Home
California Grand Jury Reports
The Grand Jury of Humboldt County final report
To link to this object, paste this link in email, IM or document
To embed this object, paste this HTML in website
The Grand Jury of Humboldt County final report
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
Grand Jury
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
825 Fifth Street
Eureka, California 95501- 1153 Phone ( 707) 476- 2475
June 30, 2004
The Honorable Marilyn M. Miles
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Humboldt County Court House
Eureka, California 95501
Dear Madam:
It has been my privilege to serve as foreperson of the Grand Jury this past year, and it is with a great deal of pride and satisfaction that I present to you the product of our many hours of hard work on behalf of the citizens of Humboldt County.
This was not an ordinary Grand Jury. Its members dedicated a remarkable amount of time and effort to their investigations of citizens’ concerns about their local government, and were especially resourceful, skilled and committed to the task they undertook when they volunteered to serve. We investigated more than 40 complaints, interviewed over 100 people, and devoted a tremendous amount of time to analyzing the information we gathered.
We also implemented several new procedures this year, including the production of three “ early” final reports and the addition of “ Executive Summaries” of each report. Although the county’s current fiscal crisis precluded our publication of the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury Report, we are able to publish the “ Executive Summaries” of this year’s 2003- 2004 report thanks to the generosity of one of our dedicated members.
Importantly, while researching the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission in connection with one of our investigations, we learned that the Grand Jury is considered to be a “ local government agency” and is itself subject to the conflict of interest code requirements of the Political Reform Act ( Government Code Sections 81000- 91014). Each new Grand Jury must choose to either ( 1) be included in Humboldt County’s conflict of interest code or ( 2) adopt its own conflict of interest code. Grand Jury members, like many other public officials and employees, then must file the appropriate “ Form 700 Statements of Economic Interest,” which are intended to raise awareness of personal interests that might be affected while performing official duties, and to inform the public about potential conflicts of interest. To the knowledge of the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury members, many of whom have served on prior Grand Juries, this has never been done, nor did any of this Grand Jury’s legal advisers inform us of that requirement. There was insufficient time remaining in our term to follow all the steps necessary to accomplish this task, however the information was assembled and the necessary documents were prepared – including a sample Conflict of Interest Code – to assist future Grand Juries in fulfilling this obligation.
1
The Honorable Marilyn M. Miles
June 30, 2004
Page – 2 -
The results of this Grand Jury’s team effort throughout the year speak for themselves. All local government officials are being called upon to affirm their duty to conduct the business of the people with integrity and honesty by enacting codes of ethical standards. An elected city official is being held to answer for conduct the Grand Jury believes crossed over the line of acceptability. County Officials are being asked to account for policies that are contrary to the welfare of the citizens they serve, and for procedures that do not comply with democratic standards.
By the same token, the Grand Jury concluded from a number of its investigations that many local government officials and employees are to be commended for their work on behalf of the citizens of Humboldt County, and is pleased for the opportunity to acknowledge those accomplishments.
Perhaps the most important message that this Grand Jury wishes to convey to the citizens of Humboldt County is this: The government serves and is accountable to its citizens, who must hold their elected and appointed officials’ feet to the fire to ensure that they perform their duties efficiently, effectively and ethically. The Grand Jury will bring its forces to bear in that effort, but the ultimate responsibility rests with the citizens themselves.
Very truly yours,
Judith D. Schmidt
Judith D. Schmidt, Foreperson
2003- 2004 Humboldt County Grand Jury
2
2003- 2004 Grand Jury of Humboldt County Final Report
TABLE of CONTENTS
Foreperson’s Letter………………………………………………………….. 1
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………….. 3
List of Grand Jury Members………………………………………………… 5
Grand Jury Process Summary……………………………………………… 6
Complaint Form………………………………………………………………… 7
Executive Summaries……………………………………………………........ 8
Grand Jury Reports
2004- AF- 01... The Absence of Ethics Codes in Humboldt County……………….. 17
2004- AF- 02... Grand Jury Access to Adult Protective Services…........................ 20
Files
2004- AF- 03..“ Benefit Allowance” - A Simple Partial Solution…………………… 21
Humboldt County’s Budget Deficit ( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in June 2004)
2004- CD- 01… An Investigation into Violations of the Brown Act……………….... 22
by the Klamath- Trinity Joint Unified School
District Governing Board ( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in February 2004)
2004- CD- 02… A Review of the Humboldt County Local Agency………………… 25
Formation Commission
3
2004- CD- 03... Special District Audit Program in Jeopardy………………………... 26
( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in April 2004)
2004- HS- 01... An Investigation into Humboldt County’s Adult…………………… 27
Protective Services and In- Home Supportive Services
2004- HS- 02... Humboldt County’s Foster Care Program Needs…………………... 33
Help Now
2004- JL- 01- 10.. Humboldt County’s Jails and Holding Facilities………………… 39
2004- LJ- 01... Public Defender, County Conflict Counsel, and…………………….. 45
Alternate Conflict Counsel
2004- LJ- 02... Humboldt County Sheriff’s Storage Yard……………….................... 46
2004- PW- 01.. Citizen Complaints About Community……………………………….. 47
Development Services ( CDS)
2004- PW- 02.. The Legality of County Building Inspection…………………………. 48
Division “ Rapid Check” & “ Rapid Process” Surcharges
2004- CC- 01.. Follow- up on Responses to the Grand Jury……………................... 51
Final Report of 2001- 2002
2004- CC- 02.. Follow- up on Responses to the Grand Jury……………................... 54
Final Report of 2002- 2003
Text of full report available at:
http:// www. co. humboldt. ca. us/ grandjury 4
Grand Jury Members
2003- 2004
Judith D. Schmidt Foreperson
Keath North Foreperson Pro Tem
Wendy Goldberg Corresponding Secretary
Darlene C. Marlow Recording Secretary
Warren C. Bullis Budget Chairman
Sean Flynn Librarian
Phillip A. Minor/ James Garvey Sergeant- at- Arms
Warren C. Bullis Eureka
Laura M. Clark Fortuna
Carla C. Davick Eureka
Sean Flynn Fortuna
Susan Fregeau Loleta
James Lawrence Garvey Rio Dell
Wendy Goldberg Bayside
Robert Green Ferndale
Mike Kearse Eureka
Darlene C. Marlow Trinidad
Philip A. Minor Eureka
Matt Morehouse Arcata
Joe Musone Fortuna
Keath North Hydesville
John William Phillips Fortuna
Hilda A. Ranton Eureka
Charles Shoop Loleta
Judith D. Schmidt Orick
Sherwin Wiersig Fortuna
The Honorable Marilyn Miles Presiding Judge
5
The Grand Jury of Humboldt County
The Grand Jury is an arm of the court yet an entirely independent body. The 19 Grand Jurors are citizens drawn from a pool of volunteers. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the District Attorney, the County Counsel, and the State Attorney General all act as advisors to the Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury seeks to assure honest, efficient government in the best interests of the people. It is a civil investigative body having for its objective the detection and correction of flaws in government.
One function of the Grand Jury is to examine all aspects of county and city government – including special districts and joint powers agencies – to see that monies are handled judiciously, and that all accounts are properly audited.
The Grand Jury serves as ombudsman for citizens of Humboldt County. It may receive and investigate complaints by individuals concerning the actions and performance of public officials.
Members of the Grand Jury are sworn to secrecy and conduct most of their work in closed sessions. All testimony and deliberations are confidential. Breach of confidentiality is a misdemeanor punishable under the Penal Code.
Grand Jurors may act only through the Grand Jury as a body. Individually they have no official standing, power, or authority. A Grand Juror may take no official action without the prior approval and authorization of a majority of the Grand Jury. The foreperson is the only official spokesperson for the Grand Jury.
In their official capacity, Grand Jurors are permitted access to inspect prisons, jails, and other government facilities. They also have the right to review official books and records to which other citizens are denied access, with limited exceptions. Because of their extraordinary privileges and responsibilities, Grand Jurors have a special obligation to exercise their authority and carry out their duties in a proper and responsible manner within the boundaries of the law.
Grand Jurors serve for one year. Some Jurors may serve for a second year to provide an element of continuity from one Jury term to the next. Continuity is also provided by documents collected and retained in the Grand Jury library. The Penal Code provides for the transmission of information from one Grand Jury to the next.
Grand Jury service calls for diligence, impartiality, courage, and responsibility. Selection as a Grand Juror is an honor. It is a unique opportunity to learn about government and to provide a valuable service to the community.
6
Citizen Complaint Form
Grand Jury of Humboldt County
Humboldt County Courthouse 825 Fifth Street Eureka, CA 95501
707- 476- 2475 http:// www. co. humboldt. ca. us/ grandjury
All information on this form is confidential. Please write legibly and be specific.
Your Name: ________________________________ Date: ___________
Address:____________________________________________________
Telephone Number and e- mail: _________________________________
Complaint about which Agency, City, District, or County Department?
Address/ Location: ___________________________________________
Does complaint involve specific official( s) or employee( s)?
Name( s): ___________________________________________________
Does complaint involve a specific event? Date: _______ Time: ____
Location: ___________________________________________________
Please state your specific complaint, including names, locations, witnesses, and supporting facts. Use the back and attach additional sheets if necessary.
___________________________
Your signature is required here
7
Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 01
THE ABSENCE OF ETHICS CODES IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Citizens in Humboldt County have voiced concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest on the part of local elected officials. Conflict of interest codes have been adopted by Humboldt County and each of the seven cities within it, as required by the Political Reform Act ( Government Code Sections 81000- 91014). However, the Political Reform Act addresses only financial conflicts, and is just one of several sets of rules concerning ethics and conflicts of interest by which public officials should conduct themselves in office.
The Grand Jury learned that Humboldt County does not have a code of ethics, nor do any of the cities within the county with one exception. The Grand Jury reviewed numerous ethics codes that have been adopted by other counties and cities in California, two of which have become statewide models. Although these ethics codes are not a legal requirement, they contain provisions which address the very situations that have confronted local officials and raised controversy over their actions. One such provision, for example, directs officials to avoid participation in a decision which raises “ the appearance of impropriety,” even in the absence of a financial conflict of interest. Another ethics code provision prohibits officials from advocating for the interests of private third parties before their own boards or commissions. There are also provisions which place the responsibility on members of the board or commission to intervene when another member’s conduct appears to be in violation of the code of ethics, and which require that ethical standards be included in the orientation for newly- elected or appointed public officials.
The Grand Jury recommends that Humboldt County and the cities of Arcata, Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Fortuna, Rio Dell, and Trinidad review the model ethics codes that are available and adopt – or modify – their own codes of ethics, which will apply to all elected and appointed officials. The Grand Jury further recommends that citizen participation be included in the development of the codes of ethics. Finally, the Grand Jury recommends that Humboldt County sponsor regular ethics workshops for all elected and appointed officials in local government.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 02
GRAND JURY ACCESS TO ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES FILES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A prior Grand Jury attempted to investigate a complaint regarding the death of a disabled person who was receiving services from the county’s Adult Protective Services Division ( APS), which is part of the Social Services Branch of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS). The director of Public Health, another branch of DHHS, refused the Grand Jury’s written request to review the APS file, and refused to permit its staff to testify regarding the case, claiming this information was confidential.
The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury requested assistance from its legal adviser, the office of Humboldt County Counsel, in obtaining the file. However, County Counsel, which also provides legal advice to the various departments of the county, agreed with the Director that the Grand Jury could not have the information because it was confidential. County Counsel failed to mention legal authorities concerning the investigative powers of the Grand Jury that were inconsistent with its position, and failed to inform the Grand Jury that it could obtain the information by subpoena. This year, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury requested assistance from the Humboldt County District Attorney’s office, which quickly obtained subpoenas and a court order that required APS to produce the deceased person’s file and required APS and other DHHS staff to testify regarding the handling of the case.
The Grand Jury’s inquiry into the disabled person’s death was delayed because of County Counsel’s failure to advocate for the right of one of its “ clients” ( the Grand Jury) over the interests of another “ client” ( DHHS). The Grand Jury recommends that County Counsel be alert to future instances when this inherent conflict of interest may interfere with its advocacy on behalf of the Grand Jury. County Counsel
8
should inform the Grand Jury when that occurs so it may seek legal advice from the District Attorney. The Grand Jury also recommends that County Counsel and DHHS adopt procedures for properly responding to future Grand Jury requests for confidential information.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 03
“ BENEFIT ALLOWANCE”
A SIMPLE PARTIAL SOLUTION TO HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S BUDGET DEFICIT
( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in June 2004)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Humboldt County faces a projected budget deficit of $ 8.4 million for fiscal year 2004- 2005. All county departments were requested to reduce their budgets by 20%. The Grand Jury has cooperated in the need to reduce the deficit by reducing its own budget by more than 20%. To assist the Board of Supervisors in reducing the deficit, the Grand Jury reviewed budget documents including Personnel Salary Projections dated March 1, 2004.
One column of the projections is entitled “ Benefit Allowance” and is budgeted for 221 positions consisting of elected and appointed officials, and management and confidential employees. Every one of these employees receives all normal benefits: health, life, and dental insurance, plus a retirement program. In addition, each one gets an additional $ 10,000 life insurance and two extra weeks vacation which the other 1,971.5 county employees do not get, plus amounts ranging from a base of $ 3,200 to $ 11,759 per year. These “ Benefit Allowance” amounts totaled $ 786,389. Since this qualifies as compensation under Internal Revenue Service rules, the County’s cost for Social Security and Medicare is an additional $ 60,159, bringing the total cost to $ 846,548, or approximately 10% of the projected budget deficit.
The Grand Jury determined that the benefit allowance was established in 2000 with the adoption of Resolution 2000- 67, and no justification was given in the Resolution for providing the benefit to this select group.
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately revisit the “ Benefit Allowance” sections of Resolution 2000- 67 with the intention of suspending, reducing, or possibly eliminating these expenditures until the county’s fiscal condition warrants reconsideration.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 01
AN INVESTIGATION INTO VIOLATIONS OF THE BROWN ACT BY THE
KLAMATH- TRINITY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD
( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in February 2004)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An investigation of a citizen’s complaint involving the Klamath- Trinity Joint Unified School District ( K- TJUSD) was dismissed as having no merit. However, from documents received and testimony taken during the course of its investigation, the Grand Jury determined that the K- TJUSD Governing Board ( Board) had violated several provisions of Government Code Sections 54950- 54963, commonly known as the Ralph M. Brown Act ( Brown Act). Under certain circumstances each member of a legislative body who violates the Brown Act is potentially guilty of a misdemeanor ( Government Code Sec. 54959).
This conclusion and findings of fact led to recommendations that all Board members be required to be trained in all aspects of the Brown Act by a person competent in requirements of the Brown Act; that the Board operate in accordance with the Brown Act; that closed and open sessions of Board meetings be tape recorded and that those recordings be securely preserved for a period of at least three years.
9
Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 02
A REVIEW OF THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 1963, legislation created Local Agency Formation Commissions ( LAFCO or Commission) in all California counties. Their primary function was to regulate local government boundary issues. The counties were required to fund all LAFCO operating costs. The law remained basically unchanged for 35 years. Recognizing the dramatic changes in population and development that had taken place during that time, the law was amended in 2000 with the enactment of the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act ( the Act).
New mandates imposed by the Act include the requirements to promote affordable housing, preserve open space and agricultural lands, encourage efficiency in government services, and compile within five years an inventory of all infrastructure and services within the county. Also, LAFCO operations are now required to be funded equally by the county, cities and special districts within the county.
The Grand Jury has not issued a report on LAFCO since 1971. Given the major changes in the law, it was deemed appropriate for the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury to review LAFCO and evaluate how the Commission was meeting its newly assigned tasks. After reviewing documents and interviewing staff, the Grand Jury determined that the Commission has so far met the requirements mandated by the Act, and with the aid of partnerships formed with cities and districts, expects to complete the remainder on time. Further, the Grand Jury is impressed that through internal reorganization LAFCO under expended its 2002- 2003 budget of $ 37,632 by 8%, and reduced its projected expenditures for 2003- 2004 by another 9%.
The Grand Jury has no findings or recommendations. Based on the above facts and conclusions, the Grand Jury commends the LAFCO Commissioners and staff for responding positively and professionally to their mandated obligations in a fiscally responsible manner.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 03
SPECIAL DISTRICT AUDIT PROGRAM IN JEOPARDY
( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in April 2004)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Government Code Section 26909 requires the Auditor/ Controller to ensure that special districts are audited periodically. The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury recommended that the Board of Supervisors ( Board) and the Auditor/ Controller intensify their efforts to assist special districts to comply with the law.
Both the Board and Auditor/ Controller accepted and implemented the recommendation. A senior accountant- auditor position was funded, and through the efforts of this employee all but two of the 48 special districts in Humboldt County were in compliance at June 30, 2003. Due to the retirement of the Auditor/ Controller in 2003 and subsequent promotions within the Auditor/ Controller’s office, this position was left vacant and not funded in the current fiscal year.
This finding of facts led to a recommendation that the Board immediately restore funding to the Auditor/ Controller’s office to permit this position to be filled permanently, and allow this beneficial program to continue.
10
Grand Jury Report # 2004- HS- 01
AN INVESTIGATION INTO HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES
AND IN- HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This Grand Jury investigation was precipitated by the death of a disabled person who had been a client of two units of Humboldt County’s Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS), Adult Protective Services ( APS) and In- Home Supportive Services ( IHSS). APS services are governed by Senate Bill 2199, which was passed to “… remedy situations of immediate danger to vulnerable elders and dependent adults” which result from abuse and neglect. IHSS services are provided pursuant to Assembly Bill 1682 ( AB 1682), which mandates that counties provide in- home caregiver assistance to elderly and disabled persons so they may remain safely in their homes rather than being placed in an institution.
AB 1682 requires counties to assist recipients in finding a caregiver, to provide caregiver training, and to investigate the qualifications and background of potential caregivers. The state does not provide funding for the county to carry out these mandates, although it does fund the caregivers’ salaries. DHHS only requires training and background investigation for caregivers who are selected by recipients from a local registry. Recipients are allowed to choose non- registry caregivers, who may be nurturing family members but may also be scam artists, drug addicts, or convicted felons. Even though some of these caregivers may constitute a threat to the physical, emotional and financial welfare of the recipients, the county continues to approve payment for their services.
The DHHS policy is based on the decision- making principle of “ freedom over safety,” which deems the “ free- will” of a client ( who may be under the influence or duress of an abusive or unscrupulous caregiver) to be more important than the client’s ultimate safety. At least one county has taken the opposite position that it will discontinue approving IHSS payments to an abusive caregiver. This decision was upheld in a Fair Hearing on the grounds that the county was “ under a duty to protect the individual.”
Like IHSS, APS also adheres to the principle of “ freedom over safety,” pursuant to which it will close out a case when an elderly or dependent client refuses further case management services, even though the client may be at risk of abuse or neglect.
At the time of death, the deceased individual in this case weighed only 60 pounds and had numerous bone- deep bedsores. The caregiver, with no file documentation of having undergone any formal training or background investigation by Humboldt County, continued to receive IHSS approval for payment until the person died. APS had closed the case about four months earlier, without following proper department procedures, and in spite of the fact that the caseworker believed the individual needed continued monitoring.
The Grand Jury’s investigation has determined that DHHS fails to safeguard the county’s vulnerable elderly and dependent adults by:
• Closing cases rather than providing ongoing case management;
• Following the principle of “ freedom over safety”;
• Failing to require background checks, fingerprinting, and training for all caregivers;
• Inadequately documenting cases;
• Inadequately communicating with other involved agencies, and between staff and management; and
• Failing to establish a centralized system for cross- checking caregivers’ time cards to verify services were provided, and to prevent fraudulent payments.
11
In addition, it was determined that APS fails to adequately adhere to the county’s guidelines for mandated reporters and that the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department has no written policy with respect to mandated reporting of abuse or welfare checks.
It is the Grand Jury’s opinion that DHHS’ current interpretations of the laws governing APS and IHSS create a potential risk of liability to the county by using taxpayer dollars to pay abusive, neglectful, or incompetent caregivers. DHHS maintains that the lack of funding prevents it from changing its practices and that its only recourse is to continue lobbying the state for assistance in carrying out the legislative mandates. However, this does not protect those persons for whom the county is responsible.
The Grand Jury recommends that:
• DHHS begin background checking, fingerprinting, and training for all IHSS caregivers.
• DHHS discontinue approval of payment to caregivers who are abusive or unqualified.
• DHHS permanently disqualify caregivers who have committed fraud.
• DHHS establish a centralized system for cross- checking caregiver timecards.
• DHHS implement a written policy for ongoing case monitoring when the physical safety of the client is in question.
• DHHS establish a multi- disciplinary team to determine case closure when client safety is at issue.
• DHHS provide mandatory training for proper case documentation.
• DHHS adjust caseworker caseloads to provide adequate client support.
• DHHS implement a process of sharing case information with workers in other DHHS units/ divisions.
• The Sheriff’s Department develop a written policy and provide training for deputies to follow in mandated reporting of abuse and conducting welfare checks.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- HS- 02
HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S FOSTER CARE PROGRAM NEEDS HELP NOW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This investigation of the Child Welfare Services ( CWS) unit of the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS) was initiated by a physician’s complaint about serious shortcomings in the county’s foster care program. A four- year project to redesign the county’s foster care program is underway. However, certain matters of serious concern affecting the county’s foster care children must be addressed now.
Personnel: CWS has a high turnover rate for caseworkers, which creates tension, stress and turmoil for foster children and their families as well as in the department. Caseworkers are not permitted overtime or flex scheduling to help manage their caseloads and, as a result, they resort to shortcuts to meet demands. Due to a shortage of caseworkers, caseloads are nearly double state guidelines. At the same time, in the past two years, there has been an increase in the number of supervisors, who never work directly with or even see the children or families. Supervisors who have no first- hand case knowledge often override caseworkers’ decisions. In addition, communication between caseworkers and those in the supervisory chain of command is discouraged beyond the level one supervisor.
Children/ Families: The instability in CWS staff adds to the lack of security already felt by foster children. Their caseworkers, foster parents, and counselors are constantly changing, they frequently must change schools and doctors, and too often siblings are separated from one another. Little attention is paid to what is best for the child. Although the foster care program is mandated to encourage family reunification and family maintenance, current programs for improving parenting skills are ineffective.
Foster Families: There is a serious shortage of licensed foster homes and recruitment of new foster parents is difficult. Testimony attributed this in large part to department policies and practices, which result in tension between the department and foster parents. Decisions affecting foster families are made at supervisory levels without meeting with the child, the biological parents, or the foster parents. Families
12
are dealt with inconsistently from the time a case is opened through its investigation and court appearances.
Services: Children in crisis need reliable, expert support and the best possible services. The support and services CWS provides to foster children fall short of this standard. Caseworker requests for expenditures have to go up the chain of command, and may take months for approval. A rotating contingent of interns at Humboldt County Mental Health provides services and may see a child only one hour per week. CWS sometimes refuses to authorize payment for court- ordered services and does not always follow medical doctors’ opinions and recommendations for treatment, often citing cost as the reason. Dental care is difficult to obtain because few dentists accept MediCal.
