park Lease with amendments;
F5:
There has never been an audit of the SRSA’s financial records of monies received, expended and available for the “Replacement Fund”; and 5 Soccer Park Lease Between City of Redding and Shasta Regional Soccer Association Section 4.a. Percentage Rent 11
F6:
The pending litigation by the COR is not a guaranteed solution to obtain funds for turf replacement and drainage repair.
F7:
Community partnerships with organizations such as One Safe Place, the Child Abuse Prevention Coordinating Council, and First Five have resulted in quality parental support and education resources. The Brave Faces program and the Parent Leadership Advisory Group in particular should be commended for their efforts. 27
F8:
Branch directors, clinicians and social workers work with each other and with other agencies as an effective team to deal with children and families in crisis. This team approach has had a positive effect on the morale of the staff and effectiveness of the department.
Additional Recommendations
9
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The COR shall conduct a forensic audit of SRSA’s financial records between 2007 and 2014 by January 15, 2016.
R2:
The COR shall develop by October 1, 2015 a strategy to replace the turf that is not dependent on pending litigation or the current Soccer Park Lease dated September 26, 2012.
R3:
The COR shall establish a viable business plan for the soccer park that would provide a sustainable operation by October 1, 2015.
R4:
The COR shall provide accurate accounting to the City Council and the public annually by August 15 of each year for compliance with the fiscal Soccer Park Lease terms. Required Response Redding City Council as to: F2, F3, F4 and R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 Requested Response Redding City Manager as to: F1, F5, and R4 12 METHAMPHETAMINE AND HEROIN PLAGUE SHASTA COUNTY LIFE A “Trip” You Never Want To Take
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that within six months, the Health and Human Services Agency continue to search and apply for grant funds to expand its mobile crisis unit.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that within one year, the Shasta County Housing Authority, Redding Housing Department, and Health and Human Services Agency partner to develop a plan for funding and staffing one or more teen shelters to offer emergency services to teens in crisis. Non-profit organizations such as One Safe Place and CAPCC should be invited to participate in this plan.
R70:
California a 60 51.5 51 50.7 51.7 51.6 53.1 52.7 Allegations t California 50 Substantiations e Shasta Allegations s 40 30 24.5 Shasta 20 20.7 19.1 21.8 19 Substantiations 16.3 20 11.2 10.2 10 9.6 9.5 9.3 9.2 10 California Child Welfare Indicators Project 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 The most recent juvenile court petition data showed that 88% of children removed from their families were in households where one or both parents have substance abuse issues. There is a lack of facilities for children with acute mental illness or suicidal tendencies. It is Difficult to Recruit and Retain Social Workers Social workers have a difficult and demanding job. They work with children and families and deal with traumatic, disturbing and potentially dangerous situations. They must follow state- mandated deadlines, manage high caseloads, work with resistant and often angry parents and family members, and effectively use limited resources available. Social workers in Shasta County make less than the average salary for social workers in California. Senior social workers require both a Master’s Degree in Social Work and experience and are often difficult to find. High vacancy rates and large caseloads are a factor in social worker burn out, making it hard to retain social workers. Children’s Services Branch has been understaffed for a long time. Social worker positions have remained vacant year after year. There is a limited pool of qualified candidates and as the economic situation has improved in the state, Shasta County has continued to have difficulty recruiting to fill vacant positions as other counties compete for workers. Often, entry level social workers leave Shasta County after two or three years for higher salaried positions elsewhere in the state. The situation has improved in the last year for two reasons: • The hiring process changed in 2014 from a state-wide system to an in-county system resulting in more local applicants; • A recently introduced program called “Grow Your Own” is showing positive results in developing Senior Social Workers. Social workers are offered extended learning opportunities through California State Universities and loan forgiveness to acquire a Master’s Degree. This improves recruitment and retention of local applicants by providing educational incentives and promotions to attract them. In October of 2014, 17 out of 75 social worker positions were vacant. Nine probationary social workers were hired in January of 2015. However, according to the department’s January 2015 self-assessment, the local hiring process remains slow and limits Children’s Services Branch’s ability to fill vacancies in a timely manner. As of February 2015, there were still more than six vacancies in Children’s Services Branch, and the nine newly hired workers are still in their probationary period Immediate Response to Allegations of Child Abuse The top priority of intake social workers is to respond to allegations of child abuse immediately and determine necessary steps to ensure the child’s safety. Intake caseloads have averaged eighteen new cases a month in addition to ongoing cases. In spite of these high caseloads, the department has been effective in responding to urgent critical situations in a timely fashion. A dilemma exists when the on-call social worker has temporary custody of a child in need of placement after normal work hours. This creates an unsafe situation which can be a liability for the county. One person cannot supervise a child in crisis and find an emergency placement at the same time. HHSA Children’s Services policy states that no worker is allowed alone in the office with a client; however, there is an exception to this policy. When a social worker takes temporary custody of a child/youth after hours, they may take the child to the office while arranging for a second worker to come to help attend to the child. Although there is a pool of workers on standby, arranging for