Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter from the Grand Jury Foreperson iii

Grand Jurors – 2001 – 2002 v

History

History of the Grand Jury 1

Reports and Investigations

Adult Protective Services

What is the Future of our Elder

and Dependent Adults? 10

Bureau of Family Support 18

Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental

Health Services 22

The Directed Brokerage Program of the

Sacramento County Employees’

Retirement System 28

Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment

Programs in Sacramento County 34

Elk Grove Unified School District Fails

Fiduciary Responsibilities 38

Encroaching Land Use Imperils Sacramento’s

Airport System 42

Folsom Sewage Spills Continue 52

Status of Volunteer Firefighters Serving as

Members of the Board of Directors of

The Wilton Fire Protection District 56

Transportation of Prisoners for Non- Emergency

Medical Care by California Department of

Corrections 60

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( CONTINUED)

Unequal Treatment of Sentenced Female Inmates

in Sacramento County 64

Ten- Year Index of Final Reports

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

iii

June 10, 2002

The Honorable Richard K. Park

Advisor Judge to the Grand Jury

Sacramento Superior Court

720 Ninth Street, Department 39

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Judge Park:

In compliance with Penal Code section 933, the Sacramento County Grand

Jury is pleased to submit to you its 2001- 2002 Final Report.

It has been my honor and privilege to serve as Foreperson of the Grand Jury.

This Final Report is the cumulative result of the nineteen member Grand Jury

working countless hours researching, investigating, interviewing and

deliberating over a number of issues.

On behalf of my colleagues, we are grateful for the sincere dedication of all

the public officials with whom we spoke. We were met with a high level of

cooperation and openness by the staff, directors, and public officials with

whom we came in contact. They were readily available, forthright in

providing information, and generous in contributing their time to inform jurors

about programs, policies and procedures.

Concerned members of the public brought many of the issues to our attention.

Others were initiated by the Jury as a result of our observations during tours of

various governmental facilities or from other sources. Although every

complaint submitted to the Grand Jury received our consideration, many did

not result in formal action, so much of the efforts of the Jury is not reflected in

this report.

The Jury wishes to express its sincere appreciation to you, Judge Park, for the

superior advice and support you provided as our Advisor Judge. We are also

indebted to the assistance and advice of County Counsel, and the Department

of Justice Attorney General’s Office.

Julie M. Fong, Foreperson

Robert R. Argo

Olivia D. Balcao

Rhea A. Brunner

Donald E. Bunn

Vicki E. Cody

Dave Cox

Merritt Davis

Aida Q. de la Vega

Barry T. Heilman

Eleanor C. Hoffman

A. Michael Koewler

Charles R. Lindholm

Marshall M. Mitche ll

James M. Moose, Jr.

Robert J. Storelli

Margaret Troffey

Cosme A. Valdez

Jimmie E. Ward

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

iv

Finally, special thanks go to Michelle Park, Executive Secretary for the Grand Jury, for her

invaluable knowledge, professionalism and her outstanding work on our behalf.

The members of the 2001- 2002 Grand Jury are honored to have served our community and hope

our efforts are a positive contribution towards better government.

Sincerely,

JULIE FONG, Foreperson

2001- 2002 Sacramento County Grand Jury

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

v

2001- 2002 SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRAND JURY

Robert R. Argo

Olivia D. Balcao

Rhea Brunner

Donald E. Bunn

Vicki Cody

Dave Cox

Merritt L. Davis

Aida Q. de la Vega

Julie M. Fong, Foreperson

Barry T. Heilman

Eleanor C. Hoffman

A. Michael Koewler

Charles R. Lindholm

Marshall M. Mitchell

James M. Moose, Jr.