Court Proceedings: Frequent continuances of court hearings result from lack of preparation and absences by both attorneys and caseworkers. Delays in legal proceedings prevent timely resolution of important issues in the foster children’s lives, frustrate and inconvenience the families involved, add to the caseworkers’ workload, and overload the court’s calendar.
DHHS attributes many of the deficiencies in its CWS foster care program to lack of money for hiring more caseworkers, obtaining better medical, dental and counseling services from private practitioners, and providing training for caseworkers, supervisors, parents, and foster parents.
The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS reduce caseloads, establish flexible hours, provide ready access to funds for caseworkers to use for clients’ emergency needs, and provide regular, mandatory training for caseworkers and supervisors in conflict resolution and preparation for court appearances. The Grand Jury also recommends that DHHS make no critical supervisory decisions without meeting with the caseworkers, the children, and the parents and/ or foster parents, and without reviewing all relevant information. The Grand Jury recommends that CWS staff make it a priority to place children with relatives within 15 days of involvement in order to avoid the court taking jurisdiction. When court orders are made, CWS should seek modification rather than ignore them or assert cost as a justification for failing to comply. In addition, the Grand Jury recommends that DHHS improve relations with foster parents and work with child development specialists to design and implement new approaches to parent- child visits and parental training. Finally, the Grand Jury recommends that DHHS reallocate funds to better provide for foster children’s physical and emotional needs.
Grand Jury Reports # 2004- JL- 01 through # 2004- JL- 10
HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S JAILS AND HOLDING FACILITIES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 919( b), the Grand Jury inspected each prison facility, jail, and holding facility within the County. Ten such facilities are addressed in the reports referenced above. Two additional facilities operated by law enforcement agencies in the County were also inspected and are mentioned in these reports.
The following facilities were found clean and well maintained and warranted no Findings or Recommendations: Arcata Police Department, Eureka Police Department, Fortuna Police Department, Sheriff’s Agricultural Farm, Eel River Conservation Camp, and High Rock Conservation Camp. These facilities are described in Reports # 2004- JL- 01 through # 2004- JL- 05.
Inspection of five additional facilities resulted in Findings and Recommendations that require responses from the operating agencies. These facilities are described in Reports # 2004- JL- 06 through # 2004- JL- 10. The Grand Jury’s Recommendations are essentially as follows:
Sheriff’s Substation – Hoopa 1) Steel security screens should be retrofitted to eliminate a potential hazard in the event of fire. 2) Two deteriorating concrete toilet units should be replaced.
13
Sheriff’s Substation – Garberville 1) The building should be made compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act. 2) The building should be remodeled and enlarged to accommodate increased law enforcement activities occurring on holidays and special events. 3) Items held in the evidence/ storage locker for a long time should be disposed of or stored in the Sheriff’s central evidence locker in Eureka.
Juvenile Hall The building should be made compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Regional Facility Damaged acoustical ceiling tiles in two day rooms should be replaced.
Humboldt County Correctional Facility – Computer System 1) A new state- of- the- art computer system should be purchased as soon as possible. 2) The terms of purchase for any future computer system should incorporate the authority and ability by the County to upgrade, enhance, and expand the system.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- LJ- 01
PUBLIC DEFENDER, COUNTY CONFLICT COUNSEL,
AND ALTERNATE CONFLICT COUNSEL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Grand Jury made an independent review of the offices of the Public Defender, the County Conflict Counsel, and the Alternate Conflict Counsel. The three offices employ 17 attorneys, four investigators, and eight legal/ clerical staff; they handled over 5,000 cases in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003. In that fiscal year the three offices spent $ 2,423,245, of which $ 1,654,257 was provided by the County’s General Fund.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- LJ- 02
HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S STORAGE YARD
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On December 16, 2003, members of the Grand Jury inspected the Sheriff’s Storage Yard and found that many items have been retained there in disarray for as long as ten years. Evidence and lost- and- found property is stored there for safekeeping; evidence is marked by an assigned case number. The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff install and use a computerized inventory system, identify items still needed in the legal system, and store those items in a neat and logical manner. The Grand Jury further recommends that the Sheriff dispose of property which is lost- and- found but cannot be returned, is obsolete, or no longer needed in the legal system.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- PW- 01
CITIZEN COMPLAINTS ABOUT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ( CDS)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A Grand Jury investigation in response to citizen complaints discovered that no adequate system of filing, storing, tracking or analyzing customer complaints has been developed at CDS. This is despite past promises to the contrary, and an acknowledgment that such a system is desirable. In addition, the Board of Supervisors spends considerable time responding to constituents’ inquiries regarding complaints and status of projects. Many complaints concern delaying factors that were unknown to the applicant at the beginning of the process. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends that CDS develop a customer complaint system that facilitates analysis of the complaints, that the complaint policy be clearly communicated to consumers, and that the existing informational brochures be revised to show both complaint procedures and delaying factors.
14
Grand Jury Report # 2004- PW- 02
THE LEGALITY OF COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION
DIVISION “ RAPID CHECK” AND “ RAPID PROCESS” SURCHARGES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Grand Jury investigated a citizen complaint regarding certain fees charged by the Building Inspection Division ( BID) of Humboldt County Community Development Services ( CDS) for checking plans that are submitted in order to obtain building permits. Ordinarily, the plan checks are performed by the Plan Checker or the Chief Building Official on a first- come, first- served basis. The time it will take for a particular set of plans to come to the top of the pile will vary throughout the year, depending on the number and complexity of the plans submitted before it. Fees are charged for plan checks according to a Fee Schedule that is approved by the Board of Supervisors and enacted by ordinance.
In fiscal year 1999- 2000, BID instituted “ rapid check” and “ rapid process” for checking plans on an expedited basis for applicants who pay a surcharge to avoid having to wait their ordinary turn. Under “ rapid check,’ plans are checked and returned within a day or two after they are submitted, for a 50% surcharge over the basic plan check fee. “ Rapid process’ includes the expedited plan check plus follow- up assistance in completing other steps necessary to obtain a permit, for a 100% surcharge over the basic fee. The service is not publicized by BID or CDS because it is available solely at the discretion of the Plan Checker and the Chief Building Official, who perform the expedited service only on overtime. While the surcharges are intended to cover the overtime cost of the expedited service, BID and CDS do not keep adequate accounting records to confirm this. The “ rapid check” and “ rapid process” surcharges are not listed in the BID Fee Schedule, nor was CDS able to provide documentation that these surcharges were approved by the Board of Supervisors before they were instituted.
Based on the information the Grand Jury obtained during its investigation, including advice from the County Counsel, the Grand Jury concluded that the “ rapid check” and “ rapid process” surcharges are invalid under the applicable Government Code sections because ( 1) they were not created through the required legal procedures, and ( 2) they are arbitrary figures that cannot be related to the actual cost of providing the service with the current record- keeping system. The Grand Jury, therefore, recommends that “ rapid check” and “ rapid process” be discontinued until they are properly adopted by the Board of Supervisors, following which CDS should develop a method of keeping accurate records to account for the amounts spent and received performing the service. The Grand Jury also recommends that, if the surcharges are properly adopted, the general public be informed of their existence through brochures and the CDS website.
Finally, the Grand Jury also noted that Humboldt County has only one full- time Plan Checker, and that hiring a replacement through normal county hiring procedures may take as long as six months. The Grand Jury recommends that CDS develop a plan for dealing with an unanticipated long- term or permanent absence of the Plan Checker, to avoid the serious adverse effect this would have on residential and commercial construction in the county’s jurisdiction.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- CC- 01
FOLLOW- UP ON RESPONSES TO THE GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT OF 2001- 2002
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury is obligated to review responses to the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report, to see if actions agreed upon by departments had been taken.
That report contained 205 findings, 58 conclusions, and 45 recommendations. Of the recommendations, 24 were implemented, nine were to be implemented, and 12 were not to be implemented because of reasons given.
15
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury verified responses to the 24 “ implemented” recommendations. Nine “ will be implemented” responses to recommendations were investigated. Of the nine, six of the County Parks’ items were checked and found to be largely compliant. Three Sheriff’s items were found to be still lacking after more than one Grand Jury recommended an agreed- upon action: Americans with Disabilities Act inaccessibility at the Garberville substation, stainless steel toilets not yet installed at the Hoopa substation, and inadequate computer tracking at the evidence room.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- CC- 02
FOLLOW- UP ON RESPONSES TO THE GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT OF 2002- 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury reviewed written responses to the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury Report, which contained 89 findings and 64 recommendations. Recommendations which officials agreed to implement, and those which were to be studied for possible implementation, were verified through document inspection and official testimony, to see if actions or studies agreed upon had been made.
Americans with Disabilities Act compliance continues to be a problem in the county, both in Parks and at the Garberville Sheriff’s Substation. Both the Regional Facility and the Sheriff’s Department received commendations for fulfilling recommendations. The Redwood National Park Building in Orick does not provide visitor services as required by local zoning regulations.
16
GRAND JURY REPORTS
Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 01
THE ABSENCE OF ETHICS CODES IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY
WHO SHALL RESPOND:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- AF- 01 shall be provided as follows:
• The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 4, and 5.
• The Humboldt County Chief Administrative Officer shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 5.
• The City of Blue Lake shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 4.
• The City of Eureka shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 4.
• The City of Ferndale shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 4.
• The City of Rio Dell shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 4.
• The City of Trinidad shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 4.
• The City of Fortuna shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 2 and 4.
• The City of Arcata shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 3 and 4.
The citizens of Humboldt County are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government. Such a government requires that public officials:
• Comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws and policies affecting operations of the government;
• Be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions; and
• Use their public office for the public good, not for personal gain.
With these principles in mind, the Grand Jury conducted a study regarding codes of ethics in response to citizens’ concerns about potential conflicts of interest on the part of local elected officials.
In one instance, the Grand Jury took note of the public debate that arose when a majority of County Supervisors voted against the District Attorney’s request for funding to hire outside counsel to prosecute a fraud lawsuit against a corporation doing business in the county. In numerous letters to the editor, editorial opinions, and newspaper articles, there were conflicting opinions as to whether, by voting on this matter, one or more of the Supervisors violated conflict of interest laws or ethical rules of conduct.
The Fair Political Practices Commission has jurisdiction over financial conflicts of interest pursuant to the Political Reform Act ( Government Code Sections 81000- 91014). However, the debate continues because of a belief by some members of the public that principles of ethics other than purely financial conflicts of interest should have led one or more of the Supervisors to abstain from voting on this particular issue.
This prompted the Grand Jury to inquire of the County Administrative Office whether Humboldt County has adopted an “ ethics code” of any kind, which might have addressed the concerns voiced by troubled citizens and offered guidance to the officials in deciding whether they should abstain from voting. The County has no such code.
The Grand Jury also surveyed 54 of the other counties in California. Although ethics codes are not a legal requirement, of the 41 counties that responded, ten have either adopted formal ethics codes or incorporated various ethical principles and guidelines into their administrative policies. After reviewing these counties’ ethics codes and the ethics codes adopted by a number of cities – two of which have become statewide models – the Grand Jury concluded that a number of these codes contain provisions which address the situation that confronted the aforementioned Humboldt County officials.
17
These provisions pertain to a concept known as the “ appearance [ or perception] of impropriety.” This is not a phrase lacking in legal significance. It appears more than a hundred times in the reported cases of the California Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court, in Opinions of the California Attorney General, and even in the Code of Judicial Ethics. It is expressed in simple language in the City of Mountain View’s code of conduct for its City Council:
“ When participation in action or decision- making as a public official does not implicate the specific statutory criteria for conflicts of interest, however participation still does not ‘ look’ or ‘ feel’ right, that public official has probably encountered the appearance of impropriety. For the public to have faith and confidence that government authority will be implemented in an even- handed and ethical manner, public officials may need to step aside even though no technical conflict exists . . . For the good of the community, members who encounter the appearance of impropriety should step aside.”
The Grand Jury concurs with this principle. Furthermore, there are other provisions in the ethics codes the Grand Jury reviewed which address additional situations that have generated controversy and distrust in the community over the conduct of other elected officials.
In the second instance, in response to a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury investigated an alleged conflict of interest by a city council member in one of the county’s seven municipalities. One of the responsibilities of the city council is to review – and either approve or reject – the recommendations of the city’s planning commission, the members of which are appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. There was evidence that a particular council member became involved as an agent and advocate for a property owner’s proposed subdivision project and lobbied before the city planning commission on its behalf.
The council member claimed to have been acting as a “ private citizen,” disclaimed any financial interest in the proposed subdivision property and, therefore, saw no conflict of interest. However, there are guidelines in several of the ethics codes reviewed by the Grand Jury which specifically address this troubling scenario. For example, the City of Sunnyvale’s Code of Ethics ( one of the recognized models) provides:
“ In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, members of Council shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the Council or any board, commission or proceeding of the City, nor shall members of boards and commissions appear before their own bodies or before the Council on behalf of the private interests of third parties on matters related to the areas of service of their bodies.”
Yet another disturbing fact the Grand Jury encountered in the same investigation of the city council member’s conduct before the planning commission was the absence of any sense on the part of the other city council members who were interviewed that they had either the responsibility or authority to address what had occurred. They disapproved of it, they believed it created a bad impression, they were concerned that it cast doubt in the minds of the public about the integrity of the city’s procedures, and they believed the errant council person should be confronted with the problem and counseled about the appearance of impropriety and potential conflicts of interest. However, they took no action to rectify the problem.
The reticence of elected officials to confront a difficult situation involving “ one of their own” has been anticipated and addressed by several of the ethics codes the Grand Jury reviewed. For example, the Sunnyvale Code of Ethics states that:
“ Members [ of the city council] themselves have the primary responsibility
18
to assure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government. . . . The chairs of boards and commissions and the Mayor have the additional responsibility to intervene when actions of members that appear to be in violation of the Code of Ethics are brought to their attention. . . . The City Council may impose sanctions on members whose conduct does not comply with the City’s ethical standards, such as reprimand, formal censure, loss of seniority or committee assignment, or budget restriction.”
Finally, the Grand Jury believes, based on interviews it conducted of a number of elected officials in both county and city governments, that there is a pervasive lack of understanding that the Political Reform Act is just one of several sets of laws concerning ethics and conflicts of interest by which they should conduct themselves in office. The answer to this problem, of course, is education and training. Several ethics codes incorporate such a requirement, e. g., the Sunnyvale Code of Ethics which states:
“… ethical standards shall be included in the regular orientation for candidates for City Council. . . . Members entering office shall sign a statement affirming they read and understood the City of Sunnyvale Code of Ethics. In addition, the Code of Ethics shall be annually reviewed by the City Council, boards and commissions.”
In this regard, Humboldt County’s Administrative Office is to be congratulated for sponsoring a half- day Ethics Workshop in October of 2003 for department heads and their assistants. The leader was trained at the Josephson Institute of Ethics in the Workplace, and 41 people attended at a cost of $ 26.90 each. Several city officials indicated they would have been interested in attending such a workshop if they had been notified. Although they were informed of the workshop, none of the members of the Board of Supervisors attended. According to the County Administrative Officer:
“ The workshop was well received. The feedback I had from most was that we should do this more often. I have given thought . . . to developing a local ethics program that would further define standards of conduct, train and educate employees, and integrate behavior that is reflective of core ethical values of trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship.”
Based on the foregoing, the Grand Jury has reached the following findings and recommendations:
FINDING 1: Humboldt County and the cities of Arcata, Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Fortuna, Rio Dell, and Trinidad have adopted by ordinance the financial conflict of interest regulations required by the Political Reform Act. However, Humboldt County and the cities of Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Rio Dell, and Trinidad have not formally adopted ethics codes or any similar codes of conduct that identify and incorporate other important public policies and principles of law regarding ethics and conflicts of interest.
RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that Humboldt County and the cities of Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Rio Dell, and Trinidad review available model ethics codes and adopt their own codes of ethics, to apply to all officials, elected and appointed.
FINDING 2: In 1998, the City of Fortuna adopted Rules of Conduct for its City Council. Although one of these eight rules contains a general directive that conflicts of interest must be avoided, the City Council has no actual code of ethics.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Fortuna review available model ethics codes and adopt its own code of ethics, to apply to all officials, elected and appointed.
FINDING 3: The City of Arcata has adopted a Code of Ethics which is found in the Appendix to its City
19
Council Protocol Manual. This Code of Ethics consists of a statement of 12 “ principles,” and is based on the ethics code which the International City Managers Association originally adopted in 1924 and revised in 1998. Its content is directed more to the activities of managers and administrators than to elected officials such as City Council members.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Arcata review other available model codes of ethics and consider modifying or supplementing its current Code of Ethics in accordance therewith.
FINDING 4: Generally accepted principles of good government indicate that citizens have more confidence in the integrity and fair operation of their local government when their views are given consideration in decision- making and the formulation of policy.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The Grand Jury recommends that Humboldt County and the cities of Arcata, Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Fortuna, Rio Dell and Trinidad include citizen participation in the development ( or, in the case of Arcata, modification or supplementation) of their codes of ethics.
FINDING 5: The Ethics Workshop sponsored by the Humboldt County Administrative Office was well- received.
RECOMMENDATION 5: The Grand Jury recommends that the County Administrative Office regularly sponsor ethics workshops and expand the invitation list to include all elected and appointed city and county officials.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 02
GRAND JURY ACCESS TO ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES FILES
WHO SHALL RESPOND:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 02 shall be provided as follows:
• The Humboldt County Counsel shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 2.
• The Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 2.
The Grand Jury is one of the “ clients’ to whom Humboldt County Counsel provides legal advice. Its other “ clients” include the county and its various departments, which are subject to investigation by the Grand Jury pursuant to the Grand Jury’s “ watchdog” function.
A prior Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the death of a disabled person who was receiving services from the county’s Adult Protective Services Division ( APS). APS is part of the Social Services Branch of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS). The Grand Jury wrote a letter requesting the APS file on the deceased. In response, the Director of Mental Health, another branch of DHHS, refused to provide the APS file over which it had control. APS staff was also instructed not to answer questions about the case. The Director contended that this information was confidential pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10850, and could not be obtained by the Grand Jury despite its investigative authority.
The prior Grand Jury turned to County Counsel for assistance in obtaining the file and examining witnesses. However, County Counsel simply agreed with the Director of Mental Health regarding the confidentiality of the information. County Counsel gave no explanation for its position, did not mention the legal authorities that are inconsistent with its position, and did not suggest to the Grand Jury that there might be procedures available to obtain the file other than a letter request.
These events were the subject of a prior Grand Jury Report, in which the Grand Jury recommended that County Counsel reconsider its interpretation of the confidentiality provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10850 in the context of a Grand Jury investigation. County Counsel refused, stating in
20
response that “ The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.”
This year, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury also decided to investigate APS’s handling of the deceased person’s case and turned to the District Attorney’s office for assistance. The District Attorney’s office quickly obtained subpoenas and a court order that required APS to produce the deceased client’s file and required APS and other DHHS staff to testify regarding the case. The subpoenas and court order were served, the APS file was produced, and the witnesses testified before the Grand Jury without further objection.
It is the opinion of this Grand Jury that the earlier investigation was derailed because County Counsel did not advocate for the right of one “ client” ( the Grand Jury) over the interests of another ( APS), frustrating an investigation contemplated by the laws which establish, govern, and empower that “ client.” This is unacceptable. The Grand Jury is composed of 19 ordinary citizens from diverse backgrounds who volunteer to serve a one- year term. Typically, they have no formal training or education in legal matters and, at times, must rely on the expertise of their advisers, including County Counsel, to fulfill their responsibilities to the citizens of Humboldt County.
DHHS has acknowledged the Grand Jury’s right to obtain information about the handling of APS cases by its responsiveness to the subpoenas and court order that were served. County Counsel should acknowledge that right, as well. Both entities should take steps to insure that future Grand Juries do not have to reinvent this wheel.
FINDING 1: There is an inherent conflict of interest in County Counsel’s role as adviser both to county departments and to the Grand Jury which investigates those county departments. Despite efforts which County Counsel undertakes to minimize that conflict, in some matters County Counsel’s advocacy on behalf of a county department may interfere with its advocacy on behalf of the Grand Jury.
RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that County Counsel be alert to those instances in which its advocacy on behalf of a county department have a potential to interfere with its advocacy and, when that occurs, inform the Grand Jury so that it may determine whether to seek advice from the District Attorney.
FINDING 2: Although certain information concerning APS clients may be confidential pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10850, the Grand Jury is entitled to review APS client files, and to interview case workers and supervisors regarding the handling of APS cases, under the authority granted to it by Penal Code Sections 925 through 933.6.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The Grand Jury recommends ( a) that County Counsel and DHHS prepare a written policy for DHHS to adopt setting forth the procedures to be followed in responding to Grand Jury requests for APS client files and case handling information; ( b) that the written policy be submitted to the District Attorney for review; and ( c) that a copy of the policy be provided to the Grand Jury.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 03
“ BENEFIT ALLOWANCE”
A SIMPLE PARTIAL SOLUTION TO HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S BUDGET DEFICIT
WHO SHALL RESPOND:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- AF- 03 shall be provided as follows:
• The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 1.
_____________________________________________________________________________
21
The County Administrative Officer ( CAO) has announced that Humboldt County faces a projected budget deficit for fiscal year 2004- 2005 of $ 8.4 million. All departments were requested to reduce their budgets by 20%. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury has cooperated in the need to reduce the potential deficit by reducing its own 2004- 2005 budget by more than 20%. In an effort to assist the Board of Supervisors in meeting this challenge, the Grand Jury reviewed budget documents, including Personnel Salary Projections dated March 1, 2004, and submitted to the CAO, to determine if the Grand Jury could make any useful recommendations.
In addition to regular salaries and benefits, the Personnel Salary Projections included a column labeled “ Benefit Allowance” that was not budgeted for employees across the board, but only applied to a select group referred to as Elected Officials, Appointed Officials, and Management and Confidential Employees. After researching the Board of Supervisors’ Clerk records, the Grand Jury determined that this Benefit Allowance was established by the adoption of Resolution No. 2000- 67 on August 22, 2000. This resolution implemented a compensation plan for fiscal years 2000- 2001, 2001- 2002 and 2002- 2003 that included benefits not offered to the other 1,971.5 county employees. Included were such items as a deferred compensation plan, an increase in life insurance coverage of $ 10,000, and an additional two weeks of vacation above the regular amount earned. More importantly, it also provided for a “ Benefit Allowance.” The allowance was to be phased in over the years 1999- 2003, when it reached the base annual sum of $ 3,200 per affected full- time equivalent position. No explanation was given in the Resolution for the purpose of the “ Benefit Allowance,” nor was a maximum amount stated. In addition, each employee also receives all normal benefits: health, life, and dental insurance, plus a retirement program.