a second worker to come to the office can take some time. Even when two workers are at the office with a child in an emergency, a placement may not be found and the child may remain in the office under supervision for up to two days. Teenagers, in particular, are difficult to place. This is a county-wide problem. A limited number of foster homes accept emergency placements of teenagers on a temporary basis. There is no teen shelter in Shasta County to provide temporary, transitional housing and crisis services for teenagers. One Safe Place has occasionally helped to house teenagers, and there may be an opportunity to formalize this relationship in the future. Some cities in California fund transitional housing facilities by building partnerships between city and county departments, 23 non-profit agencies and local law enforcement. Examples of these centers that operate in Northern California are the Sixth Street Center for Youth in Chico, WIND Youth Services in Sacramento, and the Bill Wilson Youth Center in Santa Clara. Finding Foster Placements or Re-unifying Families Ongoing social workers must find placements for children, visit each child at least once a month, assist the child and family as they navigate the court system, connect families to resources, and write reports about how each case is proceeding. In Shasta County the average caseload has been consistently higher than thirty cases per social worker, sometimes reaching thirty-nine or forty per social worker. These large caseloads also make it difficult for social workers to provide the depth of oversight children need in foster care or when returned to their own families. Shasta County’s ability to put children in permanent homes has fallen sharply in the last two years. Shasta County has only been able to place 76% of children needing permanent placement within three years compared to a state-wide average of 86%. Although there are several reasons for this, including a constant need for more foster parents, one contributing factor is insufficient staffing. Children’s Services Branch is not meeting the timelines for finding permanent placements for children who are removed from their parents or guardians. A Team Approach Grand Jury interviews indicated that a team approach has increased morale and efficiency. There are daily and weekly team meetings to discuss cases and direct appropriate resources toward the child and the family. Consistent interdepartmental collaboration and resource sharing occurs. This team includes social workers and representatives from Shasta County Office of Education, Shasta County Alcohol and Drug Department, law enforcement, public health, or non-profit organizations (i.e. CAPCC, One Safe Place) 24 Family Resources Shasta County has many quality programs available to help parents and foster parents. • The HHSA website includes links to many parenting programs and resources. • Shasta County works in partnership with the Child Abuse Prevention Coordinating Council (CAPCC) to provide Triple P (Positive Parenting Program) and Safe Care, an in- home training program to improve the home environment. • Currently, CAPCC oversees nine paid parent partners who work with social workers to provide parenting education to parents who are struggling and to connect families with necessary services. • Shasta College’s Foster Care education program offers classes to train and support foster/adoptive parents. • Parent Leaders participate in a program designed to assist parents who have had their children removed from their homes. Parents who have been through the entire process themselves and were successful in reunification serve as mentors, providing moral support and information about available resources. • Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency has an outpatient program that offers substance abuse treatment to women who are pregnant or have young children. One resource lacking in Shasta County is rehabilitation housing for parents who need to be sober and drug free in order to provide a safe home for their children. Although there are some options for mothers and children, these are limited. Children’s Mental Health We have many children in crisis in this county. The average rate of suicide attempts over the last five years by children or youth under 25 in Shasta County is more than double that of California as a whole. The Children’s Services Branch mental health staff includes licensed clinicians and interns. It is has been difficult to hire a child psychiatrist for Children’s Services Branch. Children’s Services Branch contracts out of area psychiatrists to meet with patients through video conferencing. Medi-Cal eligible children with ongoing mental health needs, who are not in immediate crisis, are referred to one of three contract providers: • Remi Vista Youth and Family Services; • North Valley Catholic Social Services; • Victor Community Support Services. Children in immediate crisis are screened by a therapist. If a severe risk exists, the child must be medically evaluated at an emergency room, and may be sent to a psychiatric lock-down facility. There are no psychiatric inpatient beds available for children in Shasta County. Therefore, children who are identified as a danger to themselves or others must be placed in facilities outside of the county. Sometimes it is difficult to find placements for these children as resources are limited. The child must be kept in a hospital emergency room until a placement is found. Sometimes this can take several days. An already traumatic situation is made even worse for the child and the family, and emergency room resources are strained. Although costs are similar whether a child is placed in a local facility or one out of the county, there is a slightly higher cost 25 due to the need to transport clients long distances. If there were local facilities available for children, not only would it cost less, but it would benefit the child, the family and the community. HHSA has encouraged the county to contract with local facilities to provide beds for children in crisis, but has not yet been successful. Shasta County Children Sent to Psychiatric Hospital Facilities 80 69 66 70 60 52 54 50 41 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Shasta County HHSA Need for a Mobile Crisis Response Unit Data 20102014 Shasta County is a large geographic area covering 3,847 square miles. Mental health patients in some of the more distant parts of the county have to travel long distances