Robert J. Storelli

Margaret Troffey

Cosme A. Valdez

Jimmie E. Ward

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

HISTORY

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

1

HISTORY OF THE

GRAND JURY

The grand jury is the means by which people who volunteer from every walk of

life work within the judicial system to ensure that the institutions of government are

responsive and fair to those who are governed. It also protects minority opinions or

unpopular causes from persecution or prosecution. The grand jury concept has a long

history and has adapted throughout the centuries to meet the needs and conditions of each

time period.

Grand juries perform two primary roles. One is to evaluate the validity of charges

being brought by a prosecutor, if the charges are not reviewed by a judge, to ensure that

they are not frivolous or ungrounded. The other is to inquire into, and investigate if

necessary, the operations of local government agencies and officials to ensure that

activities are valid and services are efficiently and legally provided. In both instances,

the secrecy of the grand jury’s deliberations is a common thread that ensures independent

and objective consideration of facts brought before it.

History of the Grand Jury: Before American Development

Some historians believe that the earliest versions of the grand jury existed in

Athens, where the Greeks used citizen groups to develop accusations. Others find traces

of the concept in all the Teutonic peoples, including early Anglo- Saxons. For example,

the concept was employed in the early Scandinavian countries. Evidence also exists that

the early French developed the “ King’s Audit” involving citizens who were sworn and

required to provide fiscal information related to the operation of the kingdom.

However, most commentators believe that the grand jury arose as an institution in

England. In the first millennium, English individuals prosecuted criminals, with the king

personally involved in the system. Under the Doom Law of Anglo- Saxon King

Aethelred ( 980- 1016), a dozen landowners were appointed to investigate alleged crimes.

In 1166, King Henry II established a system of local informers ( twelve men from every

one hundred) to identify those who were “ suspected of” various crimes. If the suspects

survived their “ trials by ordeal”, they paid fines to the King. However, the “ informers”

were fined if they failed to indict any suspect, or even enough suspects. After 1188, they

became tax collectors as well, and after the reign of Henry III, they were charged with

looking into the condition and maintenance of public works.

The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, did not mention the grand jury

specifically, but did establish various procedures to ensure fairness in the dispensation of

justice. Thereafter, until the mid- 1300’ s, the 12- man juries served both to present

indictments and also to rule on the validity of charges. During Edward III’s reign, from

1312- 1377, the 12 individuals were replaced by 24 knights, called “ le grande inquest”,

and the 12 became a “ petit jury” responsible only for declaring innocent or guilty

verdicts.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

2

Ultimately, in the 1600’ s, the English grand jury developed as a process to

determine whether there was probable cause to believe that an accused individual was

guilty of a crime. Grand juries reached their English pinnacle of citizen protectors in

1681, when they refused to indict enemies of King Charles II for alleged crimes.

( Ironically, English laws establishing grand juries were repealed in 1933.)

History of the Grand Jury: Early American Development

The use of juries in earliest colonial history was limited. In the New Haven

colony, for example, religious beliefs resulted in the residents eliminating trial by jury

because there was no reference to juries in the laws of Moses. However, procedures

similar to grand juries were used to hear criminal charges of larceny ( Boston, 1644),

holding a disorderly meeting ( Plymouth, 1651), and witchcraft ( Pennsylvania, 1683).

In the early 1600’ s, colonial representatives of the English monarchs made laws

and prosecuted violators. The first grand juries recommended civil charges against those

crown agents, thus establishing themselves as representatives of the governed, similar to

grand juries today. The first grand juries also looked into government misconduct or

neglect. For exa mple, the first colonial grand jury, established in Massachusetts in 1635,

“ presented” town officials for neglecting to repair stocks, as well as considering cases of

murder, robbery and spousal abuse.

Other early grand juries performed a variety of administrative functions, including

audits of county funds ( New Jersey), inspections of public buildings ( Carolinas), and

review of taxes and public works ( Virginia). Virginia grand juries also investigated

whether each family planted two acres of corn per person.