An analysis of projected individual department personnel budgets for 2004- 2005 revealed the following:
• 12 elected County officials, including the Board of Supervisors, are to receive amounts ranging from $ 3,920 to $ 11,759; the total for these 12 officials will be $ 106,789.
• 15 appointed officials are to receive $ 3,920 each; the total for these 15 officials will be $ 58,800.
• 194 management and confidential employees are to receive $ 3,200 each; the total for these 194 employees will be $ 620,800.
• The total of direct payments to this select group of 221 officials and employees will be $ 786,389
• Since this is compensation under Internal Revenue Service rules, the County must also pay Social Security and Medicare taxes of $ 60,159, bringing the total cost to $ 846,548.
• This is approximately 10% of the projected 2004- 2005 budget deficit.
• No justification for payment of this “ Benefit Allowance” was given in Resolution No. 2000- 67.
FINDING 1: In the face of a projected 2004- 2005 budget deficit of $ 8.4 million, Humboldt County is proposing to pay a select group of 221 elected and appointed officials and designated employees the sum of $ 846,548 ( including Social Security and Medicare costs) with no justification in Resolution 2000- 67.
RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately suspend, reduce, or eliminate the “ Benefit Allowance” sections of Resolution 2000- 67 until the county’s fiscal condition warrants reconsideration.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 01
AN INVESTIGATION INTO VIOLATIONS OF THE BROWN ACT BY THE
KLAMATH- TRINITY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD
( This report was released in February 2004 and the Agency’s response is included)
WHO SHALL RESPOND:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- CD- 01 shall be provided as follows:
22
• The Klamath- Trinity Joint Unified School District Governing Board shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 2 and 3.
A citizen’s complaint involving the Klamath- Trinity Joint Unified School District ( K- TJUSD) was investigated by the Grand Jury. Based on documents examined and testimony of five witnesses taken between August 18 and October 14, 2003, the Grand Jury concluded that the complaint had no merit.
However, in reviewing the K- TJUSD Governing Board ( Board) agendas and minutes, and considering testimony given by witnesses, the Grand Jury determined that the Board had violated several provisions of Government Code Sections 54950- 54963, commonly known as the Ralph M. Brown Act ( Brown Act).
The Brown Act was enacted to require that public agencies conduct their deliberations and take actions openly. The Brown Act requires that specific steps be taken to publicize matters to be considered at agency meetings, in both closed and open session, through the posting of comprehensive agendas ( Government Code Sec. 54954.1 and Government Code Sec. 54954.2).
During a closed session meeting on May 8, 2001, the matter of the District’s enrollment in the Domestic Partners insurance program offered by the North Coast Schools Medical Insurance Group was discussed by the Superintendent with the Board. Witnesses stated that “… by consensus, equivalent to a vote…” the Board supported the Superintendent’s action to enroll the District in the program. After a review of the Superintendent’s job description and contract, the Grand Jury determined that the Superintendent had acted within the scope of his authority to take such action without Board approval. Nevertheless, this matter of a request for support was not recorded on the agenda for the closed meeting, nor was the action taken by the Board reported to the public in open session. Further, this was not an item that can be discussed by the Board in closed session. By these acts and omissions, the Board violated the following closed session provisions of the Brown Act:
• Government Code Sec. 54954.2
At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.
This matter was not included on the agenda.
• Government Code Sec. 54954.5
The issues that can be considered in closed session are specifically enumerated.
This was not a matter included in that enumeration.
• Government Code Sec 54957.1
The legislative body of any local agency shall publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote or abstention of every member present thereon.
No such vote was recorded or reported.
The same, and possibly more serious, violations occurred when the Board met in closed session August 12, 2003. During that meeting, an affidavit was signed by five of the seven Board members attesting to their “ consensus” in the meeting of May 8, 2001, admittedly as an attempt to legitimize their action at that meeting. Again, this action was not listed on the agenda for the meeting, the action taken was not reported in the open session that followed, and it was an improper item to be considered in a closed session. Further, according to the official minutes, it is possible that one or more of the Board members who signed the affidavit on August 12, 2003, were not present during the closed session of May 8, 2001. Their action at the meeting of August 12, 2003, indicated they either had imperfect knowledge of the Brown Act or were deliberately intending to cover up the original violation.
23
The Grand Jury does not make a judgment as to the intent of the Board and Superintendent at the meeting of August 12, 2003. However, after considering the above facts and Board violations of the Brown Act, conclusions reached by the Grand Jury lead to the following findings and recommendations:
FINDING 1: The Klamath- Trinity Joint Unified School District Governing Board has committed several documented violations of the Brown Act.
DISTRICT RESPONSE TO FINDING 1: The District agrees with the first finding/ conclusion of the Grand Jury. However, the second conclusion, above, requires hypotheses as to what the law might have required and other hypotheses regarding compliance. Since the District does no [ sic] know the language of a hypothetically changed statute, it cannot agree or disagree with the second finding/ conclusion.
RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that both current and newly elected Board members be required to be trained in all aspects of the Brown Act by a person competent in requirements of the Act.
DISTRICT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1: This response has been implemented and implementation is continuing. The District’s legal counsel, Robert S. Shelburne, senior attorney in the Education Law Practice Group of the Law Firm of Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, attended the regular meeting of the Board on February 10, 2004, at the Board’s direction and in public session he provided training for the Board which focused on the Brown Act’s regulations of closed session meetings of school boards, including ( a) the exclusive legally permissible subjects for closed session consideration and action, ( b) the requirements for Board agenda items for closed sessions, and ( c) the requirements for public reporting of certain types of actions taken by Board in closed sessions.
Because the Brown Act contains many requirements that regulate matters unrelated to closed sessions, the Board of Trustees scheduled a special Board meeting for February 25, 2004, to receive additional training on the law regulating Board meetings. On February 25, 2004, Mr. Shelburne continued with additional training on Brown Act requirements. Not all Board members were in attendance. Since the Grand Jury’s recommendation is that ALL Board members should be trained in the law’s requirements, the Board of Trustees will make arrangements for another training session for the Board members who were absent on February 25 as well as another training session for all Board members to complete the training in the law’s requirements.
In addition to training on the Brown Act requirements, Mr. Shelburne is providing training on the statutory requirements regulating school board meetings that are contained in the Education Code ( at sections 35140, et seq.)
Mr. Shelburne has also prepared and distributed to each Board member and to the Superintendent a handbook containing a comprehensive discussion of all of the laws regulating meetings of school boards and a copy of each of those laws. At the CSBA Conference, the Board Chair, with district funds, purchased a book on the Brown Act for each Board member. In addition, the District has purchased and distributed to each Board member a book on the operations of school boards and their meetings.
FINDING 2: Any training in the legal requirements and responsibilities of Board members to keep the public informed of their actions in both open and, particularly, closed meeting sessions has not been effective.
DISTRICT RESPONSE TO FINDING 2: The District agrees with this finding/ conclusion of the Grand Jury.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The Grand Jury recommends that since certain violations of the Brown Act are misdemeanors and individual members of the legislative body are potentially subject to criminal prosecution, all members of the Board should operate in accordance with the provisions of the Brown Act.
DISTRICT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 2: The recommendation has been implemented and implementation is continuing.
24
FINDING 3: No minutes or other recording of the discussions or actions taken during closed sessions were made, and documented evidence reveals that the Board has repeatedly violated several provisions of the Brown Act during closed sessions.
DISTRICT RESPONSE TO FINDING 3: The District disagrees partially with this finding/ conclusion of the Grand Jury. It is true that in the situations that occurred in the Board meetings on May 11, 2001 and August 12, 2003, the Board of Trustee’s deliberations on and development of a consensus and later actions of signing the affidavit in closed session were not in compliance with the Brown Act. However, there is not evidence that the Board of Trustees has made it a practice of violating the Brown Act. The violations cited by the Grand Jury were aberrations, i. e., unintentional departures from the Board’s regular practice of compliance with the Brown Act’s requirements. Over the years Board members have attend [ sic] several in- service training sessions on the requirements of the Brown Act, and they are committed to compliance with this law. However, trustees are elected and leave office periodically, so the District must and will make an effort to provide periodic training in this law so that all trustees receive the necessary training.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The Grand Jury recommends that although there is no legal requirement to do so, that the Board have their deliberations and decisions in both closed and open sessions tape recorded, and that those recordings be securely preserved for a period of at least three years from the date of the meeting.
DISTRICT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 3: The recommendation has been implemented and implementation is continuing.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 02
A REVIEW OF THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
WHO SHALL RESPOND:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- CD- 02 shall be provided as follows:
• No responses are required for this report.
In 1963, legislation was enacted creating Local Agency Formation Commissions ( LAFCO or Commission) in all California counties. As independent quasi- legislative agencies, LAFCOs were given the mandate to review and approve the incorporation of cities, annexations to cities, and creation, consolidation and dissolution of special districts. Although modestly amended from time to time, the law governing LAFCOs remained basically unchanged for 35 years.
Recognizing the dramatic changes of urban development, population growth and financing of local agencies that had taken place since 1963, a commission was formed to study the effectiveness of LAFCO law to deal with these changes. The result of the study was the enactment of Assembly Bill 2838 known as the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act of 2000 ( the Act). In addition to regulating local boundary issues, LAFCOs were further charged with promoting affordable housing, preserving open space and agricultural land, encouraging efficiency in providing government services, and compiling within five years an inventory of all infrastructure and services in the County.
The Act made a significant change in the funding of LAFCOs, which were formerly financed entirely by the county. The Act now requires that funding of operation costs be shared jointly and equally by the county, cities, and special districts within the county. Also, LAFCOs could choose to have staff and facilities independent of the county.
25
The Grand Jury has periodically reviewed LAFCO, but has not issued a report since 1971. Given the expansion of duties of LAFCO, the widening in the scope of activities and influence, the required timetables for the new tasks, and change in funding, it was deemed appropriate for the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury to revisit LAFCO. From documents reviewed and testimony of staff during the period January 20 to February 9, 2004, the Grand Jury determined the following facts:
LAFCO is governed by a board of seven commissioners. Six of the commissioners are elected officials of the county, the cities, and the special districts, who then appoint a seventh member from the public. A reduction in the meeting schedule from six times a year to four times has allowed staff more time for productive work and also resulted in a reduction of budgeted expenditures. The Commission and staff have encouraged active participation by cities and districts in completing certain phases of their tasks, and in some cases have sought and received grant funding to help defray the added costs incurred. An example is a $ 150,000 U. S. Forest Service grant that was obtained to assist local fire departments in identifying the location and mapping of every fire hydrant in the County, and the most direct route to access a specific hydrant. The benefits from this program are increased public safety and a potential improvement in fire insurance ratings. The due dates of the requirements mandated by the Act have so far been met, and the remainders are expected to be completed on time.
As mentioned, the county, cities and districts now fund LAFCO equally. The Grand Jury determined that LAFCO’s budget for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, was $ 37,632. Actual expenditures, however, were only $ 34,558, which was $ 3,074 ( 8%) less than budget. The adopted budget for fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 is $ 34,382, a reduction of $ 3,250 ( 9%) from the prior year. Actual expenditures through November 30, 2003 ( 42% of the year) were $ 10,516, or 31% of budget.
Based on the above facts, the Grand Jury reached the following conclusions:
• LAFCO Commissioners and staff are commended for executing the mandated activities of the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act in a timely and professional manner.
• They are also commended for fostering partnerships with local government agencies to promote and carryout the specific requirements of the Act.
• Lastly, the Commissioners and staff are commended for accomplishing the above in a fiscally responsible manner.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 03
SPECIAL DISTRICT AUDIT PROGRAM IN JEOPARDY
( This report was released in February 2004 and the Agency’s response is included)
WHO SHALL RESPOND:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 03 shall be provided as follows:
• The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors and the Humboldt County Auditor/ Controller shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 1.
The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor/ Controller and the Board of Supervisors ( Board) of Humboldt County continue and intensify their efforts to comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 26909, which requires that special districts be audited annually or by special request to the Board biennially, or depending on the district’s budget, an audit covering a five- year period. Both units of County government embraced and implemented the recommendation.
The Grand Juries of both 2001- 2002 and 2002- 2003 found that excellent progress was made toward the special district audit program. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury commends the Board and Auditor/ Controller for authorizing, funding and filling a senior accountant- auditor position necessary to perform the audits. This employee assisted 14 special districts with multi- year audits at a cost the districts could afford, and
26
as of June 30, 2003, all but two of the County’s 48 special districts were in compliance with state law, thus increasing the confidence of their respective communities in the proper expenditure of public funds. However, the retirement of the Auditor/ Controller occasioned the promotion of others in the department. This left a senior accountant- auditor position vacant. That position is now un- funded, leaving no one available to audit special districts.
FINDING 1: The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury finds that the lack of a dedicated senior accountant- auditor position to conduct special district audits will once again result in special district audit delinquencies and non- compliance with Government Code Section 26909, and jeopardize this beneficial program.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO FINDING 1: Disagree with finding. Government Code Section 26909 allows for the county auditor to “. . . contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of every special purpose district within the county for which an audit by a certified public accountant or public accountant is not otherwise provided.” There is no requirement for any such audit to be performed by in- house staff, and as is the case in some other counties, staffing reductions may result in the need for the Auditor to contract for such a service. This same Government Code Section provides that any costs incurred in making the audit shall be borne by the applicable special district. The Board of Supervisors understands and supports the need for the Auditor to contract for these services to assure compliance with the Government Code.
RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately restore funding to the Auditor/ Controller’s office to allow this position to be filled permanently.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable in the face of severe budgetary constraints, and is not necessary for reasons as set forth in the response to the Finding.
THE AUDITOR- CONTROLLER RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1: In November of 1998, a Senior Accountant- Auditor position was added back to the Auditor- Controller’s staff with the condition that Special District audits were performed on a continuing basis by this or another staff member. Through the end of 2002, Special District audits were made a priority and performed on a regular as- needed basis by a Senior Accountant- Auditor. In December of 2002, long- time Auditor- Controller, Neil Prince, retired and although staffing positions and duties was reassigned, no additional accountants were added and the staffing was one position short. This vacancy caused Special District audits to become sporadic and eventually to be discontinued, as the time required for out of office duties tends to be much less productive than work processed in the office. As of July 1, fiscal year 2004- 2005, we will be losing another Accountant- Auditor position so that the accounting positions will be down two to a level of four. With the current staffing level, audits of Special Districts take on a lower priority and the Auditor- Controller cannot guarantee completion of said audits.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- HS- 01
AN INVESTIGATION INTO HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES
AND IN- HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
WHO SHALL RESPOND:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- HS- 01 shall be provided as follows:
• The Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
• The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 10 and 11.
• The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 2.
27
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury conducted an investigation of Adult Protective Services ( APS) and In- Home Supportive Services ( IHSS). Both are divisions of the Social Services Branch of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS). We also took a close look at the legislation that governs how the county provides APS and IHSS services and the practical effect of that legislation on the citizens of Humboldt County.
Adult Protective Services ( APS)
In 1998, the Legislature found serious deficiencies statewide in the ability of county APS programs to respond to the tragedy of elder and dependent adult abuse that was being brought to light by mandatory reporting laws. Senate Bill 2199 ( SB 2199) was enacted in 1998 in response to an urgent need to establish and fund comprehensive, statewide APS programs “ to remedy situations of immediate danger to vulnerable elders and dependent adults.”
Following a series of interim directives, the regulations that implemented SB 2199 were adopted on October 19, 2001. These regulations set out the manner in which all counties are required to respond to and investigate reports of abuse or neglect, provide emergency shelter, and provide case management services within specific timetables and goals. Each county was responsible for developing its own program to comply with those regulations.
In response to this mandate, Humboldt County’s APS staff was increased in numbers, given training in the new regulations, and assigned the task of bringing the existing and steadily increasing APS caseload into compliance with the new regulations. The average monthly APS caseload now consists of approximately 200 cases, which are fairly evenly divided between elderly and dependent adults. Approximately 45 existing cases are closed each month and about the same numbers of new cases are opened. The ongoing APS caseload is handled by a staff of four social workers and two Public Health nurses.
When a report of suspected abuse or neglect has been received and screened by an APS Intake Team member, a case may be opened and referred for investigation. While the goal of the APS program is to remedy and prevent the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of elders and dependent adults, the regulations specify that it is “ not intended to be a long- term, ongoing ‘ case management’ activity.” Instead, its intent is “ to create a stable environment where the individual can safely function without requiring additional intervention.” Furthermore, it “ is neither intended to interfere with the life style choices of elders or dependent adults, nor to protect those individuals from all the consequences of such choices.”
Cases are closed when protective services are no longer needed or when a client declines or withdraws consent, moves out of the jurisdiction or into a long- term placement facility, dies, or cannot be located. Abused elders or dependent adults are entitled to refuse APS services even though it may be against their interests, although cases may remain open when APS believes the client is acting under influence or duress.
In- Home Supportive Services ( IHSS)
Assembly Bill 1682 ( AB 1682) requires each county to provide in- home supportive services to elderly and disabled persons who cannot perform those services for themselves or safely remain in their home without them. IHSS services include personal care ( bathing, dressing, feeding, assistance with medications and prosthetic devices, etc.), heavy cleaning, accompaniment to medical appointments, and paramedical services. IHSS does not employ the caregivers who perform the in- home supportive services. Rather, IHSS performs necessary administrative services that include determining initial and ongoing recipient eligibility, opening case files, assessing and re- assessing recipients’ needs, auditing time sheets, and forwarding payroll data to the state. Payment for caregivers’ services comes from a combination of federal, state, and county funding sources.
As the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury reported, Humboldt County established a “ Public Authority” to meet the AB 1682 mandate that it assist IHSS recipients in finding caregivers to deliver in- home supportive services. 28
The Board of Supervisors serves as the Public Authority. AB 1682 states that “ any Public Authority… shall provide for all of the following functions:”
• Assistance to recipients in finding in- home supportive services personnel through the establishment of a registry.
• Investigation of the qualifications and background of potential personnel.
• Establishment of a referral system.
• Training for providers and recipients.
Also, AB 1682 gives recipients the right to choose a person as their caregiver who is not on the Public Authority registry, though it also states that the caregiver must be “ qualified” without defining “ qualified.” Although AB 1682 states that the Public Authority is required to investigate “ the qualifications and background of potential personnel,” Humboldt County DHHS interprets AB 1682 to mean that only those caregivers in its registry must be fingerprinted, background checked, and trained. Humboldt County DHHS does not require that the background of non- registry caregivers be investigated or that they be trained or qualified for the level of care that is to be provided. According to information provided by DHHS, approximately 1,900 Humboldt County residents receive IHSS services each month. Individual IHSS social worker caseloads are about 275, which exceeds the state recommendation of 178.
The Case Under Investigation
The facts of the case under investigation are grim. Prior to death, the individual suffered from a severely debilitating disease, which confined the person to a wheelchair or hospital bed. The individual was incontinent, could not walk or stand, and could not eat, dress, or bathe without help. In short, the client, who lived in a condemned trailer, was 100% dependent on the caregiver for all daily living needs. APS became involved with the client in August 2000, in response to a report of self- neglect. The client was agreeable to receiving assistance, and the APS caseworker established a service plan, which included in- home caseworker visits, MediCal benefits, and health services from local physicians, physical therapists, and counselors. The individual was also eligible for IHSS benefits, which consisted of payment to the caregiver for the maximum of 283 monthly allowable hours.
Rather than selecting a caregiver who had documented training and had undergone background checks, the individual insisted on having a live- in friend designated as the caregiver. In- home medical services being provided by a health care contractor were discontinued when the caregiver appeared to threaten a worker. In March of 2002, eighteen months after the case was opened, the deceased individual’s extremely emaciated body was brought to the emergency room weighing only 60 pounds and covered with bedsores, some bone- deep. The coroner’s report identified “ lobar pneumonia due to contaminated pressure sores…” as the primary cause of death. One investigator stated that this was the worst case the investigator had seen in 25 years in law enforcement.
In late October of 2001, four months before death occurred, the individual’s APS case was apparently closed, though the appropriate paperwork was not completed and signed off by supervisors. Although the caseworker was still concerned for the individual’s well- being when APS closed the case, the individual indicated that APS case management services were no longer wanted or required, and, that the caregiver could arrange for medical and any other services that might be needed. What is unknown, of course, is the degree to which the individual’s statements were made under the influence or duress of the caregiver.
Because the case was closed, the APS caseworker who had previously been in frequent contact with the client was unaware of the escalating physical decline. In January of 2002, an out- of- state family member reported suspected abuse by the caregiver to an APS supervisor. However, the case was not officially reopened until March of 2002. The caseworker’s attempt to contact the client was unsuccessful and the individual died a few days later. Throughout this entire time, the caregiver continued to receive IHSS payments.
In this case, the APS caseworker tried on three occasions to obtain conservatorship for the client, but conservatorship is based on mental competence rather than physical disability. Three doctors who
29
treated the individual were unwilling to make that determination.
In the course of its investigation, the Grand Jury conducted 16 interviews, obtained written responses to requests for information from DHHS and the Sheriff’s Department, and reviewed volumes of documents provided by the Social Services branch of DHHS.
With respect to the APS handling of the deceased individual’s case, it is important to note that during this time the department was adapting its procedures and training staff to comply with the relatively new regulations of SB 2199. The Grand Jury concluded that, while the APS caseworker and supervisors were not in perfect compliance with all regulations, particularly in documenting case activities, the caseworker’s handling of the case was resourceful and dedicated. However, the failure to properly document and communicate caseworker and department actions creates a significant informational void for future work on a case and exposes the county to risk of liability. Without adequate documentation, no proof is available of home visits or other interventions.
The investigation also revealed a serious error by IHSS in terminating in- home supportive services to the deceased person shortly before death, in that the IHSS caseworker did not follow the correct regulatory requirements and verification procedures to discontinue services.
The true problem lies elsewhere, however. Although the purpose of APS is to protect vulnerable members of society from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and the purpose of IHSS is to provide assistance that will enable them to live safely in their own homes rather than be institutionalized, both agencies follow an opposing department policy that “ when interests compete, freedom is more important than safety.” The facts of this case certainly indicate that a department policy which allows a client’s freedom over safety can lead to great risk to a client.
The principle of “ freedom over safety” is also evident in the regulations that govern caregivers. Recipients of the IHSS funding are not required to hire caregivers from the registry, ones who have had training and background checks. To the contrary, they have the freedom to hire anyone they want. They may hire relatives and trusted friends, or they may— and sometimes do— hire drug addicts, convicted felons, scam artists, and raving psychotics. Nevertheless, it is the practice of IHSS, as it interprets AB 1682 and it’s implementing regulations, to pay the caregiver selected by a recipient even when that caregiver is known to be unqualified or abusive. The pay for these caregivers comes out of taxpayers’ pockets.
Furthermore, whether or not the supportive services that are being paid for with taxpayer dollars are actually being provided by the caregiver is beyond the control of IHSS. As a practical matter, the IHSS caseworkers sometimes don’t have time to conduct even the required annual home visit to each client, much less make random visits to verify provision or quality of care. Timesheet auditing merely counts the hours but does not verify performance. Testimony revealed also that there is no auditing system in place to prevent caregivers with multiple clients from claiming 24 hours a day or more because they turn in separate timesheets for each IHSS client, and there is no internal cross- checking of caregiver hours. The system is riddled with fraud, but even when fraud is investigated and confirmed, the IHSS recipient still may designate that person as caregiver. Unless the caregiver is in jail, he/ she will be paid according to the hours submitted on his/ her timesheet( s).
The flaw in the caregiver system is exemplified by this case. The caregiver the individual selected ( indeed, insisted upon) to provide the in- home supportive services required for the individual’s very survival has been described by witnesses as volatile and threatening. It was while in the “ care” of this person that the individual’s weight dropped from 110 to 60 pounds in four months and the individual died extremely emaciated and ridden with bedsores due to severe neglect. While “ freedom over safety” may be the controlling principle here, as the regulations have been interpreted locally, it is a questionable state of affairs when government is complicit and taxpayer dollars funded such a painful and destructive end.
It is the Grand Jury’s opinion that IHSS regulations, which allow recipients to choose abusive, exploitative, and unsafe caregivers, must be changed to require investigation of the background and
30
qualification of both registry and non- registry caregivers and to permit IHSS payment only to those caregivers who meet certain standards of acceptability. Humboldt County representatives ( including at least one from the Board of Supervisors and the Director of DHHS) have, in fact, joined other counties in lobbying the State for stricter laws and guidelines relating to background checks, training, and qualifications of these non- registry caregivers. To date, their efforts have not been successful.
The first and only legal challenge to date appears to have been in a State Hearings Division “ Fair Hearing” case involving the Riverside County IHSS ( Hearing No. 2003197126) in which that county addressed this issue of abuse by a caregiver. The Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ) upheld the IHSS refusal to reinstate payments to a caregiver who had been accused of mental and physical abuse by the recipient. The recipient had designated another caregiver, then recanted the abuse allegations against the first and wanted to hire him back. The ALJ concluded that the county acted reasonably and in accordance with regulations in terminating the caregiver once there was direct evidence of abuse or failure to properly provide services, and that the county “ is under a duty to protect the claimant from further injury or risk.” One California county has requested that this ALJ decision be considered “ precedent setting.” This is a first step toward that county’s attempt to formulate a policy which would include refusal to pay for and ability to terminate abusive care providers in the name of protection and safety and would address the resulting potential liability to the county. Such a decision would further strengthen counties’ need to implement more stringent policies – which are allowed by state regulations – than they are currently following and would aid APS/ IHSS staff in fulfilling their protective role with the vulnerable adults in their care.
The decision to close the Humboldt County APS case was certainly in conformity with the APS and IHSS principle of “ freedom over safety” and with the fact that adult protective services are not intended for long- term case management/ monitoring. However, regulations do not preclude Humboldt County DHHS from instituting its own APS procedure for long- term case management/ monitoring which includes risk factors as a basis for keeping a case open. In fact, regulations include a case closure process, and testimony from management staff revealed that there is opportunity for first, second, and third level supervisors to determine whether or not a case should remain open. One manager stated that if risk or safety factors are an issue, the department’s job would be to take those factors into consideration when determining whether or not to close a case. However, if DHHS had such a procedure in place at that time, it was not in writing, nor was it followed in this case. The APS caseworker remained concerned about this case and felt that it should remain open. This effort was denied without having gone beyond the first level supervisor. Following the department’s stated process of involving three supervisory levels might have led to a different result in this case. It might also help prevent similar occurrences in the future.
Finally, the Grand Jury is compelled to comment upon an aspect of this case that pertains to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department ( HCSD). Law enforcement personnel, including HCSD deputies, are mandated by law to report suspected or known abuse of elders or dependent adults to APS, and may be involved in the APS investigation of such abuse. Law enforcement personnel are also called upon to perform “ welfare checks” at the request of people who are concerned about the safety of family members, friends, or neighbors, in the course of which they may encounter occurrences of abuse.
Following APS’ closure of the disabled person’s case, an HCSD deputy was assigned to make two welfare checks at the request of a concerned relative. The second assignment was just one month before death occurred. The deputy’s report documenting those two visits was written from memory one week following the individual’s death and one month after the deputy’s last visit. The deputy’s report of the condition of the mobile home is inconsistent with testimony received by the Grand Jury from other witnesses and from photographs taken of the trailer shortly after the individual’s death.
The Grand Jury learned that HCSD does not have a written policy, procedure, or a training program that covers mandatory reporting of abuse or welfare check procedures.
In summary, this Grand Jury is concerned that the county is exposed to liability because:
• DHHS has not required that all caregivers be investigated and deemed qualified.
31
• DHHS fails to prevent fraud by caregivers.
• DHHS fails to take adequate protective measures to ensure the safety of each recipient.
• DHHS continues to pay abusive caregivers.
• DHHS fails to adequately communicate potential risk to clients, county personnel, and involved agencies.
• DHHS fails to adequately document case files on actions taken to demonstrate that proper procedures, regulations, and policies have been followed.
Based on the foregoing, the Grand Jury makes these findings and recommendations:
FINDING 1: Regulations do not prohibit APS from establishing a policy of, and procedures for, ongoing case management/ monitoring when there is a valid concern for the physical safety of an APS client.
RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS develop and implement a written procedure for ongoing long- term case management/ monitoring of APS cases where it is determined that closure of the case presents an unacceptable threat to the physical safety of the client; that DHHS communicate the formalized policy to all staff for use in critical cases; and that the procedure for determining which cases should have long- term case management/ monitoring include participation of the caseworker as part of a multi- disciplinary decision- making team.
FINDING 2: DHHS does not require background checks, fingerprinting, and/ or training for potential non- registry IHSS caregivers, thereby putting itself at considerable risk of liability in cases in which abuse is involved.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS develop a certification system and procedures for background checking, fingerprinting, and mandatory training for all IHSS caregivers assigned to provide supportive services to elderly and dependent adults in Humboldt County. Because this will be a cost item for the county, the procedures should include a mechanism for recovering the actual costs of the certifications and training from the potential caregivers as a condition of their employment.
FINDING 3: IHSS social worker caseloads are over 60% above state- recommended levels.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS take action now to relieve the current social worker caseloads whether by re- assigning supervisors or eliminating supervisor positions and hiring additional social workers.
FINDING 4: APS and IHSS caseworkers are inconsistent in their documentation of client visits and interventions.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS continue to emphasize the importance of case documentation and provide ongoing mandatory documentation training. Random auditing of caseworker documentation is also recommended.
FINDING 5: DHHS follows a policy of “ freedom over safety” in its management of elderly and dependent adult cases. This creates safety issues for clients and risks potential liability for the county.
RECOMMENDATION 5: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS develop a written set of objective criteria to measure levels of potential risk to elderly and dependent adult clients. Where safety is an issue cases shall not be closed without convening a multi- disciplinary team, including first, second and third level supervisors and other involved professionals.
FINDING 6: DHHS continues to pay caregivers who are suspected or known to be abusive and/ or unqualified to serve as caregivers. This puts the county at serious risk of liability.
32
RECOMMENDATION 6: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS discontinue use of taxpayer dollars to pay caregivers who are not providing the levels of care approved for the client, particularly when physical, emotional, or financial abuse is involved.
FINDING 7: DHHS has no centralized system of cross- checking caregiver timecards to verify actual hours of service to clients, leading to fraud.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The Grand Jury recommends that a centralized system for cross- checking and verifying each caregiver’s cumulative timecard hours and verifying client timecard signature be established.
FINDING 8: DHHS continues to approve payment for caregivers who are known to have committed fraud.
RECOMMENDATION 8: The Grand Jury recommends that when a caregiver’s fraud has been legally confirmed, that caregiver be permanently disqualified as a caregiver in Humboldt County.
FINDING 9: Lack of communication between APS and IHSS workers in shared cases creates gaps in critical knowledge and case progress and interventions.
RECOMMENDATION 9: The Grand Jury recommends that a cross- file of shared cases be instituted so that APS and IHSS caseworkers have access to information and status of an individual’s case within the other division. When the status of a case is shared, caseworkers and supervisors from both divisions should be included in a multi- disciplinary decision- making team. APS caseworkers whose clients are also IHSS recipients should assist IHSS by verifying authorized caregiver services during regular visits to the client and reporting findings to IHSS.
FINDING 10: The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department has no written policy or procedure for mandatory reporting of abuse or welfare checks.
RECOMMENDATION 10: The Grand Jury recommends that HCSD develop a written policy and establish procedures for mandatory reporting of abuse and welfare checks, including requirement for the documentation of deputy visits and findings immediately following those visits.
FINDING 11: The HCSD has no formal training for deputies in the areas of mandatory reporting of abuse and welfare checks.
RECOMMENDATION 11: The Grand Jury recommends that, when the new policy and procedures have been developed, annual mandatory training in the newly established policy and procedures regarding mandated reporting of abuse and welfare checks be instituted and a documented record of attendees maintained.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- HS- 02
HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S FOSTER CARE PROGRAM NEEDS HELP NOW
WHO SHALL RESPOND:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- HS- 02 shall be provided as follows:
• The Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 through 11.
In 1999 the Little Hoover Commission, an independent state agency charged with recommending ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness in state programs, issued a report on California’s foster care system, which outlined a comprehensive strategy for reform. In 2003, the Commission weighed in again by
33
issuing a press release stating, “ Three years have passed, but almost no progress has been made in reforming…[ the] foster care system.” As a result, the California legislature adopted Assembly Bill 636 to bring serious focus to reform. Humboldt County is one of the eleven California counties currently engaged in pilot projects to redesign the state’s foster care system. The county will receive over two million dollars in the next four years to support its efforts at reform.
The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury received a complaint regarding Humboldt County’s Child Welfare Service ( CWS), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS). A local medical professional alleged serious shortcoming in the foster care program which he believed had adversely affected one particular family. Because of this complaint and other concerns about the county’s foster care program, the Grand Jury investigated how the local program works for children and families. The investigation spanned July 2003 to April 2004 and included sixteen interviews of foster parents, current and former caseworkers, supervisors, and agency, medical, and court personnel. Jurors made two unscheduled facility visits, distributed surveys to 21 medical professionals, and reviewed numerous documents.
DHHS asserts that its mission is “ to protect children from abuse, neglect and exploitation and to promote the health, safety and nurturing of children…” The Grand Jury found serious deficiencies in the way this mission is being fulfilled. Although the redesign pilot project is underway in the county, foster children, foster parents, and the system itself need help now.
Personnel
The Grand Jury’s investigation revealed that CWS is in a constant state of flux with an inordinate amount of caseworker turnover. Promotions, resignations, medical leaves ( often stress- related), and employees rotating in and out of jobs have created turmoil and uncertainty for foster children and families. An independent California study demonstrated that “ Most social workers’ caseloads are … too high for them to meet all the requirements of the job.” Certainly, that is true in Humboldt County. Although state guidelines recommend caseloads of no more than 15 in the Family Maintenance and Family Reunification units, local caseloads currently stand at about 26- 27. There are approximately ten vacant caseworker positions – out of 70 allocated – in the department.
Excessive overloading of cases creates major problems in caseworkers’ ability to deal with the children and families in their charge. A caseworker is expected to see each foster child and meet with the foster parent once a month. This is often not possible with the almost double caseloads currently being carried by CWS caseworkers. Therefore, they resort to telephoning families or sending forms to be completed rather than making in- person visits. These methods are of limited value for determining the actual condition of the child, the foster parents, or the foster home.
In addition, about a year ago, overtime in the department was eliminated. Caseworkers sometimes make evening and/ or weekend visits on their own time in order to find people at home or to be able to complete their required tasks. They are “ on- call” to handle after- hours reports of abuse or neglect a minimum of ten times a year. Testimony revealed that this further impacts caseworker effectiveness and morale.
Departmental training for caseworkers is inconsistent. Some training is on- the- job, some is based on computerized programs, and some is conducted by first- level supervisors. Core classes are provided annually for new hires through U. C. Davis. Even specialized training that is offered is not mandatory. There is no ongoing mandatory training, for example, in stabilized case management, conflict resolution, or preparation for court appearances.
Currently, for every five to eight caseworkers, there is a first- level supervisor. This represents an increase in the number of supervisors over the past two years, while the number of programs has increased and the number of caseworkers has decreased.
In spite of the fact that caseworkers are most familiar with family situations, their recommendations are often overruled by supervisors who do not meet with children and families. There is little opportunity for team decision- making or consensus- building in case management. First- level supervisors are generally
34
available and supportive to caseworkers, but caseworker communication with supervisors at the second, third, fourth, and fifth ( top) levels are discouraged. This chain of command has created tension within the department. Resignations, early retirements, and stress leaves have decimated the department’s staff, and caseworker morale is extremely low.
Children and Families
Social, emotional, and developmental costs to children in the foster care system are profound. Many have birth parents burdened with substance abuse, domestic violence, or mental health problems which create an environment of chronic fear and neglect. When children have experienced removal from birth parents, they need new adults in their lives who are stable and consistent.
Grand Jury investigation indicates that this is not happening for many foster children. From the moment of intake into the system or placement in a foster home, children experience a series of changing caseworkers, foster parents, and therapists, which adds to a child’s feelings of insecurity. Too often these are paperwork transfers without personal knowledge, insights, or concerns passed on to the next caseworker or foster family.
Also, the Grand Jury was told by witnesses that some of the moves from one foster home to another are due to conflicts between CWS and the foster parents. Children’s wishes are not necessarily considered. Oftentimes siblings are split between foster homes. Frequent moves have a negative effect on children’s schooling, create disruptions in medical care, and cause lack of continuity in parenting.
Efforts to reunify families and to assist in maintaining the reunified family also fall within CWS’ responsibility. The Family Reunification unit has a maximum of 18 months to return children to their biological parents. The Family Maintenance unit has a maximum of 12 months to determine a family’s progress. During these time periods, CWS provides visitation for parents with their removed children as well as parental training to correct the behaviors which led to the children’s removal. This training usually consists of nothing more than the parents’ attendance at several weekly parenting classes.
Foster Families
Testimony revealed a major shortage of foster homes in Humboldt County and consistently attributed that shortage to department policies and practices. The number of foster homes licensed in the county varies from 100 to 125. Recruitment seems difficult because of tension between CWS personnel and some foster parents. Some foster homes have spaces available which are not being utilized due to conflicts with the department, while children may wait for weeks for a placement. In many cases they are held in the emergency shelter beyond the 30- day limit. A CWS supervisor may remove a child from a foster home even when the caseworker believes the placement is successful. CWS and foster parents alike need training in conflict resolution and sensitivity.
Because of the extreme need for foster homes, Humboldt County has entered into contractual agreements with two private agencies to provide them. This type of private agency placement does relieve some of the CWS caseworkers’ responsibilities, such as the monthly visits.
Foster parents receive 12 hours of training annually through College of the Redwoods. However, insufficient numbers of foster parents are prepared to deal with children with extreme behaviors. Standard foster care homes may accept no more than six children; those designated as therapeutic foster care ( TFC) homes are limited to a maximum of two children with extreme physical and emotional problems. Reductions in the number of children with TFC designations, which have higher than standard reimbursement rates, are being made without consultation with foster parents. Testimony indicated this is an attempt by CWS to save money. A Family Intervention Team ( FIT) now makes decisions regarding placement of the most difficult cases without consulting the caseworker, the child, the family, or the foster parent. Witnesses testified that decisions are made with regard to money, not to the needs of TFC children.
Foster parents are supposed to receive a Health and Education Passport when a foster child enters their home. This Passport is meant to convey relevant background information about the child, not only to help
35
the foster parents understand and work more effectively with the child, but to warn of potential problems. Foster parents do not always receive this Passport. Oftentimes when they do, its information is incomplete or out- of- date. When that happens, the foster parent is unable to prepare adequately for potential problems such as fire starting, sexual deviance, et cetera.
Services
Foster children need expert mental health services, not necessarily the cheapest. Children who are extremely disturbed, dysfunctional, or violent need specialized therapies and care. Instead, over the past three years, services to children and families have been severely cut. Even for the high- risk TFC child, the majority of mental health services are made available through the Children, Youth, and Family Services units of the Department of Mental Health. They are provided by a rotating contingent of interns. One Licensed Clinical Social Worker oversees about ten interns who work directly with children. Interns may see the child one hour per week, which may not be adequate for high- risk children. The child may see four to six interns over a two- year span. CWS will not or cannot pay professional private therapists who do not accept MediCal. Dental care is also a problem for foster children because too few dentists accept MediCal and, again, CWS avoids paying non- MediCal rates. It may take weeks for caseworkers to obtain supervisory approval for any services or expenditures.
The Grand Jury received information that CWS does not always follow medical doctors’ opinions and recommendations; see attached results of the medical professionals’ survey. Even when services are court- ordered, CWS does not always provide funding for them. Sometimes CWS disregards a judge’s order rather than going back to court to request modification.
Court Procedures
Continuances often result from caseworkers being unprepared, absent, or untrained in court protocol. This slows the process to the point where a child and family may be held in limbo for months without resolution of their issues. Finally, there can be a lack of consistency in how families are dealt with from the pre- court stage through the court process. This apparently stems, at least in part, from the fact that CWS both investigates and files the case.
36
Medical Professionals Survey Results
( 13 respondents of 21 pediatricians surveyed)*
Rate your professional relationship with:
Poor
Adequate
Good
Excellent
CWS
3
5
1
Foster Parents
-
-
9
4
Rate CWS’ responsiveness to your:
Professional Opinion
7
2
1
1
Recommendations
7
2
1
1
Children’s Needs
5
6
1
1
Foster Parents’ Needs
4
5
3
1
Have your diagnoses/
treatment plans been respected/ followed by:
Yes
No
Sometimes
CWS
2
1
5
Foster Parents
7
-
2
* Not all respondents answered every question.
Summaries of Medical Community Comments:
1. CWS seems reluctant to open and carry cases, or they close them before it is safe.
2. CWS has a tendency to not adequately investigate or not take action when it appears to be warranted.
3. I have been appalled.
4. CWS sends children to live in homes without heat, or the same home as a convicted child molester, or back to parents who injured them, or allows visitations in jail for infants.
5. I have stopped thinking that CWS referrals would actually help children who need it.
6. Most referrals I made were not investigated or I received a note saying my accusations were not substantiated.
7. Numerous medical staff recommendations that newborn babies be removed from birth mothers due to danger to their infants have been ignored, often resulting in severe neglect, injury, or even death of infants by the very parent CWS was warned about.
Based on the foregoing, the Grand Jury makes the following findings and recommendations:
FINDING 1: The number of CWS supervisors has increased while the number of caseworkers has decreased in the past two years. Caseloads per caseworker have risen to nearly double state guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS take action now to reduce the current CWS caseworker caseloads, either by re- assigning supervisors or eliminating supervisor positions and hiring additional caseworkers.
FINDING 2: Caseworker work time is not flexible enough for expected job performance.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS develop a plan for flexible hours for those CWS caseworkers who need to make home visits on nights and/ or weekends.
37
FINDING 3: Training is inconsistent, often not mandatory, and does not always prepare the workers to perform their duties.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS provide regular, mandatory training for all CWS caseworkers and supervisors. This should include case management, conflict resolution, and, for those employees who make court appearances, training in court protocol, case preparation, and presentation.
FINDING 4: CWS caseworker morale is extremely low because of stress, poor communication with their upper- level supervisors, lack of decision- making authority, and exclusion from team decision- making.
RECOMMENDATION 4: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS develop team building, open communication between caseworkers and upper- level management, and respect the opinions and recommendations of those who work directly with children and families.
FINDING 5: Supervisors often make critical decisions affecting children and families without input from those who have first- hand knowledge, including the caseworker, children, parents, or foster parents.
RECOMMENDATION 5: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS establish a policy that supervisors will make no critical decisions regarding a child’s future placement or services without first meeting with the caseworker, the child, and the parent/ foster parents, and making a careful review of all relevant information in the case file.
FINDING 6: CWS policies, poor recruiting practices, and failure to maintain good relations with foster parents adversely affect the number of citizens willing to serve as foster parents. Because too few foster homes are currently available, children are often held in the emergency shelter too long while awaiting placement.
RECOMMENDATION 6: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS partner with foster parent associations to implement an active recruitment campaign for new foster parents and appoint an independent arbitration panel to resolve conflicts which arise between foster parents and CWS.
FINDING 7: Once in the system, children are moved frequently, have their wishes often ignored, and can be separated from their siblings.
RECOMMENDATION 7: The Grand Jury recommends that, in order to avoid the court taking jurisdiction and the child going into the foster care system, CWS follow a strict practice of contacting relatives, including those who might be out of the area, who would be willing and able to care for children being removed from biological parent( s). This contact and placement should be completed within the first 15 days of involvement.
FINDING 8: CWS decision- makers often override or ignore court orders rather than seeking modifications.
RECOMMENDATION 8: The Grand Jury recommends that CWS return to court seeking a modification order if the original order cannot or should not be carried out.
FINDING 9: Adequate funds are often not made available to caseworkers to manage immediate needs in a timely manner.
RECOMMENDATION 9: The Grand Jury recommends that CWS establish a more efficient process for approving funds for caseworkers to expend on the immediate needs of foster children.
FINDING 10: Contrary to its mission statement, some CWS decisions appear to be based on dollars rather than the welfare of children.
38
RECOMMENDATION 10: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS re- allocate funds to better meet the physical, emotional, and social needs of the children in their care.
FINDING 11: Biological parent visits and training during the family reunification and maintenance processes are ineffective in improving parental skills.
RECOMMENDATION 11: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS work closely with child development specialists to design and implement a new approach to parent- child visits and parental training.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- JL- 01- 10
HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S JAILS AND HOLDING FACILITES
Introduction
California Penal Code Section 919( b) provides that the Grand Jury may inspect all jail and holding facilities within the County. The Grand Jury completed an inspection of all such facilities. This inspection involved visiting each facility and interviewing its personnel.
WHO SHALL RESPOND:
Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and
Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- JL- 01 through JL- 05 shall be provided as
follows:
• No responses are required for Grand Jury Reports # 2004- JL- 01 through # 2004- JL- 05.
Grand Jury Report # 2004- JL- 01
EUREKA POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Eureka Police Department jail was inspected August 18, 2003. The holding cell area was clean and in good repair. All three holding cells are monitored by audio and the two interview rooms ha
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Description
| Rating | |
| Title | The Grand Jury of Humboldt County final report |
| Subject | California. Grand Jury (Humboldt County)--Periodicals.; Grand jury--California--Humboldt County.; Humboldt County (Calif.)--Politics and government. |
| Description | Description based on 2005/2006; title from initial screen of PDF; Harvested from the web on 2/2/07 |
| Creator | California. Grand Jury (Humboldt County) |
| Publisher | Grand Jury, County of Humboldt] |
| Type | Text |
| Identifier | http://digitalarchive.oclc.org/request?id%3Doclcnum%3A144550718; http://www.co.humboldt.ca.us/grandjury/ |
| Language | eng |
| Relation | http://worldcat.org/oclc/144550718/viewonline |
| Format-Extent | 1 web site : digital, HTML, PDF files. |
| Relation-Requires | System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader.; Mode of access: Internet. |
| Transcript | Grand Jury COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT 825 Fifth Street Eureka, California 95501- 1153 Phone ( 707) 476- 2475 June 30, 2004 The Honorable Marilyn M. Miles Presiding Judge of the Superior Court Humboldt County Court House Eureka, California 95501 Dear Madam: It has been my privilege to serve as foreperson of the Grand Jury this past year, and it is with a great deal of pride and satisfaction that I present to you the product of our many hours of hard work on behalf of the citizens of Humboldt County. This was not an ordinary Grand Jury. Its members dedicated a remarkable amount of time and effort to their investigations of citizens’ concerns about their local government, and were especially resourceful, skilled and committed to the task they undertook when they volunteered to serve. We investigated more than 40 complaints, interviewed over 100 people, and devoted a tremendous amount of time to analyzing the information we gathered. We also implemented several new procedures this year, including the production of three “ early” final reports and the addition of “ Executive Summaries” of each report. Although the county’s current fiscal crisis precluded our publication of the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury Report, we are able to publish the “ Executive Summaries” of this year’s 2003- 2004 report thanks to the generosity of one of our dedicated members. Importantly, while researching the regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission in connection with one of our investigations, we learned that the Grand Jury is considered to be a “ local government agency” and is itself subject to the conflict of interest code requirements of the Political Reform Act ( Government Code Sections 81000- 91014). Each new Grand Jury must choose to either ( 1) be included in Humboldt County’s conflict of interest code or ( 2) adopt its own conflict of interest code. Grand Jury members, like many other public officials and employees, then must file the appropriate “ Form 700 Statements of Economic Interest,” which are intended to raise awareness of personal interests that might be affected while performing official duties, and to inform the public about potential conflicts of interest. To the knowledge of the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury members, many of whom have served on prior Grand Juries, this has never been done, nor did any of this Grand Jury’s legal advisers inform us of that requirement. There was insufficient time remaining in our term to follow all the steps necessary to accomplish this task, however the information was assembled and the necessary documents were prepared – including a sample Conflict of Interest Code – to assist future Grand Juries in fulfilling this obligation. 1 The Honorable Marilyn M. Miles June 30, 2004 Page – 2 - The results of this Grand Jury’s team effort throughout the year speak for themselves. All local government officials are being called upon to affirm their duty to conduct the business of the people with integrity and honesty by enacting codes of ethical standards. An elected city official is being held to answer for conduct the Grand Jury believes crossed over the line of acceptability. County Officials are being asked to account for policies that are contrary to the welfare of the citizens they serve, and for procedures that do not comply with democratic standards. By the same token, the Grand Jury concluded from a number of its investigations that many local government officials and employees are to be commended for their work on behalf of the citizens of Humboldt County, and is pleased for the opportunity to acknowledge those accomplishments. Perhaps the most important message that this Grand Jury wishes to convey to the citizens of Humboldt County is this: The government serves and is accountable to its citizens, who must hold their elected and appointed officials’ feet to the fire to ensure that they perform their duties efficiently, effectively and ethically. The Grand Jury will bring its forces to bear in that effort, but the ultimate responsibility rests with the citizens themselves. Very truly yours, Judith D. Schmidt Judith D. Schmidt, Foreperson 2003- 2004 Humboldt County Grand Jury 2 2003- 2004 Grand Jury of Humboldt County Final Report TABLE of CONTENTS Foreperson’s Letter………………………………………………………….. 1 Table of Contents…………………………………………………………….. 3 List of Grand Jury Members………………………………………………… 5 Grand Jury Process Summary……………………………………………… 6 Complaint Form………………………………………………………………… 7 Executive Summaries……………………………………………………........ 8 Grand Jury Reports 2004- AF- 01... The Absence of Ethics Codes in Humboldt County……………….. 17 2004- AF- 02... Grand Jury Access to Adult Protective Services…........................ 20 Files 2004- AF- 03..“ Benefit Allowance” - A Simple Partial Solution…………………… 21 Humboldt County’s Budget Deficit ( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in June 2004) 2004- CD- 01… An Investigation into Violations of the Brown Act……………….... 22 by the Klamath- Trinity Joint Unified School District Governing Board ( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in February 2004) 2004- CD- 02… A Review of the Humboldt County Local Agency………………… 25 Formation Commission 3 2004- CD- 03... Special District Audit Program in Jeopardy………………………... 26 ( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in April 2004) 2004- HS- 01... An Investigation into Humboldt County’s Adult…………………… 27 Protective Services and In- Home Supportive Services 2004- HS- 02... Humboldt County’s Foster Care Program Needs…………………... 33 Help Now 2004- JL- 01- 10.. Humboldt County’s Jails and Holding Facilities………………… 39 2004- LJ- 01... Public Defender, County Conflict Counsel, and…………………….. 45 Alternate Conflict Counsel 2004- LJ- 02... Humboldt County Sheriff’s Storage Yard……………….................... 46 2004- PW- 01.. Citizen Complaints About Community……………………………….. 47 Development Services ( CDS) 2004- PW- 02.. The Legality of County Building Inspection…………………………. 48 Division “ Rapid Check” & “ Rapid Process” Surcharges 2004- CC- 01.. Follow- up on Responses to the Grand Jury……………................... 51 Final Report of 2001- 2002 2004- CC- 02.. Follow- up on Responses to the Grand Jury……………................... 54 Final Report of 2002- 2003 Text of full report available at: http:// www. co. humboldt. ca. us/ grandjury 4 Grand Jury Members 2003- 2004 Judith D. Schmidt Foreperson Keath North Foreperson Pro Tem Wendy Goldberg Corresponding Secretary Darlene C. Marlow Recording Secretary Warren C. Bullis Budget Chairman Sean Flynn Librarian Phillip A. Minor/ James Garvey Sergeant- at- Arms Warren C. Bullis Eureka Laura M. Clark Fortuna Carla C. Davick Eureka Sean Flynn Fortuna Susan Fregeau Loleta James Lawrence Garvey Rio Dell Wendy Goldberg Bayside Robert Green Ferndale Mike Kearse Eureka Darlene C. Marlow Trinidad Philip A. Minor Eureka Matt Morehouse Arcata Joe Musone Fortuna Keath North Hydesville John William Phillips Fortuna Hilda A. Ranton Eureka Charles Shoop Loleta Judith D. Schmidt Orick Sherwin Wiersig Fortuna The Honorable Marilyn Miles Presiding Judge 5 The Grand Jury of Humboldt County The Grand Jury is an arm of the court yet an entirely independent body. The 19 Grand Jurors are citizens drawn from a pool of volunteers. The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the District Attorney, the County Counsel, and the State Attorney General all act as advisors to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury seeks to assure honest, efficient government in the best interests of the people. It is a civil investigative body having for its objective the detection and correction of flaws in government. One function of the Grand Jury is to examine all aspects of county and city government – including special districts and joint powers agencies – to see that monies are handled judiciously, and that all accounts are properly audited. The Grand Jury serves as ombudsman for citizens of Humboldt County. It may receive and investigate complaints by individuals concerning the actions and performance of public officials. Members of the Grand Jury are sworn to secrecy and conduct most of their work in closed sessions. All testimony and deliberations are confidential. Breach of confidentiality is a misdemeanor punishable under the Penal Code. Grand Jurors may act only through the Grand Jury as a body. Individually they have no official standing, power, or authority. A Grand Juror may take no official action without the prior approval and authorization of a majority of the Grand Jury. The foreperson is the only official spokesperson for the Grand Jury. In their official capacity, Grand Jurors are permitted access to inspect prisons, jails, and other government facilities. They also have the right to review official books and records to which other citizens are denied access, with limited exceptions. Because of their extraordinary privileges and responsibilities, Grand Jurors have a special obligation to exercise their authority and carry out their duties in a proper and responsible manner within the boundaries of the law. Grand Jurors serve for one year. Some Jurors may serve for a second year to provide an element of continuity from one Jury term to the next. Continuity is also provided by documents collected and retained in the Grand Jury library. The Penal Code provides for the transmission of information from one Grand Jury to the next. Grand Jury service calls for diligence, impartiality, courage, and responsibility. Selection as a Grand Juror is an honor. It is a unique opportunity to learn about government and to provide a valuable service to the community. 6 Citizen Complaint Form Grand Jury of Humboldt County Humboldt County Courthouse 825 Fifth Street Eureka, CA 95501 707- 476- 2475 http:// www. co. humboldt. ca. us/ grandjury All information on this form is confidential. Please write legibly and be specific. Your Name: ________________________________ Date: ___________ Address:____________________________________________________ Telephone Number and e- mail: _________________________________ Complaint about which Agency, City, District, or County Department? Address/ Location: ___________________________________________ Does complaint involve specific official( s) or employee( s)? Name( s): ___________________________________________________ Does complaint involve a specific event? Date: _______ Time: ____ Location: ___________________________________________________ Please state your specific complaint, including names, locations, witnesses, and supporting facts. Use the back and attach additional sheets if necessary. ___________________________ Your signature is required here 7 Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 01 THE ABSENCE OF ETHICS CODES IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Citizens in Humboldt County have voiced concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest on the part of local elected officials. Conflict of interest codes have been adopted by Humboldt County and each of the seven cities within it, as required by the Political Reform Act ( Government Code Sections 81000- 91014). However, the Political Reform Act addresses only financial conflicts, and is just one of several sets of rules concerning ethics and conflicts of interest by which public officials should conduct themselves in office. The Grand Jury learned that Humboldt County does not have a code of ethics, nor do any of the cities within the county with one exception. The Grand Jury reviewed numerous ethics codes that have been adopted by other counties and cities in California, two of which have become statewide models. Although these ethics codes are not a legal requirement, they contain provisions which address the very situations that have confronted local officials and raised controversy over their actions. One such provision, for example, directs officials to avoid participation in a decision which raises “ the appearance of impropriety,” even in the absence of a financial conflict of interest. Another ethics code provision prohibits officials from advocating for the interests of private third parties before their own boards or commissions. There are also provisions which place the responsibility on members of the board or commission to intervene when another member’s conduct appears to be in violation of the code of ethics, and which require that ethical standards be included in the orientation for newly- elected or appointed public officials. The Grand Jury recommends that Humboldt County and the cities of Arcata, Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Fortuna, Rio Dell, and Trinidad review the model ethics codes that are available and adopt – or modify – their own codes of ethics, which will apply to all elected and appointed officials. The Grand Jury further recommends that citizen participation be included in the development of the codes of ethics. Finally, the Grand Jury recommends that Humboldt County sponsor regular ethics workshops for all elected and appointed officials in local government. Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 02 GRAND JURY ACCESS TO ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES FILES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A prior Grand Jury attempted to investigate a complaint regarding the death of a disabled person who was receiving services from the county’s Adult Protective Services Division ( APS), which is part of the Social Services Branch of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS). The director of Public Health, another branch of DHHS, refused the Grand Jury’s written request to review the APS file, and refused to permit its staff to testify regarding the case, claiming this information was confidential. The 2002- 2003 Grand Jury requested assistance from its legal adviser, the office of Humboldt County Counsel, in obtaining the file. However, County Counsel, which also provides legal advice to the various departments of the county, agreed with the Director that the Grand Jury could not have the information because it was confidential. County Counsel failed to mention legal authorities concerning the investigative powers of the Grand Jury that were inconsistent with its position, and failed to inform the Grand Jury that it could obtain the information by subpoena. This year, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury requested assistance from the Humboldt County District Attorney’s office, which quickly obtained subpoenas and a court order that required APS to produce the deceased person’s file and required APS and other DHHS staff to testify regarding the handling of the case. The Grand Jury’s inquiry into the disabled person’s death was delayed because of County Counsel’s failure to advocate for the right of one of its “ clients” ( the Grand Jury) over the interests of another “ client” ( DHHS). The Grand Jury recommends that County Counsel be alert to future instances when this inherent conflict of interest may interfere with its advocacy on behalf of the Grand Jury. County Counsel 8 should inform the Grand Jury when that occurs so it may seek legal advice from the District Attorney. The Grand Jury also recommends that County Counsel and DHHS adopt procedures for properly responding to future Grand Jury requests for confidential information. Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 03 “ BENEFIT ALLOWANCE” A SIMPLE PARTIAL SOLUTION TO HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S BUDGET DEFICIT ( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in June 2004) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Humboldt County faces a projected budget deficit of $ 8.4 million for fiscal year 2004- 2005. All county departments were requested to reduce their budgets by 20%. The Grand Jury has cooperated in the need to reduce the deficit by reducing its own budget by more than 20%. To assist the Board of Supervisors in reducing the deficit, the Grand Jury reviewed budget documents including Personnel Salary Projections dated March 1, 2004. One column of the projections is entitled “ Benefit Allowance” and is budgeted for 221 positions consisting of elected and appointed officials, and management and confidential employees. Every one of these employees receives all normal benefits: health, life, and dental insurance, plus a retirement program. In addition, each one gets an additional $ 10,000 life insurance and two extra weeks vacation which the other 1,971.5 county employees do not get, plus amounts ranging from a base of $ 3,200 to $ 11,759 per year. These “ Benefit Allowance” amounts totaled $ 786,389. Since this qualifies as compensation under Internal Revenue Service rules, the County’s cost for Social Security and Medicare is an additional $ 60,159, bringing the total cost to $ 846,548, or approximately 10% of the projected budget deficit. The Grand Jury determined that the benefit allowance was established in 2000 with the adoption of Resolution 2000- 67, and no justification was given in the Resolution for providing the benefit to this select group. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately revisit the “ Benefit Allowance” sections of Resolution 2000- 67 with the intention of suspending, reducing, or possibly eliminating these expenditures until the county’s fiscal condition warrants reconsideration. Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 01 AN INVESTIGATION INTO VIOLATIONS OF THE BROWN ACT BY THE KLAMATH- TRINITY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD ( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in February 2004) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An investigation of a citizen’s complaint involving the Klamath- Trinity Joint Unified School District ( K- TJUSD) was dismissed as having no merit. However, from documents received and testimony taken during the course of its investigation, the Grand Jury determined that the K- TJUSD Governing Board ( Board) had violated several provisions of Government Code Sections 54950- 54963, commonly known as the Ralph M. Brown Act ( Brown Act). Under certain circumstances each member of a legislative body who violates the Brown Act is potentially guilty of a misdemeanor ( Government Code Sec. 54959). This conclusion and findings of fact led to recommendations that all Board members be required to be trained in all aspects of the Brown Act by a person competent in requirements of the Brown Act; that the Board operate in accordance with the Brown Act; that closed and open sessions of Board meetings be tape recorded and that those recordings be securely preserved for a period of at least three years. 9 Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 02 A REVIEW OF THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In 1963, legislation created Local Agency Formation Commissions ( LAFCO or Commission) in all California counties. Their primary function was to regulate local government boundary issues. The counties were required to fund all LAFCO operating costs. The law remained basically unchanged for 35 years. Recognizing the dramatic changes in population and development that had taken place during that time, the law was amended in 2000 with the enactment of the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act ( the Act). New mandates imposed by the Act include the requirements to promote affordable housing, preserve open space and agricultural lands, encourage efficiency in government services, and compile within five years an inventory of all infrastructure and services within the county. Also, LAFCO operations are now required to be funded equally by the county, cities and special districts within the county. The Grand Jury has not issued a report on LAFCO since 1971. Given the major changes in the law, it was deemed appropriate for the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury to review LAFCO and evaluate how the Commission was meeting its newly assigned tasks. After reviewing documents and interviewing staff, the Grand Jury determined that the Commission has so far met the requirements mandated by the Act, and with the aid of partnerships formed with cities and districts, expects to complete the remainder on time. Further, the Grand Jury is impressed that through internal reorganization LAFCO under expended its 2002- 2003 budget of $ 37,632 by 8%, and reduced its projected expenditures for 2003- 2004 by another 9%. The Grand Jury has no findings or recommendations. Based on the above facts and conclusions, the Grand Jury commends the LAFCO Commissioners and staff for responding positively and professionally to their mandated obligations in a fiscally responsible manner. Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 03 SPECIAL DISTRICT AUDIT PROGRAM IN JEOPARDY ( This report was released as an early “ Interim Final Report” in April 2004) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Government Code Section 26909 requires the Auditor/ Controller to ensure that special districts are audited periodically. The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury recommended that the Board of Supervisors ( Board) and the Auditor/ Controller intensify their efforts to assist special districts to comply with the law. Both the Board and Auditor/ Controller accepted and implemented the recommendation. A senior accountant- auditor position was funded, and through the efforts of this employee all but two of the 48 special districts in Humboldt County were in compliance at June 30, 2003. Due to the retirement of the Auditor/ Controller in 2003 and subsequent promotions within the Auditor/ Controller’s office, this position was left vacant and not funded in the current fiscal year. This finding of facts led to a recommendation that the Board immediately restore funding to the Auditor/ Controller’s office to permit this position to be filled permanently, and allow this beneficial program to continue. 10 Grand Jury Report # 2004- HS- 01 AN INVESTIGATION INTO HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND IN- HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Grand Jury investigation was precipitated by the death of a disabled person who had been a client of two units of Humboldt County’s Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS), Adult Protective Services ( APS) and In- Home Supportive Services ( IHSS). APS services are governed by Senate Bill 2199, which was passed to “… remedy situations of immediate danger to vulnerable elders and dependent adults” which result from abuse and neglect. IHSS services are provided pursuant to Assembly Bill 1682 ( AB 1682), which mandates that counties provide in- home caregiver assistance to elderly and disabled persons so they may remain safely in their homes rather than being placed in an institution. AB 1682 requires counties to assist recipients in finding a caregiver, to provide caregiver training, and to investigate the qualifications and background of potential caregivers. The state does not provide funding for the county to carry out these mandates, although it does fund the caregivers’ salaries. DHHS only requires training and background investigation for caregivers who are selected by recipients from a local registry. Recipients are allowed to choose non- registry caregivers, who may be nurturing family members but may also be scam artists, drug addicts, or convicted felons. Even though some of these caregivers may constitute a threat to the physical, emotional and financial welfare of the recipients, the county continues to approve payment for their services. The DHHS policy is based on the decision- making principle of “ freedom over safety,” which deems the “ free- will” of a client ( who may be under the influence or duress of an abusive or unscrupulous caregiver) to be more important than the client’s ultimate safety. At least one county has taken the opposite position that it will discontinue approving IHSS payments to an abusive caregiver. This decision was upheld in a Fair Hearing on the grounds that the county was “ under a duty to protect the individual.” Like IHSS, APS also adheres to the principle of “ freedom over safety,” pursuant to which it will close out a case when an elderly or dependent client refuses further case management services, even though the client may be at risk of abuse or neglect. At the time of death, the deceased individual in this case weighed only 60 pounds and had numerous bone- deep bedsores. The caregiver, with no file documentation of having undergone any formal training or background investigation by Humboldt County, continued to receive IHSS approval for payment until the person died. APS had closed the case about four months earlier, without following proper department procedures, and in spite of the fact that the caseworker believed the individual needed continued monitoring. The Grand Jury’s investigation has determined that DHHS fails to safeguard the county’s vulnerable elderly and dependent adults by: • Closing cases rather than providing ongoing case management; • Following the principle of “ freedom over safety”; • Failing to require background checks, fingerprinting, and training for all caregivers; • Inadequately documenting cases; • Inadequately communicating with other involved agencies, and between staff and management; and • Failing to establish a centralized system for cross- checking caregivers’ time cards to verify services were provided, and to prevent fraudulent payments. 11 In addition, it was determined that APS fails to adequately adhere to the county’s guidelines for mandated reporters and that the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department has no written policy with respect to mandated reporting of abuse or welfare checks. It is the Grand Jury’s opinion that DHHS’ current interpretations of the laws governing APS and IHSS create a potential risk of liability to the county by using taxpayer dollars to pay abusive, neglectful, or incompetent caregivers. DHHS maintains that the lack of funding prevents it from changing its practices and that its only recourse is to continue lobbying the state for assistance in carrying out the legislative mandates. However, this does not protect those persons for whom the county is responsible. The Grand Jury recommends that: • DHHS begin background checking, fingerprinting, and training for all IHSS caregivers. • DHHS discontinue approval of payment to caregivers who are abusive or unqualified. • DHHS permanently disqualify caregivers who have committed fraud. • DHHS establish a centralized system for cross- checking caregiver timecards. • DHHS implement a written policy for ongoing case monitoring when the physical safety of the client is in question. • DHHS establish a multi- disciplinary team to determine case closure when client safety is at issue. • DHHS provide mandatory training for proper case documentation. • DHHS adjust caseworker caseloads to provide adequate client support. • DHHS implement a process of sharing case information with workers in other DHHS units/ divisions. • The Sheriff’s Department develop a written policy and provide training for deputies to follow in mandated reporting of abuse and conducting welfare checks. Grand Jury Report # 2004- HS- 02 HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S FOSTER CARE PROGRAM NEEDS HELP NOW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This investigation of the Child Welfare Services ( CWS) unit of the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS) was initiated by a physician’s complaint about serious shortcomings in the county’s foster care program. A four- year project to redesign the county’s foster care program is underway. However, certain matters of serious concern affecting the county’s foster care children must be addressed now. Personnel: CWS has a high turnover rate for caseworkers, which creates tension, stress and turmoil for foster children and their families as well as in the department. Caseworkers are not permitted overtime or flex scheduling to help manage their caseloads and, as a result, they resort to shortcuts to meet demands. Due to a shortage of caseworkers, caseloads are nearly double state guidelines. At the same time, in the past two years, there has been an increase in the number of supervisors, who never work directly with or even see the children or families. Supervisors who have no first- hand case knowledge often override caseworkers’ decisions. In addition, communication between caseworkers and those in the supervisory chain of command is discouraged beyond the level one supervisor. Children/ Families: The instability in CWS staff adds to the lack of security already felt by foster children. Their caseworkers, foster parents, and counselors are constantly changing, they frequently must change schools and doctors, and too often siblings are separated from one another. Little attention is paid to what is best for the child. Although the foster care program is mandated to encourage family reunification and family maintenance, current programs for improving parenting skills are ineffective. Foster Families: There is a serious shortage of licensed foster homes and recruitment of new foster parents is difficult. Testimony attributed this in large part to department policies and practices, which result in tension between the department and foster parents. Decisions affecting foster families are made at supervisory levels without meeting with the child, the biological parents, or the foster parents. Families 12 are dealt with inconsistently from the time a case is opened through its investigation and court appearances. Services: Children in crisis need reliable, expert support and the best possible services. The support and services CWS provides to foster children fall short of this standard. Caseworker requests for expenditures have to go up the chain of command, and may take months for approval. A rotating contingent of interns at Humboldt County Mental Health provides services and may see a child only one hour per week. CWS sometimes refuses to authorize payment for court- ordered services and does not always follow medical doctors’ opinions and recommendations for treatment, often citing cost as the reason. Dental care is difficult to obtain because few dentists accept MediCal. Court Proceedings: Frequent continuances of court hearings result from lack of preparation and absences by both attorneys and caseworkers. Delays in legal proceedings prevent timely resolution of important issues in the foster children’s lives, frustrate and inconvenience the families involved, add to the caseworkers’ workload, and overload the court’s calendar. DHHS attributes many of the deficiencies in its CWS foster care program to lack of money for hiring more caseworkers, obtaining better medical, dental and counseling services from private practitioners, and providing training for caseworkers, supervisors, parents, and foster parents. The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS reduce caseloads, establish flexible hours, provide ready access to funds for caseworkers to use for clients’ emergency needs, and provide regular, mandatory training for caseworkers and supervisors in conflict resolution and preparation for court appearances. The Grand Jury also recommends that DHHS make no critical supervisory decisions without meeting with the caseworkers, the children, and the parents and/ or foster parents, and without reviewing all relevant information. The Grand Jury recommends that CWS staff make it a priority to place children with relatives within 15 days of involvement in order to avoid the court taking jurisdiction. When court orders are made, CWS should seek modification rather than ignore them or assert cost as a justification for failing to comply. In addition, the Grand Jury recommends that DHHS improve relations with foster parents and work with child development specialists to design and implement new approaches to parent- child visits and parental training. Finally, the Grand Jury recommends that DHHS reallocate funds to better provide for foster children’s physical and emotional needs. Grand Jury Reports # 2004- JL- 01 through # 2004- JL- 10 HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S JAILS AND HOLDING FACILITIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 919( b), the Grand Jury inspected each prison facility, jail, and holding facility within the County. Ten such facilities are addressed in the reports referenced above. Two additional facilities operated by law enforcement agencies in the County were also inspected and are mentioned in these reports. The following facilities were found clean and well maintained and warranted no Findings or Recommendations: Arcata Police Department, Eureka Police Department, Fortuna Police Department, Sheriff’s Agricultural Farm, Eel River Conservation Camp, and High Rock Conservation Camp. These facilities are described in Reports # 2004- JL- 01 through # 2004- JL- 05. Inspection of five additional facilities resulted in Findings and Recommendations that require responses from the operating agencies. These facilities are described in Reports # 2004- JL- 06 through # 2004- JL- 10. The Grand Jury’s Recommendations are essentially as follows: Sheriff’s Substation – Hoopa 1) Steel security screens should be retrofitted to eliminate a potential hazard in the event of fire. 2) Two deteriorating concrete toilet units should be replaced. 13 Sheriff’s Substation – Garberville 1) The building should be made compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act. 2) The building should be remodeled and enlarged to accommodate increased law enforcement activities occurring on holidays and special events. 3) Items held in the evidence/ storage locker for a long time should be disposed of or stored in the Sheriff’s central evidence locker in Eureka. Juvenile Hall The building should be made compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act. Regional Facility Damaged acoustical ceiling tiles in two day rooms should be replaced. Humboldt County Correctional Facility – Computer System 1) A new state- of- the- art computer system should be purchased as soon as possible. 2) The terms of purchase for any future computer system should incorporate the authority and ability by the County to upgrade, enhance, and expand the system. Grand Jury Report # 2004- LJ- 01 PUBLIC DEFENDER, COUNTY CONFLICT COUNSEL, AND ALTERNATE CONFLICT COUNSEL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Grand Jury made an independent review of the offices of the Public Defender, the County Conflict Counsel, and the Alternate Conflict Counsel. The three offices employ 17 attorneys, four investigators, and eight legal/ clerical staff; they handled over 5,000 cases in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003. In that fiscal year the three offices spent $ 2,423,245, of which $ 1,654,257 was provided by the County’s General Fund. Grand Jury Report # 2004- LJ- 02 HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S STORAGE YARD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On December 16, 2003, members of the Grand Jury inspected the Sheriff’s Storage Yard and found that many items have been retained there in disarray for as long as ten years. Evidence and lost- and- found property is stored there for safekeeping; evidence is marked by an assigned case number. The Grand Jury recommends that the Sheriff install and use a computerized inventory system, identify items still needed in the legal system, and store those items in a neat and logical manner. The Grand Jury further recommends that the Sheriff dispose of property which is lost- and- found but cannot be returned, is obsolete, or no longer needed in the legal system. Grand Jury Report # 2004- PW- 01 CITIZEN COMPLAINTS ABOUT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ( CDS) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Grand Jury investigation in response to citizen complaints discovered that no adequate system of filing, storing, tracking or analyzing customer complaints has been developed at CDS. This is despite past promises to the contrary, and an acknowledgment that such a system is desirable. In addition, the Board of Supervisors spends considerable time responding to constituents’ inquiries regarding complaints and status of projects. Many complaints concern delaying factors that were unknown to the applicant at the beginning of the process. Therefore, the Grand Jury recommends that CDS develop a customer complaint system that facilitates analysis of the complaints, that the complaint policy be clearly communicated to consumers, and that the existing informational brochures be revised to show both complaint procedures and delaying factors. 14 Grand Jury Report # 2004- PW- 02 THE LEGALITY OF COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION “ RAPID CHECK” AND “ RAPID PROCESS” SURCHARGES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Grand Jury investigated a citizen complaint regarding certain fees charged by the Building Inspection Division ( BID) of Humboldt County Community Development Services ( CDS) for checking plans that are submitted in order to obtain building permits. Ordinarily, the plan checks are performed by the Plan Checker or the Chief Building Official on a first- come, first- served basis. The time it will take for a particular set of plans to come to the top of the pile will vary throughout the year, depending on the number and complexity of the plans submitted before it. Fees are charged for plan checks according to a Fee Schedule that is approved by the Board of Supervisors and enacted by ordinance. In fiscal year 1999- 2000, BID instituted “ rapid check” and “ rapid process” for checking plans on an expedited basis for applicants who pay a surcharge to avoid having to wait their ordinary turn. Under “ rapid check,’ plans are checked and returned within a day or two after they are submitted, for a 50% surcharge over the basic plan check fee. “ Rapid process’ includes the expedited plan check plus follow- up assistance in completing other steps necessary to obtain a permit, for a 100% surcharge over the basic fee. The service is not publicized by BID or CDS because it is available solely at the discretion of the Plan Checker and the Chief Building Official, who perform the expedited service only on overtime. While the surcharges are intended to cover the overtime cost of the expedited service, BID and CDS do not keep adequate accounting records to confirm this. The “ rapid check” and “ rapid process” surcharges are not listed in the BID Fee Schedule, nor was CDS able to provide documentation that these surcharges were approved by the Board of Supervisors before they were instituted. Based on the information the Grand Jury obtained during its investigation, including advice from the County Counsel, the Grand Jury concluded that the “ rapid check” and “ rapid process” surcharges are invalid under the applicable Government Code sections because ( 1) they were not created through the required legal procedures, and ( 2) they are arbitrary figures that cannot be related to the actual cost of providing the service with the current record- keeping system. The Grand Jury, therefore, recommends that “ rapid check” and “ rapid process” be discontinued until they are properly adopted by the Board of Supervisors, following which CDS should develop a method of keeping accurate records to account for the amounts spent and received performing the service. The Grand Jury also recommends that, if the surcharges are properly adopted, the general public be informed of their existence through brochures and the CDS website. Finally, the Grand Jury also noted that Humboldt County has only one full- time Plan Checker, and that hiring a replacement through normal county hiring procedures may take as long as six months. The Grand Jury recommends that CDS develop a plan for dealing with an unanticipated long- term or permanent absence of the Plan Checker, to avoid the serious adverse effect this would have on residential and commercial construction in the county’s jurisdiction. Grand Jury Report # 2004- CC- 01 FOLLOW- UP ON RESPONSES TO THE GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT OF 2001- 2002 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury is obligated to review responses to the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury Final Report, to see if actions agreed upon by departments had been taken. That report contained 205 findings, 58 conclusions, and 45 recommendations. Of the recommendations, 24 were implemented, nine were to be implemented, and 12 were not to be implemented because of reasons given. 15 The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury verified responses to the 24 “ implemented” recommendations. Nine “ will be implemented” responses to recommendations were investigated. Of the nine, six of the County Parks’ items were checked and found to be largely compliant. Three Sheriff’s items were found to be still lacking after more than one Grand Jury recommended an agreed- upon action: Americans with Disabilities Act inaccessibility at the Garberville substation, stainless steel toilets not yet installed at the Hoopa substation, and inadequate computer tracking at the evidence room. Grand Jury Report # 2004- CC- 02 FOLLOW- UP ON RESPONSES TO THE GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT OF 2002- 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury reviewed written responses to the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury Report, which contained 89 findings and 64 recommendations. Recommendations which officials agreed to implement, and those which were to be studied for possible implementation, were verified through document inspection and official testimony, to see if actions or studies agreed upon had been made. Americans with Disabilities Act compliance continues to be a problem in the county, both in Parks and at the Garberville Sheriff’s Substation. Both the Regional Facility and the Sheriff’s Department received commendations for fulfilling recommendations. The Redwood National Park Building in Orick does not provide visitor services as required by local zoning regulations. 16 GRAND JURY REPORTS Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 01 THE ABSENCE OF ETHICS CODES IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- AF- 01 shall be provided as follows: • The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 4, and 5. • The Humboldt County Chief Administrative Officer shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 5. • The City of Blue Lake shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 4. • The City of Eureka shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 4. • The City of Ferndale shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 4. • The City of Rio Dell shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 4. • The City of Trinidad shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 4. • The City of Fortuna shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 2 and 4. • The City of Arcata shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 3 and 4. The citizens of Humboldt County are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government. Such a government requires that public officials: • Comply with both the letter and the spirit of the laws and policies affecting operations of the government; • Be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions; and • Use their public office for the public good, not for personal gain. With these principles in mind, the Grand Jury conducted a study regarding codes of ethics in response to citizens’ concerns about potential conflicts of interest on the part of local elected officials. In one instance, the Grand Jury took note of the public debate that arose when a majority of County Supervisors voted against the District Attorney’s request for funding to hire outside counsel to prosecute a fraud lawsuit against a corporation doing business in the county. In numerous letters to the editor, editorial opinions, and newspaper articles, there were conflicting opinions as to whether, by voting on this matter, one or more of the Supervisors violated conflict of interest laws or ethical rules of conduct. The Fair Political Practices Commission has jurisdiction over financial conflicts of interest pursuant to the Political Reform Act ( Government Code Sections 81000- 91014). However, the debate continues because of a belief by some members of the public that principles of ethics other than purely financial conflicts of interest should have led one or more of the Supervisors to abstain from voting on this particular issue. This prompted the Grand Jury to inquire of the County Administrative Office whether Humboldt County has adopted an “ ethics code” of any kind, which might have addressed the concerns voiced by troubled citizens and offered guidance to the officials in deciding whether they should abstain from voting. The County has no such code. The Grand Jury also surveyed 54 of the other counties in California. Although ethics codes are not a legal requirement, of the 41 counties that responded, ten have either adopted formal ethics codes or incorporated various ethical principles and guidelines into their administrative policies. After reviewing these counties’ ethics codes and the ethics codes adopted by a number of cities – two of which have become statewide models – the Grand Jury concluded that a number of these codes contain provisions which address the situation that confronted the aforementioned Humboldt County officials. 17 These provisions pertain to a concept known as the “ appearance [ or perception] of impropriety.” This is not a phrase lacking in legal significance. It appears more than a hundred times in the reported cases of the California Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court, in Opinions of the California Attorney General, and even in the Code of Judicial Ethics. It is expressed in simple language in the City of Mountain View’s code of conduct for its City Council: “ When participation in action or decision- making as a public official does not implicate the specific statutory criteria for conflicts of interest, however participation still does not ‘ look’ or ‘ feel’ right, that public official has probably encountered the appearance of impropriety. For the public to have faith and confidence that government authority will be implemented in an even- handed and ethical manner, public officials may need to step aside even though no technical conflict exists . . . For the good of the community, members who encounter the appearance of impropriety should step aside.” The Grand Jury concurs with this principle. Furthermore, there are other provisions in the ethics codes the Grand Jury reviewed which address additional situations that have generated controversy and distrust in the community over the conduct of other elected officials. In the second instance, in response to a citizen’s complaint, the Grand Jury investigated an alleged conflict of interest by a city council member in one of the county’s seven municipalities. One of the responsibilities of the city council is to review – and either approve or reject – the recommendations of the city’s planning commission, the members of which are appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. There was evidence that a particular council member became involved as an agent and advocate for a property owner’s proposed subdivision project and lobbied before the city planning commission on its behalf. The council member claimed to have been acting as a “ private citizen,” disclaimed any financial interest in the proposed subdivision property and, therefore, saw no conflict of interest. However, there are guidelines in several of the ethics codes reviewed by the Grand Jury which specifically address this troubling scenario. For example, the City of Sunnyvale’s Code of Ethics ( one of the recognized models) provides: “ In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, members of Council shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before the Council or any board, commission or proceeding of the City, nor shall members of boards and commissions appear before their own bodies or before the Council on behalf of the private interests of third parties on matters related to the areas of service of their bodies.” Yet another disturbing fact the Grand Jury encountered in the same investigation of the city council member’s conduct before the planning commission was the absence of any sense on the part of the other city council members who were interviewed that they had either the responsibility or authority to address what had occurred. They disapproved of it, they believed it created a bad impression, they were concerned that it cast doubt in the minds of the public about the integrity of the city’s procedures, and they believed the errant council person should be confronted with the problem and counseled about the appearance of impropriety and potential conflicts of interest. However, they took no action to rectify the problem. The reticence of elected officials to confront a difficult situation involving “ one of their own” has been anticipated and addressed by several of the ethics codes the Grand Jury reviewed. For example, the Sunnyvale Code of Ethics states that: “ Members [ of the city council] themselves have the primary responsibility 18 to assure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government. . . . The chairs of boards and commissions and the Mayor have the additional responsibility to intervene when actions of members that appear to be in violation of the Code of Ethics are brought to their attention. . . . The City Council may impose sanctions on members whose conduct does not comply with the City’s ethical standards, such as reprimand, formal censure, loss of seniority or committee assignment, or budget restriction.” Finally, the Grand Jury believes, based on interviews it conducted of a number of elected officials in both county and city governments, that there is a pervasive lack of understanding that the Political Reform Act is just one of several sets of laws concerning ethics and conflicts of interest by which they should conduct themselves in office. The answer to this problem, of course, is education and training. Several ethics codes incorporate such a requirement, e. g., the Sunnyvale Code of Ethics which states: “… ethical standards shall be included in the regular orientation for candidates for City Council. . . . Members entering office shall sign a statement affirming they read and understood the City of Sunnyvale Code of Ethics. In addition, the Code of Ethics shall be annually reviewed by the City Council, boards and commissions.” In this regard, Humboldt County’s Administrative Office is to be congratulated for sponsoring a half- day Ethics Workshop in October of 2003 for department heads and their assistants. The leader was trained at the Josephson Institute of Ethics in the Workplace, and 41 people attended at a cost of $ 26.90 each. Several city officials indicated they would have been interested in attending such a workshop if they had been notified. Although they were informed of the workshop, none of the members of the Board of Supervisors attended. According to the County Administrative Officer: “ The workshop was well received. The feedback I had from most was that we should do this more often. I have given thought . . . to developing a local ethics program that would further define standards of conduct, train and educate employees, and integrate behavior that is reflective of core ethical values of trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship.” Based on the foregoing, the Grand Jury has reached the following findings and recommendations: FINDING 1: Humboldt County and the cities of Arcata, Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Fortuna, Rio Dell, and Trinidad have adopted by ordinance the financial conflict of interest regulations required by the Political Reform Act. However, Humboldt County and the cities of Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Rio Dell, and Trinidad have not formally adopted ethics codes or any similar codes of conduct that identify and incorporate other important public policies and principles of law regarding ethics and conflicts of interest. RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that Humboldt County and the cities of Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Rio Dell, and Trinidad review available model ethics codes and adopt their own codes of ethics, to apply to all officials, elected and appointed. FINDING 2: In 1998, the City of Fortuna adopted Rules of Conduct for its City Council. Although one of these eight rules contains a general directive that conflicts of interest must be avoided, the City Council has no actual code of ethics. RECOMMENDATION 2: The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Fortuna review available model ethics codes and adopt its own code of ethics, to apply to all officials, elected and appointed. FINDING 3: The City of Arcata has adopted a Code of Ethics which is found in the Appendix to its City 19 Council Protocol Manual. This Code of Ethics consists of a statement of 12 “ principles,” and is based on the ethics code which the International City Managers Association originally adopted in 1924 and revised in 1998. Its content is directed more to the activities of managers and administrators than to elected officials such as City Council members. RECOMMENDATION 3: The Grand Jury recommends that the City of Arcata review other available model codes of ethics and consider modifying or supplementing its current Code of Ethics in accordance therewith. FINDING 4: Generally accepted principles of good government indicate that citizens have more confidence in the integrity and fair operation of their local government when their views are given consideration in decision- making and the formulation of policy. RECOMMENDATION 4: The Grand Jury recommends that Humboldt County and the cities of Arcata, Blue Lake, Eureka, Ferndale, Fortuna, Rio Dell and Trinidad include citizen participation in the development ( or, in the case of Arcata, modification or supplementation) of their codes of ethics. FINDING 5: The Ethics Workshop sponsored by the Humboldt County Administrative Office was well- received. RECOMMENDATION 5: The Grand Jury recommends that the County Administrative Office regularly sponsor ethics workshops and expand the invitation list to include all elected and appointed city and county officials. Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 02 GRAND JURY ACCESS TO ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES FILES WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 02 shall be provided as follows: • The Humboldt County Counsel shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 and 2. • The Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 2. The Grand Jury is one of the “ clients’ to whom Humboldt County Counsel provides legal advice. Its other “ clients” include the county and its various departments, which are subject to investigation by the Grand Jury pursuant to the Grand Jury’s “ watchdog” function. A prior Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the death of a disabled person who was receiving services from the county’s Adult Protective Services Division ( APS). APS is part of the Social Services Branch of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS). The Grand Jury wrote a letter requesting the APS file on the deceased. In response, the Director of Mental Health, another branch of DHHS, refused to provide the APS file over which it had control. APS staff was also instructed not to answer questions about the case. The Director contended that this information was confidential pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10850, and could not be obtained by the Grand Jury despite its investigative authority. The prior Grand Jury turned to County Counsel for assistance in obtaining the file and examining witnesses. However, County Counsel simply agreed with the Director of Mental Health regarding the confidentiality of the information. County Counsel gave no explanation for its position, did not mention the legal authorities that are inconsistent with its position, and did not suggest to the Grand Jury that there might be procedures available to obtain the file other than a letter request. These events were the subject of a prior Grand Jury Report, in which the Grand Jury recommended that County Counsel reconsider its interpretation of the confidentiality provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10850 in the context of a Grand Jury investigation. County Counsel refused, stating in 20 response that “ The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.” This year, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury also decided to investigate APS’s handling of the deceased person’s case and turned to the District Attorney’s office for assistance. The District Attorney’s office quickly obtained subpoenas and a court order that required APS to produce the deceased client’s file and required APS and other DHHS staff to testify regarding the case. The subpoenas and court order were served, the APS file was produced, and the witnesses testified before the Grand Jury without further objection. It is the opinion of this Grand Jury that the earlier investigation was derailed because County Counsel did not advocate for the right of one “ client” ( the Grand Jury) over the interests of another ( APS), frustrating an investigation contemplated by the laws which establish, govern, and empower that “ client.” This is unacceptable. The Grand Jury is composed of 19 ordinary citizens from diverse backgrounds who volunteer to serve a one- year term. Typically, they have no formal training or education in legal matters and, at times, must rely on the expertise of their advisers, including County Counsel, to fulfill their responsibilities to the citizens of Humboldt County. DHHS has acknowledged the Grand Jury’s right to obtain information about the handling of APS cases by its responsiveness to the subpoenas and court order that were served. County Counsel should acknowledge that right, as well. Both entities should take steps to insure that future Grand Juries do not have to reinvent this wheel. FINDING 1: There is an inherent conflict of interest in County Counsel’s role as adviser both to county departments and to the Grand Jury which investigates those county departments. Despite efforts which County Counsel undertakes to minimize that conflict, in some matters County Counsel’s advocacy on behalf of a county department may interfere with its advocacy on behalf of the Grand Jury. RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that County Counsel be alert to those instances in which its advocacy on behalf of a county department have a potential to interfere with its advocacy and, when that occurs, inform the Grand Jury so that it may determine whether to seek advice from the District Attorney. FINDING 2: Although certain information concerning APS clients may be confidential pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10850, the Grand Jury is entitled to review APS client files, and to interview case workers and supervisors regarding the handling of APS cases, under the authority granted to it by Penal Code Sections 925 through 933.6. RECOMMENDATION 2: The Grand Jury recommends ( a) that County Counsel and DHHS prepare a written policy for DHHS to adopt setting forth the procedures to be followed in responding to Grand Jury requests for APS client files and case handling information; ( b) that the written policy be submitted to the District Attorney for review; and ( c) that a copy of the policy be provided to the Grand Jury. Grand Jury Report # 2004- AF- 03 “ BENEFIT ALLOWANCE” A SIMPLE PARTIAL SOLUTION TO HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S BUDGET DEFICIT WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- AF- 03 shall be provided as follows: • The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 1. _____________________________________________________________________________ 21 The County Administrative Officer ( CAO) has announced that Humboldt County faces a projected budget deficit for fiscal year 2004- 2005 of $ 8.4 million. All departments were requested to reduce their budgets by 20%. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury has cooperated in the need to reduce the potential deficit by reducing its own 2004- 2005 budget by more than 20%. In an effort to assist the Board of Supervisors in meeting this challenge, the Grand Jury reviewed budget documents, including Personnel Salary Projections dated March 1, 2004, and submitted to the CAO, to determine if the Grand Jury could make any useful recommendations. In addition to regular salaries and benefits, the Personnel Salary Projections included a column labeled “ Benefit Allowance” that was not budgeted for employees across the board, but only applied to a select group referred to as Elected Officials, Appointed Officials, and Management and Confidential Employees. After researching the Board of Supervisors’ Clerk records, the Grand Jury determined that this Benefit Allowance was established by the adoption of Resolution No. 2000- 67 on August 22, 2000. This resolution implemented a compensation plan for fiscal years 2000- 2001, 2001- 2002 and 2002- 2003 that included benefits not offered to the other 1,971.5 county employees. Included were such items as a deferred compensation plan, an increase in life insurance coverage of $ 10,000, and an additional two weeks of vacation above the regular amount earned. More importantly, it also provided for a “ Benefit Allowance.” The allowance was to be phased in over the years 1999- 2003, when it reached the base annual sum of $ 3,200 per affected full- time equivalent position. No explanation was given in the Resolution for the purpose of the “ Benefit Allowance,” nor was a maximum amount stated. In addition, each employee also receives all normal benefits: health, life, and dental insurance, plus a retirement program. An analysis of projected individual department personnel budgets for 2004- 2005 revealed the following: • 12 elected County officials, including the Board of Supervisors, are to receive amounts ranging from $ 3,920 to $ 11,759; the total for these 12 officials will be $ 106,789. • 15 appointed officials are to receive $ 3,920 each; the total for these 15 officials will be $ 58,800. • 194 management and confidential employees are to receive $ 3,200 each; the total for these 194 employees will be $ 620,800. • The total of direct payments to this select group of 221 officials and employees will be $ 786,389 • Since this is compensation under Internal Revenue Service rules, the County must also pay Social Security and Medicare taxes of $ 60,159, bringing the total cost to $ 846,548. • This is approximately 10% of the projected 2004- 2005 budget deficit. • No justification for payment of this “ Benefit Allowance” was given in Resolution No. 2000- 67. FINDING 1: In the face of a projected 2004- 2005 budget deficit of $ 8.4 million, Humboldt County is proposing to pay a select group of 221 elected and appointed officials and designated employees the sum of $ 846,548 ( including Social Security and Medicare costs) with no justification in Resolution 2000- 67. RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately suspend, reduce, or eliminate the “ Benefit Allowance” sections of Resolution 2000- 67 until the county’s fiscal condition warrants reconsideration. Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 01 AN INVESTIGATION INTO VIOLATIONS OF THE BROWN ACT BY THE KLAMATH- TRINITY JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD ( This report was released in February 2004 and the Agency’s response is included) WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- CD- 01 shall be provided as follows: 22 • The Klamath- Trinity Joint Unified School District Governing Board shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 2 and 3. A citizen’s complaint involving the Klamath- Trinity Joint Unified School District ( K- TJUSD) was investigated by the Grand Jury. Based on documents examined and testimony of five witnesses taken between August 18 and October 14, 2003, the Grand Jury concluded that the complaint had no merit. However, in reviewing the K- TJUSD Governing Board ( Board) agendas and minutes, and considering testimony given by witnesses, the Grand Jury determined that the Board had violated several provisions of Government Code Sections 54950- 54963, commonly known as the Ralph M. Brown Act ( Brown Act). The Brown Act was enacted to require that public agencies conduct their deliberations and take actions openly. The Brown Act requires that specific steps be taken to publicize matters to be considered at agency meetings, in both closed and open session, through the posting of comprehensive agendas ( Government Code Sec. 54954.1 and Government Code Sec. 54954.2). During a closed session meeting on May 8, 2001, the matter of the District’s enrollment in the Domestic Partners insurance program offered by the North Coast Schools Medical Insurance Group was discussed by the Superintendent with the Board. Witnesses stated that “… by consensus, equivalent to a vote…” the Board supported the Superintendent’s action to enroll the District in the program. After a review of the Superintendent’s job description and contract, the Grand Jury determined that the Superintendent had acted within the scope of his authority to take such action without Board approval. Nevertheless, this matter of a request for support was not recorded on the agenda for the closed meeting, nor was the action taken by the Board reported to the public in open session. Further, this was not an item that can be discussed by the Board in closed session. By these acts and omissions, the Board violated the following closed session provisions of the Brown Act: • Government Code Sec. 54954.2 At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. This matter was not included on the agenda. • Government Code Sec. 54954.5 The issues that can be considered in closed session are specifically enumerated. This was not a matter included in that enumeration. • Government Code Sec 54957.1 The legislative body of any local agency shall publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote or abstention of every member present thereon. No such vote was recorded or reported. The same, and possibly more serious, violations occurred when the Board met in closed session August 12, 2003. During that meeting, an affidavit was signed by five of the seven Board members attesting to their “ consensus” in the meeting of May 8, 2001, admittedly as an attempt to legitimize their action at that meeting. Again, this action was not listed on the agenda for the meeting, the action taken was not reported in the open session that followed, and it was an improper item to be considered in a closed session. Further, according to the official minutes, it is possible that one or more of the Board members who signed the affidavit on August 12, 2003, were not present during the closed session of May 8, 2001. Their action at the meeting of August 12, 2003, indicated they either had imperfect knowledge of the Brown Act or were deliberately intending to cover up the original violation. 23 The Grand Jury does not make a judgment as to the intent of the Board and Superintendent at the meeting of August 12, 2003. However, after considering the above facts and Board violations of the Brown Act, conclusions reached by the Grand Jury lead to the following findings and recommendations: FINDING 1: The Klamath- Trinity Joint Unified School District Governing Board has committed several documented violations of the Brown Act. DISTRICT RESPONSE TO FINDING 1: The District agrees with the first finding/ conclusion of the Grand Jury. However, the second conclusion, above, requires hypotheses as to what the law might have required and other hypotheses regarding compliance. Since the District does no [ sic] know the language of a hypothetically changed statute, it cannot agree or disagree with the second finding/ conclusion. RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that both current and newly elected Board members be required to be trained in all aspects of the Brown Act by a person competent in requirements of the Act. DISTRICT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1: This response has been implemented and implementation is continuing. The District’s legal counsel, Robert S. Shelburne, senior attorney in the Education Law Practice Group of the Law Firm of Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, attended the regular meeting of the Board on February 10, 2004, at the Board’s direction and in public session he provided training for the Board which focused on the Brown Act’s regulations of closed session meetings of school boards, including ( a) the exclusive legally permissible subjects for closed session consideration and action, ( b) the requirements for Board agenda items for closed sessions, and ( c) the requirements for public reporting of certain types of actions taken by Board in closed sessions. Because the Brown Act contains many requirements that regulate matters unrelated to closed sessions, the Board of Trustees scheduled a special Board meeting for February 25, 2004, to receive additional training on the law regulating Board meetings. On February 25, 2004, Mr. Shelburne continued with additional training on Brown Act requirements. Not all Board members were in attendance. Since the Grand Jury’s recommendation is that ALL Board members should be trained in the law’s requirements, the Board of Trustees will make arrangements for another training session for the Board members who were absent on February 25 as well as another training session for all Board members to complete the training in the law’s requirements. In addition to training on the Brown Act requirements, Mr. Shelburne is providing training on the statutory requirements regulating school board meetings that are contained in the Education Code ( at sections 35140, et seq.) Mr. Shelburne has also prepared and distributed to each Board member and to the Superintendent a handbook containing a comprehensive discussion of all of the laws regulating meetings of school boards and a copy of each of those laws. At the CSBA Conference, the Board Chair, with district funds, purchased a book on the Brown Act for each Board member. In addition, the District has purchased and distributed to each Board member a book on the operations of school boards and their meetings. FINDING 2: Any training in the legal requirements and responsibilities of Board members to keep the public informed of their actions in both open and, particularly, closed meeting sessions has not been effective. DISTRICT RESPONSE TO FINDING 2: The District agrees with this finding/ conclusion of the Grand Jury. RECOMMENDATION 2: The Grand Jury recommends that since certain violations of the Brown Act are misdemeanors and individual members of the legislative body are potentially subject to criminal prosecution, all members of the Board should operate in accordance with the provisions of the Brown Act. DISTRICT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 2: The recommendation has been implemented and implementation is continuing. 24 FINDING 3: No minutes or other recording of the discussions or actions taken during closed sessions were made, and documented evidence reveals that the Board has repeatedly violated several provisions of the Brown Act during closed sessions. DISTRICT RESPONSE TO FINDING 3: The District disagrees partially with this finding/ conclusion of the Grand Jury. It is true that in the situations that occurred in the Board meetings on May 11, 2001 and August 12, 2003, the Board of Trustee’s deliberations on and development of a consensus and later actions of signing the affidavit in closed session were not in compliance with the Brown Act. However, there is not evidence that the Board of Trustees has made it a practice of violating the Brown Act. The violations cited by the Grand Jury were aberrations, i. e., unintentional departures from the Board’s regular practice of compliance with the Brown Act’s requirements. Over the years Board members have attend [ sic] several in- service training sessions on the requirements of the Brown Act, and they are committed to compliance with this law. However, trustees are elected and leave office periodically, so the District must and will make an effort to provide periodic training in this law so that all trustees receive the necessary training. RECOMMENDATION 3: The Grand Jury recommends that although there is no legal requirement to do so, that the Board have their deliberations and decisions in both closed and open sessions tape recorded, and that those recordings be securely preserved for a period of at least three years from the date of the meeting. DISTRICT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 3: The recommendation has been implemented and implementation is continuing. Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 02 A REVIEW OF THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- CD- 02 shall be provided as follows: • No responses are required for this report. In 1963, legislation was enacted creating Local Agency Formation Commissions ( LAFCO or Commission) in all California counties. As independent quasi- legislative agencies, LAFCOs were given the mandate to review and approve the incorporation of cities, annexations to cities, and creation, consolidation and dissolution of special districts. Although modestly amended from time to time, the law governing LAFCOs remained basically unchanged for 35 years. Recognizing the dramatic changes of urban development, population growth and financing of local agencies that had taken place since 1963, a commission was formed to study the effectiveness of LAFCO law to deal with these changes. The result of the study was the enactment of Assembly Bill 2838 known as the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act of 2000 ( the Act). In addition to regulating local boundary issues, LAFCOs were further charged with promoting affordable housing, preserving open space and agricultural land, encouraging efficiency in providing government services, and compiling within five years an inventory of all infrastructure and services in the County. The Act made a significant change in the funding of LAFCOs, which were formerly financed entirely by the county. The Act now requires that funding of operation costs be shared jointly and equally by the county, cities, and special districts within the county. Also, LAFCOs could choose to have staff and facilities independent of the county. 25 The Grand Jury has periodically reviewed LAFCO, but has not issued a report since 1971. Given the expansion of duties of LAFCO, the widening in the scope of activities and influence, the required timetables for the new tasks, and change in funding, it was deemed appropriate for the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury to revisit LAFCO. From documents reviewed and testimony of staff during the period January 20 to February 9, 2004, the Grand Jury determined the following facts: LAFCO is governed by a board of seven commissioners. Six of the commissioners are elected officials of the county, the cities, and the special districts, who then appoint a seventh member from the public. A reduction in the meeting schedule from six times a year to four times has allowed staff more time for productive work and also resulted in a reduction of budgeted expenditures. The Commission and staff have encouraged active participation by cities and districts in completing certain phases of their tasks, and in some cases have sought and received grant funding to help defray the added costs incurred. An example is a $ 150,000 U. S. Forest Service grant that was obtained to assist local fire departments in identifying the location and mapping of every fire hydrant in the County, and the most direct route to access a specific hydrant. The benefits from this program are increased public safety and a potential improvement in fire insurance ratings. The due dates of the requirements mandated by the Act have so far been met, and the remainders are expected to be completed on time. As mentioned, the county, cities and districts now fund LAFCO equally. The Grand Jury determined that LAFCO’s budget for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003, was $ 37,632. Actual expenditures, however, were only $ 34,558, which was $ 3,074 ( 8%) less than budget. The adopted budget for fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 is $ 34,382, a reduction of $ 3,250 ( 9%) from the prior year. Actual expenditures through November 30, 2003 ( 42% of the year) were $ 10,516, or 31% of budget. Based on the above facts, the Grand Jury reached the following conclusions: • LAFCO Commissioners and staff are commended for executing the mandated activities of the Cortese- Knox- Hertzberg Act in a timely and professional manner. • They are also commended for fostering partnerships with local government agencies to promote and carryout the specific requirements of the Act. • Lastly, the Commissioners and staff are commended for accomplishing the above in a fiscally responsible manner. Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 03 SPECIAL DISTRICT AUDIT PROGRAM IN JEOPARDY ( This report was released in February 2004 and the Agency’s response is included) WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report # 2004- CD- 03 shall be provided as follows: • The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors and the Humboldt County Auditor/ Controller shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 1. The 1999- 2000 Grand Jury recommended that the Auditor/ Controller and the Board of Supervisors ( Board) of Humboldt County continue and intensify their efforts to comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 26909, which requires that special districts be audited annually or by special request to the Board biennially, or depending on the district’s budget, an audit covering a five- year period. Both units of County government embraced and implemented the recommendation. The Grand Juries of both 2001- 2002 and 2002- 2003 found that excellent progress was made toward the special district audit program. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury commends the Board and Auditor/ Controller for authorizing, funding and filling a senior accountant- auditor position necessary to perform the audits. This employee assisted 14 special districts with multi- year audits at a cost the districts could afford, and 26 as of June 30, 2003, all but two of the County’s 48 special districts were in compliance with state law, thus increasing the confidence of their respective communities in the proper expenditure of public funds. However, the retirement of the Auditor/ Controller occasioned the promotion of others in the department. This left a senior accountant- auditor position vacant. That position is now un- funded, leaving no one available to audit special districts. FINDING 1: The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury finds that the lack of a dedicated senior accountant- auditor position to conduct special district audits will once again result in special district audit delinquencies and non- compliance with Government Code Section 26909, and jeopardize this beneficial program. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO FINDING 1: Disagree with finding. Government Code Section 26909 allows for the county auditor to “. . . contract with a certified public accountant or public accountant to make an annual audit of the accounts and records of every special purpose district within the county for which an audit by a certified public accountant or public accountant is not otherwise provided.” There is no requirement for any such audit to be performed by in- house staff, and as is the case in some other counties, staffing reductions may result in the need for the Auditor to contract for such a service. This same Government Code Section provides that any costs incurred in making the audit shall be borne by the applicable special district. The Board of Supervisors understands and supports the need for the Auditor to contract for these services to assure compliance with the Government Code. RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors immediately restore funding to the Auditor/ Controller’s office to allow this position to be filled permanently. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable in the face of severe budgetary constraints, and is not necessary for reasons as set forth in the response to the Finding. THE AUDITOR- CONTROLLER RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1: In November of 1998, a Senior Accountant- Auditor position was added back to the Auditor- Controller’s staff with the condition that Special District audits were performed on a continuing basis by this or another staff member. Through the end of 2002, Special District audits were made a priority and performed on a regular as- needed basis by a Senior Accountant- Auditor. In December of 2002, long- time Auditor- Controller, Neil Prince, retired and although staffing positions and duties was reassigned, no additional accountants were added and the staffing was one position short. This vacancy caused Special District audits to become sporadic and eventually to be discontinued, as the time required for out of office duties tends to be much less productive than work processed in the office. As of July 1, fiscal year 2004- 2005, we will be losing another Accountant- Auditor position so that the accounting positions will be down two to a level of four. With the current staffing level, audits of Special Districts take on a lower priority and the Auditor- Controller cannot guarantee completion of said audits. Grand Jury Report # 2004- HS- 01 AN INVESTIGATION INTO HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND IN- HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- HS- 01 shall be provided as follows: • The Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. • The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 10 and 11. • The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors shall respond to Finding and Recommendation 2. 27 The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury conducted an investigation of Adult Protective Services ( APS) and In- Home Supportive Services ( IHSS). Both are divisions of the Social Services Branch of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS). We also took a close look at the legislation that governs how the county provides APS and IHSS services and the practical effect of that legislation on the citizens of Humboldt County. Adult Protective Services ( APS) In 1998, the Legislature found serious deficiencies statewide in the ability of county APS programs to respond to the tragedy of elder and dependent adult abuse that was being brought to light by mandatory reporting laws. Senate Bill 2199 ( SB 2199) was enacted in 1998 in response to an urgent need to establish and fund comprehensive, statewide APS programs “ to remedy situations of immediate danger to vulnerable elders and dependent adults.” Following a series of interim directives, the regulations that implemented SB 2199 were adopted on October 19, 2001. These regulations set out the manner in which all counties are required to respond to and investigate reports of abuse or neglect, provide emergency shelter, and provide case management services within specific timetables and goals. Each county was responsible for developing its own program to comply with those regulations. In response to this mandate, Humboldt County’s APS staff was increased in numbers, given training in the new regulations, and assigned the task of bringing the existing and steadily increasing APS caseload into compliance with the new regulations. The average monthly APS caseload now consists of approximately 200 cases, which are fairly evenly divided between elderly and dependent adults. Approximately 45 existing cases are closed each month and about the same numbers of new cases are opened. The ongoing APS caseload is handled by a staff of four social workers and two Public Health nurses. When a report of suspected abuse or neglect has been received and screened by an APS Intake Team member, a case may be opened and referred for investigation. While the goal of the APS program is to remedy and prevent the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of elders and dependent adults, the regulations specify that it is “ not intended to be a long- term, ongoing ‘ case management’ activity.” Instead, its intent is “ to create a stable environment where the individual can safely function without requiring additional intervention.” Furthermore, it “ is neither intended to interfere with the life style choices of elders or dependent adults, nor to protect those individuals from all the consequences of such choices.” Cases are closed when protective services are no longer needed or when a client declines or withdraws consent, moves out of the jurisdiction or into a long- term placement facility, dies, or cannot be located. Abused elders or dependent adults are entitled to refuse APS services even though it may be against their interests, although cases may remain open when APS believes the client is acting under influence or duress. In- Home Supportive Services ( IHSS) Assembly Bill 1682 ( AB 1682) requires each county to provide in- home supportive services to elderly and disabled persons who cannot perform those services for themselves or safely remain in their home without them. IHSS services include personal care ( bathing, dressing, feeding, assistance with medications and prosthetic devices, etc.), heavy cleaning, accompaniment to medical appointments, and paramedical services. IHSS does not employ the caregivers who perform the in- home supportive services. Rather, IHSS performs necessary administrative services that include determining initial and ongoing recipient eligibility, opening case files, assessing and re- assessing recipients’ needs, auditing time sheets, and forwarding payroll data to the state. Payment for caregivers’ services comes from a combination of federal, state, and county funding sources. As the 2002- 2003 Grand Jury reported, Humboldt County established a “ Public Authority” to meet the AB 1682 mandate that it assist IHSS recipients in finding caregivers to deliver in- home supportive services. 28 The Board of Supervisors serves as the Public Authority. AB 1682 states that “ any Public Authority… shall provide for all of the following functions:” • Assistance to recipients in finding in- home supportive services personnel through the establishment of a registry. • Investigation of the qualifications and background of potential personnel. • Establishment of a referral system. • Training for providers and recipients. Also, AB 1682 gives recipients the right to choose a person as their caregiver who is not on the Public Authority registry, though it also states that the caregiver must be “ qualified” without defining “ qualified.” Although AB 1682 states that the Public Authority is required to investigate “ the qualifications and background of potential personnel,” Humboldt County DHHS interprets AB 1682 to mean that only those caregivers in its registry must be fingerprinted, background checked, and trained. Humboldt County DHHS does not require that the background of non- registry caregivers be investigated or that they be trained or qualified for the level of care that is to be provided. According to information provided by DHHS, approximately 1,900 Humboldt County residents receive IHSS services each month. Individual IHSS social worker caseloads are about 275, which exceeds the state recommendation of 178. The Case Under Investigation The facts of the case under investigation are grim. Prior to death, the individual suffered from a severely debilitating disease, which confined the person to a wheelchair or hospital bed. The individual was incontinent, could not walk or stand, and could not eat, dress, or bathe without help. In short, the client, who lived in a condemned trailer, was 100% dependent on the caregiver for all daily living needs. APS became involved with the client in August 2000, in response to a report of self- neglect. The client was agreeable to receiving assistance, and the APS caseworker established a service plan, which included in- home caseworker visits, MediCal benefits, and health services from local physicians, physical therapists, and counselors. The individual was also eligible for IHSS benefits, which consisted of payment to the caregiver for the maximum of 283 monthly allowable hours. Rather than selecting a caregiver who had documented training and had undergone background checks, the individual insisted on having a live- in friend designated as the caregiver. In- home medical services being provided by a health care contractor were discontinued when the caregiver appeared to threaten a worker. In March of 2002, eighteen months after the case was opened, the deceased individual’s extremely emaciated body was brought to the emergency room weighing only 60 pounds and covered with bedsores, some bone- deep. The coroner’s report identified “ lobar pneumonia due to contaminated pressure sores…” as the primary cause of death. One investigator stated that this was the worst case the investigator had seen in 25 years in law enforcement. In late October of 2001, four months before death occurred, the individual’s APS case was apparently closed, though the appropriate paperwork was not completed and signed off by supervisors. Although the caseworker was still concerned for the individual’s well- being when APS closed the case, the individual indicated that APS case management services were no longer wanted or required, and, that the caregiver could arrange for medical and any other services that might be needed. What is unknown, of course, is the degree to which the individual’s statements were made under the influence or duress of the caregiver. Because the case was closed, the APS caseworker who had previously been in frequent contact with the client was unaware of the escalating physical decline. In January of 2002, an out- of- state family member reported suspected abuse by the caregiver to an APS supervisor. However, the case was not officially reopened until March of 2002. The caseworker’s attempt to contact the client was unsuccessful and the individual died a few days later. Throughout this entire time, the caregiver continued to receive IHSS payments. In this case, the APS caseworker tried on three occasions to obtain conservatorship for the client, but conservatorship is based on mental competence rather than physical disability. Three doctors who 29 treated the individual were unwilling to make that determination. In the course of its investigation, the Grand Jury conducted 16 interviews, obtained written responses to requests for information from DHHS and the Sheriff’s Department, and reviewed volumes of documents provided by the Social Services branch of DHHS. With respect to the APS handling of the deceased individual’s case, it is important to note that during this time the department was adapting its procedures and training staff to comply with the relatively new regulations of SB 2199. The Grand Jury concluded that, while the APS caseworker and supervisors were not in perfect compliance with all regulations, particularly in documenting case activities, the caseworker’s handling of the case was resourceful and dedicated. However, the failure to properly document and communicate caseworker and department actions creates a significant informational void for future work on a case and exposes the county to risk of liability. Without adequate documentation, no proof is available of home visits or other interventions. The investigation also revealed a serious error by IHSS in terminating in- home supportive services to the deceased person shortly before death, in that the IHSS caseworker did not follow the correct regulatory requirements and verification procedures to discontinue services. The true problem lies elsewhere, however. Although the purpose of APS is to protect vulnerable members of society from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and the purpose of IHSS is to provide assistance that will enable them to live safely in their own homes rather than be institutionalized, both agencies follow an opposing department policy that “ when interests compete, freedom is more important than safety.” The facts of this case certainly indicate that a department policy which allows a client’s freedom over safety can lead to great risk to a client. The principle of “ freedom over safety” is also evident in the regulations that govern caregivers. Recipients of the IHSS funding are not required to hire caregivers from the registry, ones who have had training and background checks. To the contrary, they have the freedom to hire anyone they want. They may hire relatives and trusted friends, or they may— and sometimes do— hire drug addicts, convicted felons, scam artists, and raving psychotics. Nevertheless, it is the practice of IHSS, as it interprets AB 1682 and it’s implementing regulations, to pay the caregiver selected by a recipient even when that caregiver is known to be unqualified or abusive. The pay for these caregivers comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. Furthermore, whether or not the supportive services that are being paid for with taxpayer dollars are actually being provided by the caregiver is beyond the control of IHSS. As a practical matter, the IHSS caseworkers sometimes don’t have time to conduct even the required annual home visit to each client, much less make random visits to verify provision or quality of care. Timesheet auditing merely counts the hours but does not verify performance. Testimony revealed also that there is no auditing system in place to prevent caregivers with multiple clients from claiming 24 hours a day or more because they turn in separate timesheets for each IHSS client, and there is no internal cross- checking of caregiver hours. The system is riddled with fraud, but even when fraud is investigated and confirmed, the IHSS recipient still may designate that person as caregiver. Unless the caregiver is in jail, he/ she will be paid according to the hours submitted on his/ her timesheet( s). The flaw in the caregiver system is exemplified by this case. The caregiver the individual selected ( indeed, insisted upon) to provide the in- home supportive services required for the individual’s very survival has been described by witnesses as volatile and threatening. It was while in the “ care” of this person that the individual’s weight dropped from 110 to 60 pounds in four months and the individual died extremely emaciated and ridden with bedsores due to severe neglect. While “ freedom over safety” may be the controlling principle here, as the regulations have been interpreted locally, it is a questionable state of affairs when government is complicit and taxpayer dollars funded such a painful and destructive end. It is the Grand Jury’s opinion that IHSS regulations, which allow recipients to choose abusive, exploitative, and unsafe caregivers, must be changed to require investigation of the background and 30 qualification of both registry and non- registry caregivers and to permit IHSS payment only to those caregivers who meet certain standards of acceptability. Humboldt County representatives ( including at least one from the Board of Supervisors and the Director of DHHS) have, in fact, joined other counties in lobbying the State for stricter laws and guidelines relating to background checks, training, and qualifications of these non- registry caregivers. To date, their efforts have not been successful. The first and only legal challenge to date appears to have been in a State Hearings Division “ Fair Hearing” case involving the Riverside County IHSS ( Hearing No. 2003197126) in which that county addressed this issue of abuse by a caregiver. The Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ) upheld the IHSS refusal to reinstate payments to a caregiver who had been accused of mental and physical abuse by the recipient. The recipient had designated another caregiver, then recanted the abuse allegations against the first and wanted to hire him back. The ALJ concluded that the county acted reasonably and in accordance with regulations in terminating the caregiver once there was direct evidence of abuse or failure to properly provide services, and that the county “ is under a duty to protect the claimant from further injury or risk.” One California county has requested that this ALJ decision be considered “ precedent setting.” This is a first step toward that county’s attempt to formulate a policy which would include refusal to pay for and ability to terminate abusive care providers in the name of protection and safety and would address the resulting potential liability to the county. Such a decision would further strengthen counties’ need to implement more stringent policies – which are allowed by state regulations – than they are currently following and would aid APS/ IHSS staff in fulfilling their protective role with the vulnerable adults in their care. The decision to close the Humboldt County APS case was certainly in conformity with the APS and IHSS principle of “ freedom over safety” and with the fact that adult protective services are not intended for long- term case management/ monitoring. However, regulations do not preclude Humboldt County DHHS from instituting its own APS procedure for long- term case management/ monitoring which includes risk factors as a basis for keeping a case open. In fact, regulations include a case closure process, and testimony from management staff revealed that there is opportunity for first, second, and third level supervisors to determine whether or not a case should remain open. One manager stated that if risk or safety factors are an issue, the department’s job would be to take those factors into consideration when determining whether or not to close a case. However, if DHHS had such a procedure in place at that time, it was not in writing, nor was it followed in this case. The APS caseworker remained concerned about this case and felt that it should remain open. This effort was denied without having gone beyond the first level supervisor. Following the department’s stated process of involving three supervisory levels might have led to a different result in this case. It might also help prevent similar occurrences in the future. Finally, the Grand Jury is compelled to comment upon an aspect of this case that pertains to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department ( HCSD). Law enforcement personnel, including HCSD deputies, are mandated by law to report suspected or known abuse of elders or dependent adults to APS, and may be involved in the APS investigation of such abuse. Law enforcement personnel are also called upon to perform “ welfare checks” at the request of people who are concerned about the safety of family members, friends, or neighbors, in the course of which they may encounter occurrences of abuse. Following APS’ closure of the disabled person’s case, an HCSD deputy was assigned to make two welfare checks at the request of a concerned relative. The second assignment was just one month before death occurred. The deputy’s report documenting those two visits was written from memory one week following the individual’s death and one month after the deputy’s last visit. The deputy’s report of the condition of the mobile home is inconsistent with testimony received by the Grand Jury from other witnesses and from photographs taken of the trailer shortly after the individual’s death. The Grand Jury learned that HCSD does not have a written policy, procedure, or a training program that covers mandatory reporting of abuse or welfare check procedures. In summary, this Grand Jury is concerned that the county is exposed to liability because: • DHHS has not required that all caregivers be investigated and deemed qualified. 31 • DHHS fails to prevent fraud by caregivers. • DHHS fails to take adequate protective measures to ensure the safety of each recipient. • DHHS continues to pay abusive caregivers. • DHHS fails to adequately communicate potential risk to clients, county personnel, and involved agencies. • DHHS fails to adequately document case files on actions taken to demonstrate that proper procedures, regulations, and policies have been followed. Based on the foregoing, the Grand Jury makes these findings and recommendations: FINDING 1: Regulations do not prohibit APS from establishing a policy of, and procedures for, ongoing case management/ monitoring when there is a valid concern for the physical safety of an APS client. RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS develop and implement a written procedure for ongoing long- term case management/ monitoring of APS cases where it is determined that closure of the case presents an unacceptable threat to the physical safety of the client; that DHHS communicate the formalized policy to all staff for use in critical cases; and that the procedure for determining which cases should have long- term case management/ monitoring include participation of the caseworker as part of a multi- disciplinary decision- making team. FINDING 2: DHHS does not require background checks, fingerprinting, and/ or training for potential non- registry IHSS caregivers, thereby putting itself at considerable risk of liability in cases in which abuse is involved. RECOMMENDATION 2: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS develop a certification system and procedures for background checking, fingerprinting, and mandatory training for all IHSS caregivers assigned to provide supportive services to elderly and dependent adults in Humboldt County. Because this will be a cost item for the county, the procedures should include a mechanism for recovering the actual costs of the certifications and training from the potential caregivers as a condition of their employment. FINDING 3: IHSS social worker caseloads are over 60% above state- recommended levels. RECOMMENDATION 3: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS take action now to relieve the current social worker caseloads whether by re- assigning supervisors or eliminating supervisor positions and hiring additional social workers. FINDING 4: APS and IHSS caseworkers are inconsistent in their documentation of client visits and interventions. RECOMMENDATION 4: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS continue to emphasize the importance of case documentation and provide ongoing mandatory documentation training. Random auditing of caseworker documentation is also recommended. FINDING 5: DHHS follows a policy of “ freedom over safety” in its management of elderly and dependent adult cases. This creates safety issues for clients and risks potential liability for the county. RECOMMENDATION 5: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS develop a written set of objective criteria to measure levels of potential risk to elderly and dependent adult clients. Where safety is an issue cases shall not be closed without convening a multi- disciplinary team, including first, second and third level supervisors and other involved professionals. FINDING 6: DHHS continues to pay caregivers who are suspected or known to be abusive and/ or unqualified to serve as caregivers. This puts the county at serious risk of liability. 32 RECOMMENDATION 6: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS discontinue use of taxpayer dollars to pay caregivers who are not providing the levels of care approved for the client, particularly when physical, emotional, or financial abuse is involved. FINDING 7: DHHS has no centralized system of cross- checking caregiver timecards to verify actual hours of service to clients, leading to fraud. RECOMMENDATION 7: The Grand Jury recommends that a centralized system for cross- checking and verifying each caregiver’s cumulative timecard hours and verifying client timecard signature be established. FINDING 8: DHHS continues to approve payment for caregivers who are known to have committed fraud. RECOMMENDATION 8: The Grand Jury recommends that when a caregiver’s fraud has been legally confirmed, that caregiver be permanently disqualified as a caregiver in Humboldt County. FINDING 9: Lack of communication between APS and IHSS workers in shared cases creates gaps in critical knowledge and case progress and interventions. RECOMMENDATION 9: The Grand Jury recommends that a cross- file of shared cases be instituted so that APS and IHSS caseworkers have access to information and status of an individual’s case within the other division. When the status of a case is shared, caseworkers and supervisors from both divisions should be included in a multi- disciplinary decision- making team. APS caseworkers whose clients are also IHSS recipients should assist IHSS by verifying authorized caregiver services during regular visits to the client and reporting findings to IHSS. FINDING 10: The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department has no written policy or procedure for mandatory reporting of abuse or welfare checks. RECOMMENDATION 10: The Grand Jury recommends that HCSD develop a written policy and establish procedures for mandatory reporting of abuse and welfare checks, including requirement for the documentation of deputy visits and findings immediately following those visits. FINDING 11: The HCSD has no formal training for deputies in the areas of mandatory reporting of abuse and welfare checks. RECOMMENDATION 11: The Grand Jury recommends that, when the new policy and procedures have been developed, annual mandatory training in the newly established policy and procedures regarding mandated reporting of abuse and welfare checks be instituted and a documented record of attendees maintained. Grand Jury Report # 2004- HS- 02 HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S FOSTER CARE PROGRAM NEEDS HELP NOW WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- HS- 02 shall be provided as follows: • The Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services shall respond to Findings and Recommendations 1 through 11. In 1999 the Little Hoover Commission, an independent state agency charged with recommending ways to increase efficiency and effectiveness in state programs, issued a report on California’s foster care system, which outlined a comprehensive strategy for reform. In 2003, the Commission weighed in again by 33 issuing a press release stating, “ Three years have passed, but almost no progress has been made in reforming…[ the] foster care system.” As a result, the California legislature adopted Assembly Bill 636 to bring serious focus to reform. Humboldt County is one of the eleven California counties currently engaged in pilot projects to redesign the state’s foster care system. The county will receive over two million dollars in the next four years to support its efforts at reform. The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury received a complaint regarding Humboldt County’s Child Welfare Service ( CWS), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS). A local medical professional alleged serious shortcoming in the foster care program which he believed had adversely affected one particular family. Because of this complaint and other concerns about the county’s foster care program, the Grand Jury investigated how the local program works for children and families. The investigation spanned July 2003 to April 2004 and included sixteen interviews of foster parents, current and former caseworkers, supervisors, and agency, medical, and court personnel. Jurors made two unscheduled facility visits, distributed surveys to 21 medical professionals, and reviewed numerous documents. DHHS asserts that its mission is “ to protect children from abuse, neglect and exploitation and to promote the health, safety and nurturing of children…” The Grand Jury found serious deficiencies in the way this mission is being fulfilled. Although the redesign pilot project is underway in the county, foster children, foster parents, and the system itself need help now. Personnel The Grand Jury’s investigation revealed that CWS is in a constant state of flux with an inordinate amount of caseworker turnover. Promotions, resignations, medical leaves ( often stress- related), and employees rotating in and out of jobs have created turmoil and uncertainty for foster children and families. An independent California study demonstrated that “ Most social workers’ caseloads are … too high for them to meet all the requirements of the job.” Certainly, that is true in Humboldt County. Although state guidelines recommend caseloads of no more than 15 in the Family Maintenance and Family Reunification units, local caseloads currently stand at about 26- 27. There are approximately ten vacant caseworker positions – out of 70 allocated – in the department. Excessive overloading of cases creates major problems in caseworkers’ ability to deal with the children and families in their charge. A caseworker is expected to see each foster child and meet with the foster parent once a month. This is often not possible with the almost double caseloads currently being carried by CWS caseworkers. Therefore, they resort to telephoning families or sending forms to be completed rather than making in- person visits. These methods are of limited value for determining the actual condition of the child, the foster parents, or the foster home. In addition, about a year ago, overtime in the department was eliminated. Caseworkers sometimes make evening and/ or weekend visits on their own time in order to find people at home or to be able to complete their required tasks. They are “ on- call” to handle after- hours reports of abuse or neglect a minimum of ten times a year. Testimony revealed that this further impacts caseworker effectiveness and morale. Departmental training for caseworkers is inconsistent. Some training is on- the- job, some is based on computerized programs, and some is conducted by first- level supervisors. Core classes are provided annually for new hires through U. C. Davis. Even specialized training that is offered is not mandatory. There is no ongoing mandatory training, for example, in stabilized case management, conflict resolution, or preparation for court appearances. Currently, for every five to eight caseworkers, there is a first- level supervisor. This represents an increase in the number of supervisors over the past two years, while the number of programs has increased and the number of caseworkers has decreased. In spite of the fact that caseworkers are most familiar with family situations, their recommendations are often overruled by supervisors who do not meet with children and families. There is little opportunity for team decision- making or consensus- building in case management. First- level supervisors are generally 34 available and supportive to caseworkers, but caseworker communication with supervisors at the second, third, fourth, and fifth ( top) levels are discouraged. This chain of command has created tension within the department. Resignations, early retirements, and stress leaves have decimated the department’s staff, and caseworker morale is extremely low. Children and Families Social, emotional, and developmental costs to children in the foster care system are profound. Many have birth parents burdened with substance abuse, domestic violence, or mental health problems which create an environment of chronic fear and neglect. When children have experienced removal from birth parents, they need new adults in their lives who are stable and consistent. Grand Jury investigation indicates that this is not happening for many foster children. From the moment of intake into the system or placement in a foster home, children experience a series of changing caseworkers, foster parents, and therapists, which adds to a child’s feelings of insecurity. Too often these are paperwork transfers without personal knowledge, insights, or concerns passed on to the next caseworker or foster family. Also, the Grand Jury was told by witnesses that some of the moves from one foster home to another are due to conflicts between CWS and the foster parents. Children’s wishes are not necessarily considered. Oftentimes siblings are split between foster homes. Frequent moves have a negative effect on children’s schooling, create disruptions in medical care, and cause lack of continuity in parenting. Efforts to reunify families and to assist in maintaining the reunified family also fall within CWS’ responsibility. The Family Reunification unit has a maximum of 18 months to return children to their biological parents. The Family Maintenance unit has a maximum of 12 months to determine a family’s progress. During these time periods, CWS provides visitation for parents with their removed children as well as parental training to correct the behaviors which led to the children’s removal. This training usually consists of nothing more than the parents’ attendance at several weekly parenting classes. Foster Families Testimony revealed a major shortage of foster homes in Humboldt County and consistently attributed that shortage to department policies and practices. The number of foster homes licensed in the county varies from 100 to 125. Recruitment seems difficult because of tension between CWS personnel and some foster parents. Some foster homes have spaces available which are not being utilized due to conflicts with the department, while children may wait for weeks for a placement. In many cases they are held in the emergency shelter beyond the 30- day limit. A CWS supervisor may remove a child from a foster home even when the caseworker believes the placement is successful. CWS and foster parents alike need training in conflict resolution and sensitivity. Because of the extreme need for foster homes, Humboldt County has entered into contractual agreements with two private agencies to provide them. This type of private agency placement does relieve some of the CWS caseworkers’ responsibilities, such as the monthly visits. Foster parents receive 12 hours of training annually through College of the Redwoods. However, insufficient numbers of foster parents are prepared to deal with children with extreme behaviors. Standard foster care homes may accept no more than six children; those designated as therapeutic foster care ( TFC) homes are limited to a maximum of two children with extreme physical and emotional problems. Reductions in the number of children with TFC designations, which have higher than standard reimbursement rates, are being made without consultation with foster parents. Testimony indicated this is an attempt by CWS to save money. A Family Intervention Team ( FIT) now makes decisions regarding placement of the most difficult cases without consulting the caseworker, the child, the family, or the foster parent. Witnesses testified that decisions are made with regard to money, not to the needs of TFC children. Foster parents are supposed to receive a Health and Education Passport when a foster child enters their home. This Passport is meant to convey relevant background information about the child, not only to help 35 the foster parents understand and work more effectively with the child, but to warn of potential problems. Foster parents do not always receive this Passport. Oftentimes when they do, its information is incomplete or out- of- date. When that happens, the foster parent is unable to prepare adequately for potential problems such as fire starting, sexual deviance, et cetera. Services Foster children need expert mental health services, not necessarily the cheapest. Children who are extremely disturbed, dysfunctional, or violent need specialized therapies and care. Instead, over the past three years, services to children and families have been severely cut. Even for the high- risk TFC child, the majority of mental health services are made available through the Children, Youth, and Family Services units of the Department of Mental Health. They are provided by a rotating contingent of interns. One Licensed Clinical Social Worker oversees about ten interns who work directly with children. Interns may see the child one hour per week, which may not be adequate for high- risk children. The child may see four to six interns over a two- year span. CWS will not or cannot pay professional private therapists who do not accept MediCal. Dental care is also a problem for foster children because too few dentists accept MediCal and, again, CWS avoids paying non- MediCal rates. It may take weeks for caseworkers to obtain supervisory approval for any services or expenditures. The Grand Jury received information that CWS does not always follow medical doctors’ opinions and recommendations; see attached results of the medical professionals’ survey. Even when services are court- ordered, CWS does not always provide funding for them. Sometimes CWS disregards a judge’s order rather than going back to court to request modification. Court Procedures Continuances often result from caseworkers being unprepared, absent, or untrained in court protocol. This slows the process to the point where a child and family may be held in limbo for months without resolution of their issues. Finally, there can be a lack of consistency in how families are dealt with from the pre- court stage through the court process. This apparently stems, at least in part, from the fact that CWS both investigates and files the case. 36 Medical Professionals Survey Results ( 13 respondents of 21 pediatricians surveyed)* Rate your professional relationship with: Poor Adequate Good Excellent CWS 3 5 1 Foster Parents - - 9 4 Rate CWS’ responsiveness to your: Professional Opinion 7 2 1 1 Recommendations 7 2 1 1 Children’s Needs 5 6 1 1 Foster Parents’ Needs 4 5 3 1 Have your diagnoses/ treatment plans been respected/ followed by: Yes No Sometimes CWS 2 1 5 Foster Parents 7 - 2 * Not all respondents answered every question. Summaries of Medical Community Comments: 1. CWS seems reluctant to open and carry cases, or they close them before it is safe. 2. CWS has a tendency to not adequately investigate or not take action when it appears to be warranted. 3. I have been appalled. 4. CWS sends children to live in homes without heat, or the same home as a convicted child molester, or back to parents who injured them, or allows visitations in jail for infants. 5. I have stopped thinking that CWS referrals would actually help children who need it. 6. Most referrals I made were not investigated or I received a note saying my accusations were not substantiated. 7. Numerous medical staff recommendations that newborn babies be removed from birth mothers due to danger to their infants have been ignored, often resulting in severe neglect, injury, or even death of infants by the very parent CWS was warned about. Based on the foregoing, the Grand Jury makes the following findings and recommendations: FINDING 1: The number of CWS supervisors has increased while the number of caseworkers has decreased in the past two years. Caseloads per caseworker have risen to nearly double state guidelines. RECOMMENDATION 1: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS take action now to reduce the current CWS caseworker caseloads, either by re- assigning supervisors or eliminating supervisor positions and hiring additional caseworkers. FINDING 2: Caseworker work time is not flexible enough for expected job performance. RECOMMENDATION 2: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS develop a plan for flexible hours for those CWS caseworkers who need to make home visits on nights and/ or weekends. 37 FINDING 3: Training is inconsistent, often not mandatory, and does not always prepare the workers to perform their duties. RECOMMENDATION 3: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS provide regular, mandatory training for all CWS caseworkers and supervisors. This should include case management, conflict resolution, and, for those employees who make court appearances, training in court protocol, case preparation, and presentation. FINDING 4: CWS caseworker morale is extremely low because of stress, poor communication with their upper- level supervisors, lack of decision- making authority, and exclusion from team decision- making. RECOMMENDATION 4: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS develop team building, open communication between caseworkers and upper- level management, and respect the opinions and recommendations of those who work directly with children and families. FINDING 5: Supervisors often make critical decisions affecting children and families without input from those who have first- hand knowledge, including the caseworker, children, parents, or foster parents. RECOMMENDATION 5: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS establish a policy that supervisors will make no critical decisions regarding a child’s future placement or services without first meeting with the caseworker, the child, and the parent/ foster parents, and making a careful review of all relevant information in the case file. FINDING 6: CWS policies, poor recruiting practices, and failure to maintain good relations with foster parents adversely affect the number of citizens willing to serve as foster parents. Because too few foster homes are currently available, children are often held in the emergency shelter too long while awaiting placement. RECOMMENDATION 6: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS partner with foster parent associations to implement an active recruitment campaign for new foster parents and appoint an independent arbitration panel to resolve conflicts which arise between foster parents and CWS. FINDING 7: Once in the system, children are moved frequently, have their wishes often ignored, and can be separated from their siblings. RECOMMENDATION 7: The Grand Jury recommends that, in order to avoid the court taking jurisdiction and the child going into the foster care system, CWS follow a strict practice of contacting relatives, including those who might be out of the area, who would be willing and able to care for children being removed from biological parent( s). This contact and placement should be completed within the first 15 days of involvement. FINDING 8: CWS decision- makers often override or ignore court orders rather than seeking modifications. RECOMMENDATION 8: The Grand Jury recommends that CWS return to court seeking a modification order if the original order cannot or should not be carried out. FINDING 9: Adequate funds are often not made available to caseworkers to manage immediate needs in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION 9: The Grand Jury recommends that CWS establish a more efficient process for approving funds for caseworkers to expend on the immediate needs of foster children. FINDING 10: Contrary to its mission statement, some CWS decisions appear to be based on dollars rather than the welfare of children. 38 RECOMMENDATION 10: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS re- allocate funds to better meet the physical, emotional, and social needs of the children in their care. FINDING 11: Biological parent visits and training during the family reunification and maintenance processes are ineffective in improving parental skills. RECOMMENDATION 11: The Grand Jury recommends that DHHS work closely with child development specialists to design and implement a new approach to parent- child visits and parental training. Grand Jury Report # 2004- JL- 01- 10 HUMBOLDT COUNTY’S JAILS AND HOLDING FACILITES Introduction California Penal Code Section 919( b) provides that the Grand Jury may inspect all jail and holding facilities within the County. The Grand Jury completed an inspection of all such facilities. This inspection involved visiting each facility and interviewing its personnel. WHO SHALL RESPOND: Pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, responses to the Findings and Recommendations of GRAND JURY REPORT # 2004- JL- 01 through JL- 05 shall be provided as follows: • No responses are required for Grand Jury Reports # 2004- JL- 01 through # 2004- JL- 05. Grand Jury Report # 2004- JL- 01 EUREKA POLICE DEPARTMENT The Eureka Police Department jail was inspected August 18, 2003. The holding cell area was clean and in good repair. All three holding cells are monitored by audio and the two interview rooms ha |
| PDI.Date | 2004 |
| PDI.Date.Issued | 2004 |
| PDI.Title | Final Report. 2003-2004. |
| OCLC number | 144550718 |
Tags
Add tags for The Grand Jury of Humboldt County final report
Comments
Post a Comment for The Grand Jury of Humboldt County final report
Your rating was saved.
you wish to report:
Your comment:
Your Name:
|
|
...