for services. Patients in crisis must be transported to hospital emergency rooms for medical evaluations. Mobile devices to assist social workers and mental health clinicians in the field would help, but confidentiality and technical issues make this difficult. When individuals experience a mental health crisis, cooperative efforts are needed between law enforcement agencies, hospital and emergency room staff and community mental health workers. While there are crisis response teams in place in Shasta County to provide this cooperation, these teams are limited and are not available 24/7. There is a need for an expanded mobile crisis unit, but the competitive state grant that the department applied for in 2013 was not awarded. Mental Health Outreach Programs The Shasta County Suicide Prevention Workgroup was created as one of several prevention programs required by the MHSA. This group meets monthly to plan and coordinate programs and events for the purpose of increasing community awareness of suicide, its stigma and efforts to prevent it. One program is called Brave Faces. Representatives with personal experience with suicide or mental illness speak to community organizations, youth groups and schools about their stories. Brave Faces also posts videos of some of the stories on the Shasta County Stand Against Stigma website and on the Suicide Prevention Facebook page. Brave Faces photographs are posted around the community and in RABA buses. Funding Challenges and Trends Passage of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) in 2004 helped create additional funds for mental health services. There are specific regulations and limitations on how this funding is to be used. This resulted in a reorganization of the department which took time to plan. The economic recession put a large strain on all Shasta County resources, making it difficult to fully implement some of the new programs. In particular, the recession made it difficult to increase workers’ salaries. Funds available for both mental health and child welfare are expected to grow as the economy continues to improve and as the state budget realignment directs more money toward these programs. According to the 2013 Audit Report for Shasta County, there will be growth in funding for child welfare programs. FINDINGS F1. The job of a children’s social worker is a difficult and demanding one, and Shasta County’s lower than state average pay, and higher than state average caseload add to this pressure. This increases the challenge of recruiting and retaining qualified social workers. F2. The short-staffing of the Children’s Services Branch, combined with Shasta County's high level of substantiated child abuse and neglect cases, has reduced the Children’s Services Branch’s ability to find permanent placements in a timely fashion for children who need them. Shasta County has only been able to place 76% (down from 83% in 2012) of children needing permanent placement within three years compared to a state-wide average of 86%. F3. Social workers and children are put in unsafe situations because of the after- hours oversight of children taken into temporary custody. Children’s Services Branch policy allows a social worker to take temporary custody of children from law enforcement and remain in the office before another on-call worker is available. F4. There is a need for an expanded mobile response unit with personnel who can access critical health information and screen patients to serve the extensive rural areas. It would reduce the strain on law enforcement and emergency rooms. F5. The lack of local inpatient psychiatric beds for children strains emergency room resources and causes stress to children in crisis and to their families. F6. The lack of a temporary teen shelter has put an undue burden on the Children’s Services Branch. F7. Community partnerships with organizations such as One Safe Place, the Child Abuse Prevention Coordinating Council, and First Five have resulted in quality parental support and education resources. The Brave Faces program and the Parent Leadership Advisory Group in particular should be commended for their efforts. F8. Branch directors, clinicians and social workers work with each other and with other agencies as an effective team to deal with children and families in crisis. This team approach has had a positive effect on the morale of the staff and effectiveness of the department. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. The Grand Jury recommends that within six months, Shasta County Personnel Services work with HHSA to develop an ongoing strategy to aggressively recruit and fill social worker vacancies. The “Grow Your Own” Program should continue to be fully supported as part of this process. R2. The Grand Jury recommends that as Child Welfare funding is expected to increase in the next year, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors look for opportunities to increase the social workers’ compensation package. R3. The Grand Jury recommends that within six months, the Health and Human Services Agency revise its policy to ensure that on-call social workers have immediate access to a second social worker or family worker when dealing with crisis situations after hours so that two people are in the office and the situation is safe for both workers and children. R4. The Grand Jury recommends that within six months, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors develop a strategy to contract with a local provider for inpatient psychiatric beds for children. R5. The Grand Jury recommends that within six months, the Health and Human Services Agency continue to search and apply for grant funds to expand its mobile crisis unit. R6. The Grand Jury recommends that within one year, the Shasta County Housing Authority, Redding Housing Department, and Health and Human Services Agency partner to develop a plan for funding and staffing one or more teen shelters to offer emergency services to teens in crisis. Non-profit organizations such as One Safe Place and CAPCC should be invited to participate in this plan. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the grand jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: • Shasta County Board of Supervisors as to F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 • Redding City Council as to F6, R6 INVITED RESPONSES Type titles of individuals here and list the findings and recommendations (by number) that each individual is invited to respond to. 28 • Director of Shasta County Personnel Services as to F1, R1,R2 • Director of Health and Human Services Agency as to F1, F2,F3, F4, F5, F6, R1,R2,R3,R4, R5 • Redding Housing Manager as to F6, R6 29 After School Programs Keep Kids Safe, Involved and Out of Trouble SUMMARY Poverty, homelessness, and substance abuse are increasing in Shasta County. Our children are the most vulnerable. As our community explores possible solutions to these complex issues, we need to look to the future and break the cycle of dysfunction for the next generation. Improving the lives of children will have long-term positive effects. Many children have few resources and difficult home situations. At-risk children need more opportunities for connection with caring adults, help with homework, and safe, stimulating activities. After school programs provide these. This concern prompted the Grand Jury to investigate the availability and accessibility of after school programs. Major university studies show that well-implemented, dynamic after school programs have a positive impact on disadvantaged children. There is evidence that these programs not only provide a safe place for children, but also reduce juvenile crime and improve students’ academic performance. Constructive after school activities can transform the prime time for juvenile crime -- between 3:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. -- into a time of opportunity and promise. The Grand Jury took a close look at three programs: Shasta County Office of Education’s Project SHARE, the Redding School District’s after school program, and the Anderson Teen Center. We found many examples of excellent programs and dedicated staff at the program sites we visited. Some community members have partnered with schools to sponsor and support these programs. We did find, however, that opportunities for partnership may not be as actively developed as they might be. We found that there are barriers to access for disadvantaged children because of limited space and waiting lists. We also found that in most areas of the county, disadvantaged teens lack access to any form of formal after school program or activities. This report makes recommendations regarding recruitment policies, advertising staff positions, creating community partnerships and exploring opportunities for establishing a teen outreach program for Redding. BACKGROUND Most school districts in Shasta County have some form of after school program. In 2002 California passed Proposition 49 which provided guaranteed funding for before and after school programs to provide tutoring, homework assistance and educational enrichment. Schools with mainly low-income students were to be given priority for this additional funding. School districts in Shasta County applied early for state grants and we have many schools that qualified for funding. California’s program is called the After School Education and Safety (ASES) Program. The program encourages collaboration between the schools and community partners such as law enforcement, parks and recreation departments, community-based organizations and the private sector. Priority for grants went to schools with over 50% economically disadvantaged children – those eligible for free and reduced priced lunch. Over half of all school children in Shasta County meet this requirement. The ASES grant funds after school programs for three hours at $7.50 per student per day. Funding from the state is based on attendance in the after school program. The ASES grant funds a maximum of 84 students per school. Programs can support more students through partnerships with schools and other organizations. In addition to the ASES K-8 state grant, there are federally funded grants called 21st Century Community Learning Grants which can also be used for high school programs. The California Department of Education provides After School Regional Leads to offer advice and training to after school programs funded by these grants.
R30-34:
2 5 4 3 5 35-39 1 5 2 40-44 0
R60-64:
1 *Only for first 6 months Source of Charts: Record Searchlight Effect of Drugs on Children and Families: Meth and heroin abuse is destructive to families and community, especially to children. Drug use tears apart the social fabric of families and communities. Education is usually not a priority in these families, which leads to truancy and school drop-outs. Consequently, the ability to acquire life and social skills is diminished for children who grow up exposed to drug abuse and related domestic violence within their family. Infants, exposed to drugs before birth, are often immediately placed into protective custody and taken into foster care. These children also often experience developmental delay and behavioral problems. For example, 88% of children placed in foster care are removed from drug abusing families. These children often need long term specialized medical care and psychological treatment. Also, many years of rehabilitation and treatment may be required for the entire family. 16
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F1:
The City of Shasta Lake agrees that methamphetamine and Heroine use is increasingly becoming a major problem in Shasta County. F2: The City of Shasta Lake is in agreement with the Grand Jury regarding the need for more drug treatment, rehabilitation service and education for abusers, their families and the community. F3: The City of Shasta Lake agrees that increased law enforcement personnel are vital to the effo1ts to decrease Methamphetamine and Heroine use. Although, not specifically related to this rep01t, the City CoU11cil at its June 16, 2015 meeting approved the funding for one additional contract Shasta Co1111ty Sheriff's deputy for the 2015/16 fiscal year. RI: The City of Shasta Lake collaborates with the Cmmty and the cities of Redding and Anderson in a variety of ways. City Manager and the Co1111ty CEO meet on a quarterly basis to share information and determine if there are issues on which the jmisdictions can collaborate. The City relies on the Shasta County Health and Hmnan Services and the Shasta County Sheriff's Department, with whom the City of Shasta Lake contracts for law enforcement, to provide services and referrals, and apprise City officials about substance abuse issues within the City. In addition, the City provides annual financial aid to the Shasta County Chemical People, Youth Violence Prevention Council, and Central Valley Sober Grad. These organizations provide substance abuse prevention services, refeirnls and education. The City Manager will meet with the Gateway Unified School District Superintendent to see if the DARE program can be brought back to our school district to provide early substance abuse prevention education. The City also makes available meeting rooms free of charge to Shasta/Trinity Area Narcotics Anonymous. R2: The City of Shasta Lake supports the endeavors of Shasta County, City of Anderson and City of Redding in seeking grant funding to provide increased treatment, rehabilitation, and prevention of substance abuse. The City of Shasta Lake has continually written letters of support, when requested to do so, for other jmisdiction's grant applications. City staff also continually monitors grant oppo1tunities for which the city is eligible to apply. R3: The City receives annual funding through the Citizen's Options for Police Services (COPS) grant program in the amo1111t of $100,000. This funding pays for one of the officers provided in the City's contract with the Sheriff's Depmtment. As stated in Fl above, funding for one additional contract Shasta County Sheriff's deputy for the 2015/16 fiscal year was recently approved. If there m·e any questions regarding these responses, please contact John Duckett, City Manager at 530- 275-74 l 1. It is ow· hope that with additional effort and collaboration, that Shasta County Methamphetamine and Heroine use, as well as other substance abuse, can be decreased. ClrY OF R.KDDING FRANCIE SULLIVAN, MAYOR 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001 P.O. Box 496071, Redding, CA 96049-6071 530.225.4447 FAX 530.225.4463 September 2, 2015 B-080-600-800 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Presiding Judge Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Court Street, Room 205 Redding, CA 96001 Dear Judge Gaul: The Shasta County Grand Juty 2014-15 Final Report contains a report titled "Methamphetamine and Heroin Plague Shasta County Life." The Grand Jury has requested that the Redding City Council respond to the Findings and Recommendations within that repoti. Fl. The abuse of meth and heroin has serious often long-te1m destructive physical and mental effects on the users and their families. Medical, social, and psychological services and law enforcement are strained. Response to F 1: The respondent agrees with the finding. F2. Shasta County needs more drug treatment, rehabilitation services and drug education for abusers, their families and the community to reduce drug abuse and strengthen life skills of those most at risk. Response to F2: The respondent agrees with the finding. F3. County and city law enforcement, as currently staffed, are unable to fully combat drng abuse. Response to F3: The respondent agrees with the finding. RI. The Grand Jury recommends that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors collaborate with the city councils of Redding, Anderson and City of Shasta Lake, the business communities, service organizations, school distriqts and others throughout the county to provide early drug education programs, including an educational media campaign. Letter to The Honorable Grego,y Gaul September 2, 2015 Re: Response to Shasta County Grand Ju,y Report Page2 Response to Rl: The recommendation_ requires further analysis over the next six months to determine more precisely what the. City of Redding's participation would entail. The City of Redding collaborates with the County of Shasta on a wide range of community issues. The City of Redding is willing to collaborate with the County of Shasta and other stakeholders on this recommendation, as well. R2. The Grand Jury recommends that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors and city councils seek funding through grants and ballot propositions to increase treatment and rehabilitation services. Response to R2: The recommendation will not be implemented. The City of Redding does not operate any drng-related treatment or rehabilitation services. Therefore, it is not practical for the City of Redding to apply for such grants. The City of Redding will continue to support the County of Shasta's efforts, however, to secure such grants to better serve the community. R3. The Grand Jury recommends that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors collaborate with city councils to seek funding through grants and ballot propositions to maintain and increase law enforcement staff to combat illegal drngs. Response to R3: This recommendation has been implemented. The City of Redding has been able to successfully secure grants to maintain and increase law enforcement staff to combat illegal drngs and other criminal activity. The City of Redding will continue to pursue grant oppmtunities in collaboration with the County of Shasta. On behalf of the City Council, I would like to thank and commend the Grand Jury for its dedication and hard work. The City Council values and respects the impotiant role that the Grand Jury se1ves in our community. Sincerely, iI:. ,-.., ' ~ <'..,I..__{_ J.r.ar?cie Sullivan Mayor FS:KS:lsC:\D,:,cumcnts and Settings\shank\My Documents\1.fa)'Or·CC\20 l S\109-02-JSGrandJury.doc CITY OF REDDING 777 CYPRESS AVENUE, REDDING, CA 9600 I P.O. Box 49607 f, REDDING, CA 96049-6071 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER KURT STA RMAN, CITY MANAGER BARRY TIPPIN, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER GREG CLARK, DEPUTY CJTY MANAGER 530,225.4060 530.225.4325 FAX July 22, 2015 B-080-600-800 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Presiding Judge Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Court Street, Room 205 Redding, CA 96001 Dear Judge Gaul: -15 Final Report contains a report titled "Turf Troubles in River City". The Grand Jury has requested that the City Manager of the City of Redding respond to the Finding #1, Finding #5, and Recommendation #4 within that report. Fl. The turf for each of the four soccer fields needs to be replaced within two-three years. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. It is uncertain when the turf for each field will need to be replaced. However, the finding above appears to be reasonable. F5. There has never been an audit of the Shasta Regional Soccer Association's (SRSA) financial records of monies received, expended and available for the Replacement Fund. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. The City of Redding retains the contractual right to audit the SRSA's financial records, but there has been no need for a full audit. With that said, the City of Redding's Director of Community Services receives and reviews the SRSA's financial reports on a regular basis. R4. The COR shall provide accurate accounting to the City Council and the public annually by August 15 of each year for compliance with the fiscal Soccer Park Lease terms. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented by October 31, 2015. The Director of Community Services will provide a report to the Community Services Advisory Commission on an annual basis. The report will be made available to the City Council and the public. o"~,:;.. :J~ / . ,"\-~i u/, 1f-·-~'"--. \ ;,;;.·. ~. jG .l ~ ~~ . "'"·- ,- /~" ' ' < ~~Q,:;;.'f:. ,·· Response to Grand Jmy July 22, 2015 Re: "Turf Troubles in River City" Page2 In closing, I would like to thank and commend the Grand Jury for its dedication and hard work. I value and respect the important role that the Grand Jury serves in om· community. ~ Kurt Stannan City Manager M:\GrandJ ury\20 l 5\L07-21-15Gran d Jury So ccerPark.doc c: Honorable Mayor and Council Members Kim Niemer, Director of Commmlity Services CITY OF REDDING FRANCIE SULLIVAN, MAYOR 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001 P.O. Box 496071, Redding. CA 96049-6071 530.225.4447 FAX 530.225.4463 September 2, 2015 B-080-600-800 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Presiding Judge Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Court Street, Room 205 Redding, CA 96001 Dear Judge Gaul: -15 Final Report contains a report titled "Turf Troubles in River City." The Grand Jury has requested that the Redding City Council respond to the Findings 2, 3, and 4, and Recommendations I through 4. F2. There is insufficient money in the "Replacement Fund" to replace the turf. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. F3. Several amendments to the 01iginal Soccer Park Lease over five years have not resulted in adequate monies to the Replacement Fund. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. The amendments were made when the lessor was unable to comply with the existing lease requirements in order to keep the park open and available to the public. F4. The COR has failed to perf01m its fiduciary duty to its citizens to protect the $10 million investment required by the original Soccer Park Lease with amendments. Response: The respondent disagrees with this finding. The City of Redding manages the lease agreement closely. The severe economic recession of the last several years impacted revenue at the park. The City of Redding has provided no financial support to operate the Soccer Park since it first opened in 2007 and thousands of residents have enjoyed the recreational amenities. Refusing to amend the lease would have caused the Soccer Park to close or the City of Redding to assume operational responsibility, which was not possible when drastic cuts were being made to the City's General Fund due to the recession. Letter to The Honorable Grego,y Gaul September 2, 2015 Re: Response to Shasta County Grand Jwy Report Page2 RI. The COR shall conduct a forensic audit of SRSA's financial records between 2007 and 2014 by January 15, 2016. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City of Redding reviews Soccer Park financial reports monthly. . There is no evidence of impropriety that would justify the expense or effort of a forensic audit. R2. The COR shall develop by October 1, 2015 a strategy to replace the turf that is not dependent on pending litigation or the cutTent Soccer Park Lease dated September 26, 2012. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. Responsibility for replacing the turfrests with the Shasta Regional Soccer Association. However, the City of Redding will continue to work with the Shasta Regional Soccer Association to identify long-term solutions and strategies. R3. The COR shall establish a viable business plan for the soccer park that would provide a sustainable operation by October 1, 2015. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented. The City of Redding does not operate the facility. The City of Redding has an agreement with the Shasta Regional Soccer Association for operation of the Redding Soccer Park. R4. The COR shall provide accurate accounting to the City Council and the public annually by August 15 of each year for compliance with the fiscal Soccer Park Lease terms. Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented by October 31, 2015. The Director of Community Services will provide a report to the Community Services Advisory Commission on an annual basis. The repmt will be made available to the City Council and the public. In closing, I would like to thank and commend the Grand Jury for its diligent efforts on behalf of our community. Sincerely, CT;:': Mayor FS:KS:KN:!s C:\Documents and Set!ings\sbank\My DocumentslJ..fayor-CC\20 IS \l..09-02-1 SOrandJurySP.doe
F2:
The short staffing of the Children's Services Branclt, combined with Sltasta County's ltiglt level of substantiated cltild abuse and neglect cases, ltas reduced lite Cltildren 's Services Branch's ability to find permanent placements in a timely fasltion for cltildren wlto need tit em. Shasta County ltas only been able to place 76% (down from 83% in 2012) of cltildren needing permanent placement within tltree years compared to state-wide average of 86%. Response: The Board of Supervisors agrees that a reduced level of staffing to provide permanency services has been a contributing factor in the decline in the number of children for whom pem1anent placements were made within the timeliness standard. Two new Social Work positions included in the Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Health and Human Services Agency Budget will be assigned to the provision of permanency services.
F3:
Social workers and children are put in unsafe situations because of the after hours oversigltt of cltildre11 taken into temporary custody. Cltildren 's Services Branch policy allows it social worker to take temporary custody of cltildren from law enforcement and remain in tlte office before another on-call worker is available. Response: The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding. Health and Human Services Agency Children's Services has policies in place regarding employee safety and building secmity as well as, after hours emergency response that address the need for two staff to be present when a child is in the building awaiting placement after business hours.
F4:
There is a need for an expanded mobile response unity witlt personnel who can access critical ltealtlt information and screen patients to serve the extensive rural areas. It would reduce lite strain 011 law enforcement and emergency rooms. Response: The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding. FS. The lack of local inpatient psycltiatric beds for cltildren strain emergency room resources and causes stress to cltildren in crisis and to tlteir families. Response: The Board of Supervisors agrees with the finding.
F5:
There has never been an audit of the Shasta Regional Soccer Association's (SRSA) financial records of monies received, expended and available for the Replacement Fund. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. The City of Redding retains the contractual right to audit the SRSA's financial records, but there has been no need for a full audit. With that said, the City of Redding's Director of Community Services receives and reviews the SRSA's financial reports on a regular basis.
F6:
Within the City of Redding there is no teen center and no f01mal after school programs are offered at local high schools. There is a lack of accessible programs to attract teenagers and involve them in organized activities after school. Response to F6: The respondent agrees that the City of Redding does not currently operate a teen center.
F7:
Shasta County is fortunate that school districts and the Shasta County Office of Education had the vision to apply early for ASES and 21" Century grants. Not all schools in California have access to these after school programs. Response: The Shasta County Superintendent of Schools agrees with this finding and welcomes opportunities to partner with interested districts in applying for future ASES and 21st Century grants.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R2:
The Grand Jury recommends that as Child Welfare funding is expected to increase in the next year, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors look for opportunities to increase social workers' compensation package. Response: The Board of Supervisors will not implement this recommendation as Shasta County employee's compensation is a labor negotiation matter and will be handled through the bargaining process accordingly. RJ. The Grand J111y recommends that within six months, the Health and Human Services Agency revise its policy to ensure that 011-call social workers have immediate access to a second social worker or family worker when dealing with crisis situations after hours so that two people are in lite office and t!te situation is safe for both workers and children. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The Board of Supervisors has determined that the Health and Human Services Agency Children's Branch added a Supervisory standby rotation effective June 14, 2015, for oversight of call out activities and to ensure adequate staff coverage for after business hours program responsibilities . .R 4. The Grand Jury recommends that within six months, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors develop a strategy to contract with a local provider for inpatient psychiatric beds for children. Response: The Board of Supervisors agrees that there is a need for psychiatric beds for children in Shasta County. The Health and Human Services Agency is prepared to enter into contract negotiations with a local provider of psychiatric hospital beds for individuals under 18 years of age as soon as such a facility becomes available and will continue to communicate with potential providers regarding this need.· Honorable Gregory Gaul July 21, 2015 of6 RS. The Grand Jury recommends that within six months, the Health and Hrmum Services Agency continue to search and apply for grant funds to expand its mobile crisis unit. Response: The recommendation has been implemented and Health and Human Services Agency will continue to search and apply for grant funds to expand its mobile crisis unit. Additionally, in June 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved a plan for the utilization of Intergovernmental Transfer funds that includes an expansion of crisis services. Additional Clinical staff will, through this plan, be made available to respond to the local emergency rooms regarding individuals needing assessment due to psychiatric emergencies and to respond with law enforcement to community calls that have a mental health component.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Shasta County Board of Supervisors collaborate with city councils to seek funding through grants and ballot propositions to mai11tain and increase law enforcement staff to combat illegal drugs. Response: The recommendation has been paitially implemented. The County applies for grant funding continuously to increase law enforcement staff to combat illegal drugs. On March 17, 2015, the Board of Supervisors approved funding for five Full-Time-Equivalent Deputy positions for eastern Shasta County. The County and Cities work together through the SHASCOM JPA to coordinate Public Safety communications that create safety efficiencies. Honorable. Gregory Gaul July 21, 2015 of6 This concludes the response of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors to the FY 2014-2015 Grand Jury Rep01i. ' Sincerely, LEONARD MOTY, CHAIRMAN Board of Supervisors County of Shasta Cll'Y OF REDDING FRANCIE SULLIVAN, MAYOR 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001 P.O. Box 496071, Redding, CA 96049·6071 530.225.4447 FAX 530.225.4463 September 2, 2015 B-080-600-800 The Honorable Gregmy S. Gaul Presiding Judge Shasta County Superior Comi 1500 Court Street Redding, CA 96001 Dear Judge Gaul: The Shasta County Grand Jury published a report titled "Keeping Children Safe and Families Together" in June 2015. The repo1i includes eight findings and six recommendations. The City Council is required to respond to F6 and R6. Therefore, the purpose of this letter is to respond to that requirement.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that by January 1, 2016, the City of Redding convene a task force to explore the possibilities for establishing a teen center or teen outreach program. Possible funding sources include a C01mnunity Development Block Grant or housing funds. Community stakeholders including schools, law enforcement, businesses, and non-profit and philantlu·opic organizations should be invited to paiticipate in the planning process. Response to R4: This recommendation will not be implemented. The City of Redding already has a commission in place to advise the City Council relative to the need for recreational facilities. Therefore, the City Council will refer the Grand Jury's report to the City ofRedding's Community Se1vices Advisory Commission. I Letter to The Honorable Grego,y Gaul September 2, 2015 .Re: Response to Shasta County Grand Jury Report Page2 On behalf of the City Council, I would_ like to thank and commend the Grand Jury for its dedication and hard work. The City Council values and respects the important role that the Grand Jury serves in our community. Sincerely, ~a--~\A t:;te Sullivan FS:KS:Is C:\Documents and Settings\shank\My Documcnts\Mayl)r·C010 IS IL09.02· IS GrandforyAS.doc RICK FAUSS, Ed.D. Superintendent September 2, 2015 Honorable Judge Gregmy S. Gaul Shasta County Superior Court 1500 Comt Street Redding, CA 9600 I Dear Judge Gaul; REDDING This letter is in response to findings and recommendation made by the Shasta County SCHOOL Grand Jmy in correspondence dated June 4, 2015 and received on June 8, 2015. I DISTRICT would first like to thank the grand jmy for looking at the quality after school programs being offered to the children of Shasta County. Redding School District prides itself Ac<1de111ic Excellence Since 1873 in offering educational and engaging programs for our students, and we appreciate the opportunity to improve on what we have built. Please find the required responses below:
R6:
The Grand Jmy recommends that within one year, the Shasta County Housing Authority, Redding Housing Department, and Health and Human Services Agency partner to develop a plan for funding and staffing one or more teen shelters to offer emergency services to teens in crisis. Non-profit organizations such as One Safe Place and CAPCC should be invited to participate in this plan. Response: This recommendation requires futther analysis. As presented, it is too broad and is not within the City's abilities to reasonably effectuate. Prior to December l, 2015, the City will discuss with appropriate Shasta County representatives the role the City Housing Division could play in such a pat1nership. It should be noted that the City has historically provided financial assistance to organizations that address needs associated with teen welfai·e and housing, pat1icularly through its Community Development Block Grant program. Thank you for the oppmtunity to comment on the Grant Jury's report. The City of Redding appreciates and respects the important function that the Shasta County Grand Jury serves in local government. Sincerely, Steve Bade Housing Manager c: City Council Members Kurt Stannan, City Manager N:\Steve\Grand Jury\2014·15 Grand Jury Response-Children·SB.wpd Shasta County BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1450 Court Street, Suite 3088 DAVID A. KEHOE, DISTRICT 1 Redding, California 96001-1673 LEONARD MOTY, DISTRICT 2 (530) 225-5557 PAM GIACOMINI, DISTRICT 3 (800) 479-8009 BILL SCHAPPELL, DISTRICT 4 (530) 225-5189-FAX LES BAUGH, DISTRICT 5 July 21, 2015 The Honorable Gregory Gaul Presiding Judge, Shasta County Superior Com1 1500 Court St., Rm. Redding, CA 96001 Dear Judge Gaul: Re: Response of Board of Supervisors to Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Grand Jury Report The Shasta County Board of Supervisors appreciates the time and dedication which the 2014-2015 Grand Jurors contributed to their charge. The following findings and recommendations are under serious consideration and discussions are being held regarding solutions to any umesolved problems. RESPONSES AND FINDINGS A. Keeping Children Safe and Families Together
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
10
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Continuity and Editorial
R2:
Information Technology/ Report Publication
R3:
Local Districts and Agencies
R4:
Procedures and Policy Review Committee 7 Summary of Grand Jury Committee Activities Committee Meetings Interviews Reports Site Visits Autopsies Audit and Financial 2 0 1 0 0 City Government 36 6 1 1 0 Continuity and Editorial 44 6 1 0 0 County Government 42 21 1 4 0 Criminal Justice 72 18 4 6 1 Information Tech/Publications 5 0 0 0 0 Local Districts and Agencies 41 9 1 21 0 Plenary Committee 30 0 0 0 0 Procedures and Policy Review 3 0 0 0 0 Totals 275 60 9 32 1 Multiple facilities were visited including:
R5:
Local Jails and detention facilities
R6:
Redding Police Department
R7:
Shasta County After School Programs
R8:
Multiple Social Service Programs
R9:
County Board of Supervisors Meetings
R10:
Redding City Council Meetings Activities during 2014-2015: Agencies, Departments and Facilities Visited 32 Autopsies Attended 1 Committee Meetings Held 275 Interviews Conducted During Course of Investigations 60 Final Reports Issued 9 Government Board Meetings Attended 16 Joint Audit Committee Meetings Attended 2 Meetings of the Full Grand Jury 30 Complaints Received* 26 *Not all complaints received fall within the purview of the Grand Jury 8