In the Colonies, grand juries were considering criminal accusations and

investigating government officials and activities, but with a populist view. Grand jurors

included popular leaders such as Paul Revere and John Hancock’s brother. These grand

juries played a critical role in the pre- Revolutionary period: for example, three grand

juries refused to indict John Peter Zenger, whose newspaper criticized the royal

governor’s actions in New York ( he ultimately was prosecuted by the provincial attorney,

defended by Alexander Hamilton, and acquitted). Grand juries also denounced arbitrary

royal intrusions on citizens’ rights, refused to indict the leaders against the Stamp Act of

1765, and refused to bring libel charges against the editors of the Boston Gazette in 1766.

After the Revolutionary War ended, the new federal constitution did not include a

grand jury. Early American leaders such as John Hancock and James Madison objected.

Thereafter, the grand jury was included in the Bill of Rights, as part of the Fifth

Amendment, which states, “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise

infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases

arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia whe n in actual service in time of war

or public danger…”

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

3

From then, until today, the federal grand jury remains an integral part of the

justice system, used by federal prosecutors for a variety of potential crimes. In 1801, a

federal grand jury indicted Colonel Aaron Burr for treason. Most recently, federal grand

juries considered allegations related to the Oklahoma City and New York Trade Center

bombings, President Clinton’s conduct both before and during his term of office, and the

recent claims of wrong- doing by former California Insurance Commissioner Chuck

Quackenbush and some associates.

History of the Grand Jury: Adaptation by the States

As the various states were admitted to the Union and adopted their legal and

operating procedures, almost every one initially included some reliance on grand juries

for either ( or both) review of criminal indictments or inquiries into government activities.

Some states’ grand juries were very active in administrative affairs, even including

recommending new laws. Others carried out investigations of government officials; one

Tennessee grand jury indicted the entire state court of appeals and another opposed a

judge’s reappointment on the grounds of “ mental imbecility”.

Throughout this state- by- state development, the underlying concept remained the

same: ordinary citizens, neighbors, and others on grand juries were a necessary part of

government to ensure that public prosecutors were not swayed by personal or political

prejudices, and that government officials efficiently and effectively performed their jobs.

Since the mid- 1800’ s, grand juries have been criticized as ineffective or out- of-date

by a number of reformers because they were slow, lacked expertise, and on other

grounds. Others criticized the “ star chamber” atmosphere of secret hearings without

customary due process rights. However, these complaints were offset by effective grand

jury investigations, including those of the Boss Tweed ring in New York City ( 1871) and

racketeering charges brought by a grand jury assisted by Thomas Dewey in the 1930’ s.

Since the nineteenth century, various minor and major changes have been made in grand

jury selection, procedures, and qualifications, often resulting in fairer and more efficient

jury operations.

Today, all states except Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and the District of

Columbia, may use grand juries to indict and begin criminal trials. Twenty- three states

and the District of Columbia require that grand jury indictments be used for certain—

more serious— crimes. California and twenty- four other states make use of grand jury

indictments optional. All states and the District of Columbia use grand juries for

investigative purposes.

The Grand Jury’s Role in Criminal Prosecutions

Although the American grand jury originally was conceived as a protector of

ordinary citizens by other ordinary citizens, the fairness of its criminal operations has

been questioned by various commentators and judges. U. S. Supreme Court Justice

William Douglas stated, “ It is, indeed, common knowledge that the Grand Jury, having

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

4

been conceived as a bulwark between the citizen and the Government, is now a tool of

the Executive.” Some even have referred to it as a “ rubber stamp” for prosecutors.

In the criminal system, the California constitution and laws provide that felony

prosecutions are initiated only after a determination that there is “ probable cause” to

believe that specific individuals committed specific crimes. This is done either by an

“ information” presented for examination and approval by a judge, or by indictment after

a grand jury hearing and vote. In either case, the purpose of the objective review is to

prevent overzealous prosecutors from unjustified, groundless, or unfair prosecutions

when “ probable cause” does not exist.

The grand jury operates without providing many fundamental rights common in

court hearings and trials. For example, the defendant has neither the right to present

evidence to the grand jury or cross- examine the witnesses against him or her. Only the

prosecutor may present evidence, and the defendant has no right to counsel, even if

required to testify. Even judges generally are excluded, leaving the grand jurors to rely

on the prosecutor for all information. One early study indicated that 95% of all cases

brought to the grand jury resulted in indictments, raising questions about the value of this

review because the grand jury is not able to adequately evaluate the evidence presented

only by the district attorney.

The Grand Jury’s Role in Civil Investigations

The role of the grand jury in civil investigations presents an interesting twist: the

original ( English) grand juries served to aid the government in finding and prosecuting

private citizens’ misdeeds; now, these juries investigate and accuse public figures,

defending individual citizens’ rights and expectations. Grand juries, both federal and

state, may investigate criminal activity or non- criminal activities. In California, for

example, the grand jury can investigate any activity by a public official ( other than a

judge) which violates a state law, and many other activities, as long as they occur within

the county of the grand jury.

State grand juries— but not federal grand juries— can investigate any non- criminal

activity and report and make recommendations based on the results of the investigation.

These investigations commonly include reviewing the operation and condition of jails

and prisons, investigating the conduct of local public officials, and other similar matters

of public health, safety, and welfare. The results of these investigations may be criminal

charges, recommendations for new laws, or merely reports to the public identifying

problems but proposing no specific solutions.

California Grand Juries: An Overview

Grand Juries are impaneled in every county in California. Article I, § 23 of the California

Constitution states: “ a grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in

each county.” Depending on a county’s population, a specified number of citizens

ranging from 11 to 23 in each of California’s 58 counties are empowered to investigate

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

5

and report on various activities of county and city government. The rules governing the

makeup, organization, powers and duties of grand juries in California are found in the

California Penal Code § 888- 939. Recent changes in the Penal Code ( § 904.6, 1991)

permit any county to have an additional grand jury at the discretion of the presiding judge

of the superior court.

The statutes permit some variation in the manner and time of selection of jurors and

require only that the term of service be for one year and coincide with the County’s fiscal

year. Qualifications for grand jurors are outlined in Penal Code § 893. This section

requires the prospective grand juror be at least 18 years old, in possession of their natural

faculties and have sufficient knowledge of the English language. In Sacramento County,

each grand jury begins its term July 1 and ends its service June 30 of the following year.

Throughout the State, prospective grand jurors in each county are chosen through a

lengthy process that includes application, screening by the jury commissioner from

Department of Motor Vehicle Records and nomination of interested persons by Superior

Court Judges. A thorough background check is made on all interested persons and list of

qualified candidates is submitted to the judges for review and approval. Since some

members of the existing grand jury may be carried over for a second term, the number of

names drawn will equal those needed to provide a grand jury of 19 members. ( The law

allows for a grand jury of 23 in counties with greater than a four million population and

for 11 members in counties with less than 20,000 population. ( Penal Code § 888.2))

It has been the practice in many counties to advertise widely and to encourage many

people to apply for the grand jury. Because grand jury service requires the devotion and

commitment to spend 20 hours per week or more for only a token payment, it is desirable

for grand jurors to have an interest in community affairs and be open- minded with a true

concern for the views of others. Grand jurors also should posses some investigative skills

and be able to take good notes and write and type reports. A good knowledge of the

functions and responsibilities of city and county government is also helpful.

California Grand Juries: Investigation of Complaints and Accusations

The grand jury also is likely to receive a number of citizen complaints, many of which

involve operations of county or city agencies or special districts. Whether the complaint

is civil or criminal, rules of secrecy apply, and during the course of its investigation, the

grand jury may not divulge the subject or methods of inquiry. The subject of the

investigation and the methods of inquiry are only revealed when the final report is

published. Privileged or confidential material is not included in the grand jury reports.

Thus the names of those questioned and facts that might lead to the identity of a person

who provided information to the grand jury are not released.

§ 919( c) of the Penal Code requires the grand jury to inquire into the willful or corrupt

misconduct in office of public officers of every description within the county. Where

misconduct is found, the grand jury may file an accusation leading to a trial. If the official

is convicted, the person is thereby removed from office. Very few of these accusations

are filed. Frequently, if there is misconduct in office, it is of a criminal nature, and an

indictment rather than an accusation would be issued. It is also possible that an official

would resign rather than face an accusation.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

6

The grand jury may file an accusatory pleading against a corporation doing business in its

county of jurisdiction ( Penal Code § 892).

In a report published by the California Grand Jurors Association, misconduct in office

could include any of the following:

Nonfeasance:

( 1) The failure to act where duty requires an act; or

( 2) Neglect or refusal, without sufficient cause or excuse, to do that which is the

officer's legal duty to do, whether willfully or through malice; or

( 3) Willful neglect of duty.

Misfeasance:

( 1) The improper or doing of an act that a person might lawfully do; or

( 2) The performance of a duty or act that one ought to do or has a right to do, but in a

manner such as to infringe upon the rights of others.

Malfeasance:

( 1) The performance of an act that is positively unlawful or wrong; or

( 2) The performance of a wrongful act that the person has no legal right to do.

Duties of the Grand Jury: Government Watchdog

In California today, provisions of the Penal Code to require the grand jury:

( 1) Investigate and report on the accounts, records, operations, and functions of

district, city and county government and public officials ( Penal Code § 925 &

925a); It may also inquire into the affairs of joint powers agencies located in the

county.

( 2) Inquire into the condition and management of all correctional facilities within the

county ( Penal Code § 919( b)).

The grand jury may investigate or inquire into county matters of civil concern, such as

the needs of county officers, including the abolition or creation of offices and the

equipment for, or the method or system of performing the duties of the several offices.

Powers permitted to the grand jury include:

( 1) free access, at reasonable times, to public prisons;

( 2) the right to examine all public records within the county;

( 3) the right to examine books and records of ( a) any incorporated city, or joint

powers agency located in the county; ( b) certain redevelopment agencies and

housing authorities; ( c) special- purpose assessing or taxing districts wholly or

partly within the county; & ( d) non- profit corporations established by or operated

on behalf of a public entity;

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

7

( 4) the authority to investigate and report on operations and methods of performing

duties of any such city, county, or joint powers agency and to make

recommendations as deemed proper;

( 5) the ability, with permission of the Superior Court, to hire experts such as auditors

and accountants;

( 6) the right to inquire into the sale, transfer and ownership of lands which might or

should escheat to the state.

Note: The grand jury has no authority to investigate the courts or the acts or

omissions of any judge or judicial employee.

Duties of the Grand Jury: Criminal Indictments

The California Constitution permits criminal trial on the basis of indictment by a grand

jury or by information after the district attorney recommends prosecution and a judge

agrees that facts exist which warrant prosecution. In addition, under § 917 of the Penal

Code, " the grand jury may inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the

county, and present them to the court by indictment." In actual practice, grand juries

seldom initiate suc h inquiries; rather, such offenses are generally brought to the grand

jury by the district attorney, who asks for and generally receives an indictment, upon

presentation of adequate facts.

According to the California Grand jurors Association, the district attorney much more

frequently bypasses the grand jury and uses the process known as a preliminary hearing.

A 1954 survey of California district attorneys listed the following factors as influential in

the decision to seek a grand jury indictment rather tha n using the preliminary hearing: ( 1)

high public interest in the case; ( 2) the fact that a preliminary hearing would take more

time than a grand jury hearing; ( 3) the necessity for calling children or witnesses who

would be subject to cross- examination at a preliminary hearing; ( 4) the existence of a

weak or doubtful case which the district attorney wishes to test; ( 5) cases involving

malfeasance in office; and ( 6) the fact that witnesses are in a state prison.

A more recent study adds the following reasons for using the grand jury: ( 1) cases where

the defendant cannot be located and the time limit under the statute of limitations is about

to expire, ( 2) where the secrecy of the grand jury may allow defendants to be charged and

taken into custody before they can pose potential danger to a witness's safety or flee from

the jurisdiction, ( 3) the need to protect the identity of undercover agents, and ( 4) the

ability to test a witness before a jury.

From 1978 until 1990, grand juries were seldom used for indictments. A California

Supreme Court ruling required holding preliminary hearings even if grand jury

indictments were obtained. In 1990, a constitutional amendment made significant

alterations in California criminal law and court procedures, including a provis ion that

defendants were not entitled to preliminary hearings if indicted by a grand jury. As noted

above, recent statutes ( Penal Code § 904.6) give district attorneys the option of using

special grand juries chosen from the regular jury pool to handle criminal cases and thus

ensure indictment by those who represent a cross section of the community. Although the

law allows criminal indictments to be brought by a grand jury, in practice, the District

Attorney generally prefers to use the speedier preliminary hearing process.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

8

Grand Jury: Reports

State Law requires that each grand jury submit a final report of its findings and

recommendations to the presiding judge of the Superior Court. In addition to the

mandated reports on financial audits and the conditio n of adult and juvenile detention

facilities, recent Sacramento County grand jury reports have covered such topics as the

Department of Health and Human Services, criminal and juvenile justice agendas, other

municipalities and special districts.

A report, just as an accusation or an indictment, must be approved by at least 12 of the 19

grand jurors ( 15 if it is a 23 member jury). With so many possible investigations and a

term limited to a single year, it is necessary for each grand jury to make hard decisions as

to what it wishes to undertake during the term. Except for mandated duties to report on

the financial condition of the county and on the conditions of county jails, the grand jury

has great discretion in determining its agenda.

Most grand juries divide into committees for conducting investigations and for writing

reports, but there seems to be a wide variation between counties as to the number and

structure of committees; it is up to each grand jury to determine its own method of

operation within the parameters of the law.

Government agencies that are the subject of reports are required by law to respond to

specific grand jury findings and recommendations. However, the grand jury has no

enforcement power, and the agencies are under no legal obligation to carry out the

recommendations. While some recommendations are ignored, others are followed,

particularly those that suggest greater efficiency for operations and that do not require the

expenditure of large sums of money. Grand jury criticisms of public officials and

agencies frequently attract press attention, bringing greater community awareness of what

is happening in public agencies. Many grand jurors believe that public officials tend to be

more accountable when they know an impartial; outside body is looking over their

collective shoulders.

The California Grand Jurors Association ( CGJA) ( www. cgja. org), a statewide

organization of former grand jurors has begun a program of identifying and indexing

grand jury reports in each county with the hope of establishing a state archive of annual

reports. The State Library also maintains an archive of grand jury reports from all

counties. CGJA also monitors and occasionally proposes or endorses proposed laws to

conserve and improve the grand jury as an important institution of local government. It

offers services to those grand juries that may request advice and help in preparing

informational manuals and in providing orientation for incoming jurors. Some members

of the CGJA now provide orientation programs for those counties that request this

service.

While surrounded by secrecy before publication, grand jury reports become public

documents when signed by the grand jury foreman and approved by the grand jury’s

advisory judge. Copies are sent: to all targeted government agencies, to interested

officials, to public and private groups and individuals and to the press. At the end of the

year, bound or loose- leaf copies of all reports are placed in all public libraries.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

9

Copies of recent Sacramento County Grand Jury reports may be found on the Grand

Jury’s website. ( www. sacgrandjury. org) Individuals may request copies from:

Sacramento County Grand Jury

720 9th Street, Room 611

Sacramento, CA 95814

( 916) 874- 7559 ( voice mail)

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

REPORTS

AND

INVESTIGATIONS

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

10

Adult Protective Services

What Is the Future of Our Elder and

Dependent Adults?

Subject of Investigation

Delivery of Adult Protective Services in Sacramento County.

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury received a complaint that Adult Protective Services ( APS) lacked

coordination with local agencies.

Method of Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the Division Manager for Senior and Adult

Services, the Program Manage r for Adult Protective Services, a Sacramento County

Administrative Services officer, employees of local senior services agencies, a former

Sacramento County APS employee and a consultant to local counties. The members also

read the Report on the Sacramento Community System of Protection for Senior and

Dependent Adults, October 2001, issued by the Adult System of Protection Team. They

reviewed the Manual Letter No. APS- 01- 01, effective 10- 29- 01, Adult Protective

Services Program, pages 5- 6, 38 as well as the response letters, 1- 15- 02 and 4- 26- 02 from

the Division Manager for Senior and Adult Services. They also reviewed the letter to the

Grand Jury from the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS)

dated 5- 2- 01.

Background

Sacramento County Adult Protective Services, Division of Senior and Adult Services, is

the county agency responsible for carrying out the mandates in Section 15763.3( c) and

other sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code. This Section states in part that a

county shall provide case management services to elders and dependent adults who are

determined to be in need of adult protective services for the purpose of bringing about

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

11

changes in their lives and to provide a safety net to enable them to protect themselves in

the future. These services are intended for both the elderly and dependent adults ( 18- 64

years of age), and specifically include basic protections such as food, emergency shelters,

home protective care, and other services that may be of value on a case by case basis.

Statistics released by the Sacramento Community Services Planning Council indicate that

since 1990, in Sacramento County, the portion of the population ages 65 to 84 has

increased 18.4%, from 100,746 persons in 1990 to 119,283 persons in 2000. The portion

of the population age 85 and older has increased dramatically by 55.8%, from 9,534

persons in 1990 to 14,854 persons in 2000. This growth trend is dramatically continuing

locally and nationally.

From the late 1980s to the early 1990s the Adult Protective Services program in this

County suffered extreme budget cuts, that reduced the local services to a skeletal

structure. Prior to these budget cuts Adult Protective Services was a recognized leader in

its approach to the issue of elder and dependent adult abuse. Services remained at a

minimum until 1998 when Senate Bill 2199 addressing elder and dependent adult abuse

was enacted into law. This bill amended the State Welfare and Institutions Code by

expanding the definition of mandated reporters and included abandonment, isolation,

financial abuse, and neglect as reportable offenses.

In response to SB 2199, the Adult and Aging Commission's Oversight Committee

conducted a public forum, resulting in the formation of an Adult System of Protection

Team. This Team spent two years ( 1999- 2001) evaluating the current system and

identifying areas that needed improvement to guarantee seniors and dependent adults

adequate protection from neglect and abuse. The Team identified several themes needing

attention, including case management, direct service, and followup, and released a final

report in October 2001. One of the key recommendations in the report asked the county

Board of Supervisors to direct the Department of Health and Human Services to develop

a budget proposal to fund and establish a case management unit for FY 2002. APS

confirmed that case management services are currently not being provided nor is there a

plan to implement case management in FY 2002- 2003. Grand Jurors concur with the

frustration expressed by professionals interviewed during the investigation. Two years of

studying the problems with a strong confirmation that case management is necessary only

to be followed by yet another year of study rather than actual implementation of services

is a waste of resources.

Concurrent with the beginning of this study, Adult and Senior Services initiated a

Department of Health and Human Services/ District Attorney Elder Abuse Prevention

media campaign. According to the Adult and Senior Services Division, a significant

increase in referrals occurred as a result of the media campaign as well as the increase in

reporting requirements in SB 2199

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

12

Facts

The original complaint to the Grand Jury stated there was a lack of coordination between

APS and other agencies. However, during this investigation what became most evident

was the need for more enhanced services to reduce the number of cases being reopened.

According to interviews with the administration of Adult and Senior Services, APS stated

their interpretation of the language of new state regulations clearly provides that, " APS is

not intended to be a long- term, ongoing case management activity...." On the other hand

they expressed the need for case management services, and the reasons for not providing

them were lack of staff and funding. In fact, it was stated that, " any reassignment of

social work staff, to a case management unit, would make it impossible to make a timely

and effective response to incoming reports of abuse…"

The Grand Jury learned that APS placed a cap of 90 consecutive days of intervention

with a client, at which time the case is closed whether the case is stabilized or not.

Professionals interviewed agreed that to arbitrarily set a cap of 90 days often denies the

individuals the full opportunity for services that specifically address their situation. It

precludes reassessment and a management plan that can be modified when necessary.

Some cases may require far less than 90 days, and others may require up to 12 months to

stabilize. This conclusion, according to those interviewed, was deemed consistent with

the State's language not to be a long- term, ongoing case management program. Members

of the Grand Jury also found language that does provide for " time- limited" case

management within the scope of service.

However, in interviews, APS admitted, " it is typical that any client with complex or

resistive problems has his/ her case closed without the problem being significantly solved

and then re- opened due to subsequent crisis calls.” Statistics provided by APS showed

10,710 cases opened between January 1998 and January 2002 that represented only 7,245

clients, or 27.5% of the clients accounting for 50.1% of case openings. APS reported that

had these cases been effectively resolved through case management services, it would

have resulted in savings of approximately $ 2,700,000 over that four- year period.

Not included in these savings is the significant cost to the County of ancillary services for

the individuals who continually have repeat contact, with expenses incurred through

contact with law enforcement and medical emergencies, in addition to other services.

The statistics, provided to the members of the Grand Jury showing the highest risk cases

by type and number of abuses, indicate that some cases were re- opened up to 14 times

over a four- year period.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

13

Sacramento County Adult Protective Services had an allocation of $ 762,920 in FY

1998/ 1999. By FY 2001/ 2002, APS allocation had been increased to $ 2,413,626. ( See

Budget Table). During this time of an augmented budget, APS has increased staff and

their ability to handle emergency responses, but has not provided enhanced services such

as case management as directed by SB 2199, ( enacted in 1998).

Adult and Senior Services reports that " the APS allocation is dedicated strictly to the

APS Program. The CSBG ( County Services Block Grant) allocation includes funding for

Information and Referral, Out- of- Home Care Services for Adults, and optional programs

and activities performed in the above categories by Skilled Professional

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

14

Medical Personnel ( SPMP). However, at this time, the Department is using the CSBG

allocation to fund certain activities of the Public Guardian/ Conservator's Office.

It was learned through interviews with other community agencies that there are case

management programs for seniors to whom APS makes referrals when available and

appropriate. Grand Jurors also learned of possible additional funding sources APS might

pursue to fund case management services. One such program is MediCal Administrative

Activities ( MAA).

A second funding source is Targeted Case Management ( TCM) which became a covered

MediCal benefit effective January 1, 1995 under the Welfare and Institutions Code,

Section 14132.44. TCM consists of case management services to a specified target

population who need medical, social, educational and other services. TCM was designed

to include documented assessment, service plan development, linkage and consultation,

assistance in accessing service, crisis assistance planning and periodic review for adults

at risk for abuse, neglect, and possible institutionalization.

Adult Protective Services confirmed that it has not pursued Targeted Case Management

funding. It was stated that the Sacramento County Conservator's Office pursues

reimbursement through TCM on a small scale. APS also stated that TCM is only at a

50% reimbursement rate for services, and believes what is currently being done by APS

is more fiscally advantageous. A consultant who works with other counties verified that

TCM could have long- range savings.

It is the position of the County that TCM creates a burden on the social worker and the

DHHS Fiscal Department. