Gran Jurado del Condado de Shasta
2018-2019
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
16 hallazgos
F1:
Chronic understaffing necessitates excessive overtime, creating stress and negative morale.
F2:
Public Safety Dispatchers II (PSDII) have a disproportionate overtime burden because they are qualified for all dispatcher functions.
F3:
The amount of overtime required of PSDIIs is a disincentive for Public Safety Dispatchers I (PSDI) to advance.
F4:
Current recruitment efforts are inconsistent and limited, thus contributing to unfilled dispatcher positions and excessive overtime.
F5:
The limit of four training slots restricts the number of vacancies that can be filled in a training cycle.
F6:
Training efforts are not standardized among the trainers resulting in an inconsistent training program.
F7:
The SHASCOM Board has not effectively dealt with the overtime and recruitment issues which have caused chronic staffing problems.
F8:
Overtime and staffing issues limit SHASCOM’s ability to timely comply with all Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) accreditation requirements. 28
F9:
The Computer- Aided Dispatch (CAD) system does not satisfactorily meet the needs of Redding Fire Department and Emergency Medical Services (ambulances) which causes dispatch and first responder complications.
F10:
SHASCOM has no systematic process for utilizing CAD system’s capability for flagging specific information on populations with access and functional needs, leaving this group vulnerable in emergency situations.
F11:
CodeRED is underutilized due, at least in part, to a lack of systematic effort to increase registrations.
F12:
SHASCOM and participating agencies’ websites lack adequate information about the function of CodeRED alerts and the registration process, leaving the public with insufficient information as to why or how to register.
F13:
The current CodeRED registration process is not sufficiently effective at enabling or achieving registration of people with access and functional needs. This may leave this population vulnerable to future emergencies for lack of receiving a CodeRED alert.
F14:
There has been no available comprehensive testing or analysis by SHASCOM to determine if CodeRED meets the County’s needs for an emergency alert system.
F15:
The Board does not receive standardized, system-wide reporting or documentation from the various Operational meetings between participating Agencies and SHASCOM, impacting their ability to make informed decisions.
F16:
There is not a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities among Board members and the Director, which results in less than effective governance. This lack of consistent and comprehensive oversight of SHASCOM allows chronic issues, as outlined in the report, to persist. COMMENDATION Thank you to Agencies that put links to CodeRED on their websites.
Recomendaciones adicionales
12
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
By September 30, 2019, the SHASCOM Board will begin the process of hiring a subject matter expert (management consultant) to review and analyze personnel management issues related to overtime, staffing levels, and dispatcher responsibilities and classifications (PSDI and PSDII). Funding could come from current-year budget savings or be allocated to the following year’s budget.
R2:
By October 31, 2019, the SHASCOM Board will instruct the SHASCOM Director to prepare a comprehensive recruitment plan that analyzes appropriate targets and details the timing and methods of recruitment. 29
R3:
Beginning January 31, 2020, the SHASCOM Board will require the SHASCOM Director to provide quarterly reports on recruitment efforts and outcomes, based on the comprehensive recruitment plan.
R4:
By January 31, 2020, the SHASCOM Board will require the SHASCOM Director to have prepared and initiated the Request For Proposals (RFP) process for hiring the management consultant.
R5:
By November 30, 2019, the SHASCOM Board will require the SHASCOM Director to present a timeline for achieving compliance with accreditation certification of the dispatch center, either through POST or an alternate accreditation organization.
R6:
By November 30, 2019, the SHASCOM Board will require that each employee’s annual evaluation include continuing education requirements and provide a reasonable timeframe to complete the training.
R7:
By November 30, 2019, the SHASCOM Board will instruct the SHASCOM Director to conduct an in-house audit on the effectiveness of the training program and report the results to the Board by January 31, 2020.
R8:
Beginning at the September 2019 SHASCOM Board meeting, and at each bi-monthly meeting thereafter, the Board will require written updates on the performance of CAD until all issues are resolved to the satisfaction of participating Agencies.
R9:
By January 31, 2020, the SHASCOM Board will instruct the SHASCOM Director to present a project plan for incorporating information on people with access and functional needs into the CAD database.
R10:
By January 31, 2020, the SHASCOM Board will instruct the SHASCOM Director to plan the implementation of an annual performance test of CodeRED with a subsequent report to the Board on the system’s effectiveness within 60 days of the test.
R11:
By January 31, 2020, the SHASCOM Board will instruct the SHASCOM Director to appoint a staff member of SHASCOM to improve the CodeRED registry website and expand public registration, including persons with special access and functional needs.
R12:
By May 31, 2020, the SHASCOM Board will establish an operational, standing Advisory Board, composed of community volunteers as outlined in this report.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Recomendaciones adicionales
3
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
By September 30, 2018, the Shasta County Board Shasta County The recommendation has been implemented. The of Supervisors, based on available or newly solicited Board of Board approved an immediate addition of 64 Jail information, agree on needed capacity at the Shasta Supervisors beds, which has been approved by the State. In County Jail both now and in 5,10, 15, and 20 years. addition, the County is in the process of obtaining These capacity needs should be reviewed and updated approval from the State for an additional 38 beds annually based on new legislation or other pertinent for a total of 102 Jail beds added to the current changes. facility.
R2:
By March 31, 2019, the Shasta County Board of Shasta County The recommendation will not be implemented Supervisors adopts a 10-year funding plan for Shasta Board of because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. County Jail capacity expansion including capital and Supervisors operational costs. This plan should be reviewed annually at a public meeting.
R3:
By March 31, 2019 the Shasta County Board of Shasta County The recommendation has already been Supervisors identify on-going new sources of revenue to Board of implemented. Additionally, the Health and Human meet current and projected Jail capacity needs. Supervisors Services Agency, Housing and Community Action Programs Department have identified a “Jail Diversion” program working to identify and address crimes committed by those in the community that *The Response to R3 included a description of a are homeless. Should the Jail Diversion program proposed Public Safety Special Tax come to fruition, it is anticipated to be funded in conjunction with the Cities. This adopted proposal through grants. has since failed. 3
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
8 hallazgos
F1:
Correctional and medical staff complete the intake medical screening process in a consistent and uniform manner, leading to equal treatment for all intakes.
F2:
All intakes are subject to the same procedure and are evaluated by qualified staff, failing to substantiate alleged bias.
F3:
Primary medical care for all inmates, including referrals for specialty care, are coordinated in a timely fashion, providing optimal medical services.
F4:
State correctional regulations (Title 15) for inmate medical care are being met, thus assuring that inmates receive appropriate, standardized care.
F5:
Protocols for emergency, prolonged, and end-of-life care are followed by medical and correctional staff providing avenues for compassionate care.
F6:
The allegation that medical staff is required to work beyond their licensed skill level was not supported. Protocols are in place to provide 24-hour medical care by appropriately licensed staff.
F7:
Medical and correctional staff work together to strive to provide quality assurance through a cohesive medical services program for the benefit of the inmates.
F8:
Compensation for medical services was found to be within the contracted budget for fiscal years 2016/2017 and 2017/2018, allowing services to be provided as required within a fiscally responsible manner. COMMENDATIONS C1: The Grand Jury commends the medical and correctional staff of the Shasta County Jail on providing efficient and compassionate medical care for the inmates at the Jail. C2: The Grand Jury commends the medical and correctional staff of the Shasta County Jail for meeting or exceeding its contractual obligations during fiscal years 2016/2017 and 2017/2018. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the following response is required from the following elected county officer (within 60 days): Shasta County Sheriff: F1-F8 15 SOURCES CONSULTED • Personal Services Agreement between the County of Shasta and California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., June 16, 2016 • State of California. Title 15: Minimum Standards for Local Detention Facilities, April 1, 2017 (Title 15 Hyperlink) • State of California. Business and Professions Code. Division 2. Healing Arts. Chapter 6. Article 2. Scope of Regulation (2725-2742) (Division 2 Hyperlink) • California Government Code Title 3, Division 2, Part 3, Chapter 2, Article 1 (26600 – 26616) • Shasta County Jail Medical Sick Request Slip • First Amendment to the Agreement Between the County of Shasta and California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Dec. 4, 2018 • Shasta County Correctional Facility Medical Pre-screening Form (CFMG–MPS-SH). • CFMG Medical Intake Triage/Receiving Screening Form. • Shasta County Jail Inmate Grievance Log (June 2018-November 2018). • County of Shasta. Financing Sources and Uses by Budget Unit by Object Governmental Funds, Fiscal Year 2018-19. Budget Unit: 260-Jail (Fund 0195) • Shasta County Sheriff’s Office Main Jail Annual Report of Medical Services, 2016 and 2017 • 2017 Quarterly Quality Assurance minutes (Feb.14, May 16, Aug. 15, and Nov. 21) • CFMG Shift Schedule (Aug.2018 – Jan. 2019) • Shasta County Sheriff Policy 503: Safety and Sobering Cells, 2019 When there is a perception of a conflict of interest involving a member of the Grand Jury, that member has been required to recuse from any aspect of the investigation involving such a conflict and from voting on the acceptance of or rejection of that report. No members of the Grand Jury were recused from this report. Reports issued by the G rand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Grand Jury. Released June 27, 2019 16 SH AS CO M 911 SERVI CES “ 911, W H AT ’S Y OUR E M E RGE N CY ?” SUMMARY Over the past 23 years, Shasta County Grand Juries have produced six reports on the Shasta Area Safety Communications Agency (SHASCOM): 1995/96, 2000/01, 2003/04, 2005/06, 2007/08, 2009/10. This year’s report brings the total to seven. As the County’s emergency communication provider, SHASCOM is responsible for a vital public service. Similarly, the Grand Jury provides an important public service by periodically assessing SHASCOM. After nine years, a thorough, fresh assessment with recommendations of SHASCOM’s operations was overdue. The 2018/19 Shasta County Grand Jury found that many concerns highlighted in past reports are still significant today. In particular, vacant dispatcher positions continue to be a chronic and debilitating issue. Unfilled dispatcher positions lead to excessive overtime and low employee morale. Inadequate recruitment efforts fail to meet staffing needs. Dispatching is a difficult job. Excessive overtime is an added burden that increases stress. Overtime and related personnel management issues need to be resolved for the good of the employees and for the good of SHASCOM. SHASCOM has adopted the standards for training from the California’s Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). However, not all training required by POST gets completed, in part because dispatchers have insufficient time to complete their training. We recommend that an outside consultant be hired to analyze SHASCOM’s operational needs and propose fixes for staffing and related personnel management issues. The Grand Jury also identified issues related to SHASCOM’s technical support systems. The Agency has a new Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system that became operational in October 2018 and is still undergoing modification and fine tuning. Because the new CAD does not yet meet the complex, multi-agency dispatching needs of SHASCOM, it is imperative that member agencies and SHASCOM’s Board receive regular updates on CAD performance and system integration. This information will aid the Board in determining if the CAD system is adequate. CodeRED is the County’s emergency alert system. It warns the public of emergencies and advises on how to respond. The system communicates information that is critical to everyone’s safety. Citizens of the County increase their options for receiving emergency alerts by registering for CodeRED. Our primary concern is that CodeRED is underutilized because it is poorly advertised to the public and is minimally user-friendly. We are especially concerned about citizens with disabilities or other conditions that limit their ability to receive and respond to emergency alerts. SHASCOM needs to promote CodeRED to the public. Read further to learn more about this important public service. The SHASCOM Board is ultimately responsible for how well the Agency functions. Ongoing issues suggest the Board needs to be more proactive in its oversight of SHASCOM. To be more effective, the Board needs regular updates on performance-related issues, data to analyze the issues, and options on how the issues can be resolved. We found no clear process of how the Board makes recommendations for improvement. An outside consultant could recommend how best to optimize the communication of performance data and other important issues between the Board and the Director. We recommend a stepwise process to advance Board oversight: • Hire a management consultant to analyze SHASCOM / Board operations. • Schedule a workshop including the Board, Director, and consultant to address important issues, and review and clarify the roles and expectations of the Director and Board Members. • Establish a standing Advisory Board composed of community volunteers to assist the Board. The Grand Jury believes outside eyes can help the Board and management of SHASCOM find new ways of addressing important issues and improve transparency. BACKGROUND With the Carr Fire fresh in Grand Jurors’ minds, the 2018/19 Shasta County Grand Jury decided to look more closely at the County’s emergency response services and infrastructure. This devastating fire presented emergency response challenges never before experienced within Shasta County. The Grand Jury recognizes that first responders did their best to manage the challenges through tireless and professional work. Still, responders and the public were at times overwhelmed, particularly by the explosive fire behavior of July 26th when an unprecedented number of lives and structures were lost in Shasta County. All Grand Jury members know people who lost their homes, and some knew people who lost their lives. The Grand Jury started its research by looking at various aspects of emergency response. We ultimately focused on SHASCOM (911 service). When 911 is called, most of us know and expect that the call will be answered, our emergency issue addressed, and appropriate responders dispatched. All this is done with speed and professionalism. Similarly, if an area-wide emergency threatens us, our expectation is that we will be alerted to the threat in a timely and effective manner. SHASCOM is the conduit for communications between first responders and the public – communications that are critical to our safety. Most of us take this service for granted, but how many of us know how the service works and how best to use it? In an emergency, you might wish you knew more. SHASCOM was created in 1990 through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the County of Shasta and the cities of Anderson and Redding. SHASCOM answers 911 calls, issues emergency alerts to the public, and provides emergency dispatch and communication for the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, City of Redding Police Department, City of Redding Fire Department, City of Anderson Police Department, and two emergency medical service / ambulance companies (EMS) in the County. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the California Highway Patrol provide separate emergency dispatch, but interface directly with SHASCOM. Redding Fire is the only City fire department in the County. The County contracts with CAL FIRE to serve as the County’s fire department. Fire Districts within the County are dispatched by CAL FIRE. Full-time staff at SHASCOM include (as of March 2019): • Director • Support Manager • Operations Manager • Systems Analyst • Administrative Assistant • Five Dispatch Supervisors, including an Administrative Supervisor • Thirty-one Dispatchers / Call Takers SHASCOM is overseen by a five-member Board composed of the City Managers of Redding and Anderson, the Shasta County Administrative Officer, the Shasta County Sheriff, and a fifth member that alternates between the Police and Fire Chiefs of Redding. Board meetings are scheduled bimonthly and are open to the public. This Grand Jury’s first contact with SHASCOM was during a site visit to the Agency’s headquarters and dispatch center in August 2018. Shasta County Grand Juries have often taken a tour of the SHASCOM facility as a standard part of the Jury’s orientation to local government services. There are reports of these prior tours, as well as more in-depth investigations that were undertaken. These Grand Jury reports provide a track record of the issues that were interpreted as significant in the past. With the Carr Fire fresh in everyone’s mind, this Grand Jury’s tour was especially poignant and thought-provoking. The Grand Jury felt that it was necessary to once again to take a closer look at SHASCOM’s operations. 19
Recomendaciones adicionales
11
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
By September 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake The City of The recommendation will not be implemented City Council, Shasta County Sheriff’s Office and other Shasta Lake City because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. stakeholders begin planning sessions to discuss future Council law enforcement needs of cannabis-related businesses within the City.
R2:
By November 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake The City of The recommendation has been implemented. The City Council determine how to address cannabis-related Shasta Lake City City of Shasta Lake has already budgeted for code enforcement. This should include written Council additional code enforcement. procedures delineating when a law enforcement presence is needed during a code enforcement response.
R3:
By September 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake The City of The recommendation will not be implemented City Council direct the City Manager to write a policy Shasta Lake City because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. that clearly details the handling of cash payments. The Council policy should be presented to the City Council in a public forum by November 30, 2018. The policy should require all funds from different sources maintain fiscal integrity and separate accounting. The City of Shasta Lake City Council should contact other cities and states who have expertise in successfully handling cannabis payments in order to ensure best practices are being followed.
R4:
Within one week of the publishing of this report, the The City of The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Shasta Lake City Council institute a safe method Shasta Lake City City of Shasta Lake has instituted a procedure for of transporting cash deposits, such as entering into a Council all cash deposits to be transported by law contract with an armored car service for the secure enforcement personnel. transportation of cash. Funds for this expense can come from permits, fees, and taxes from Measure A.
R5:
By December 31, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake The City of The recommendation will not be implemented City Council approve the construction of the required Shasta Lake City because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. secondary access road in the Shasta Gateway Council Industrial Park. The funding options may include performance bonds, grants, assessments, and fees/tax increases.
R6:
By August 31, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City The City of The recommendation will not be implemented Council direct the City Manager to notify all current Shasta Lake City because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. permit holders and applicants that no further plot splits Council or building can continue or commence until the Shasta Lake Fire Protection District authorizes further activities in the Shasta Gateway Industrial Park. Green Rush… Up in Smoke? Legal Cannabis in the City of Shasta Lake THE 2017-2018 SHASTA COUNTY REQUIRED RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT
R7:
By December 31, 2018, the Shasta Lake Fire Shasta Lake Fire The recommendation requires further analysis, with Protection District Board explore all legal avenues to Protection District the opportunity for the District to meet with legal require the City of Shasta Lake to meet its legal Board counsel and discuss potential options, including the obligation to complete the secondary access road in the possibility of pursuing litigation to enforce the Shasta Gateway Industrial Park. Uniform Fire Code. The District will prepare the matter for discussion by December 1, 2018. The Grand Jury confirmed that the meeting was held, but at this time there is still no resolution to the issue. The Fire District intends to continue to monitor the situation and is prepared to pursue more significant remedies if no progress occurs.
R8:
By September 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake The City of The recommendation will not be implemented City Council direct the City Manager to write and Shasta Lake City because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. implement procedures clearly stating the legal, civil, and Council administrative consequences of violating City policies regarding ethical conduct, such as employee theft, influence peddling, and/or special permitting exceptions for friends or associates. City employees and City officials should be trained annually on these procedures. The Grand Jury recommends these procedures be updated annually, include what steps employees should follow if actual criminal or ethical violations occur or are suspected, and detail the protections afforded to whistleblowers.
R9:
By August 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City The City of The recommendation will not be implemented Council direct the City Manager to inform all permit Shasta Lake City because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. holders and applicants in the Shasta Gateway Industrial Council Park that no further development will be allowed or approved until all required data and surveys have been submitted by businesses to and approved by the involved City infrastructure departments.
R10:
By December 31, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake The City of The recommendation has been implemented. The City Council shall direct the City Manager to determine Shasta Lake City City of Shasta Lake has already budgeted for code enforcement needs and begin the hiring and Council expanded code enforcement during the fiscal year training in cannabis specific code enforcement process 2018/2019 budget process. for staff. As stated in Measure A, this money should come from cannabis-related permit fees and taxes. Green Rush… Up in Smoke? Legal Cannabis in the City of Shasta Lake THE 2017-2018 SHASTA COUNTY REQUIRED RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT
R11:
By August 30, 2018, the City of Shasta Lake City The City of The recommendation will not be implemented Council direct the City Manager to create and approve Shasta Lake City because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. written procedures to require City staff to conduct Council sampling at the discharge stations of the wastewater for each cannabis-related manufacturing or cultivation facility. Random inspections should occur weekly for the first year after initiation of the businesses’ production activities, in order to show consistency that harmful discharges are not occurring. These random inspections should continue afterward on a monthly basis. Staff services could be paid from Measure A fees. Community Corrections Partnership - AB109 Funds THE 2017-2018 SHASTA COUNTY REQUIRED RESPONSES GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED: RESPONDENT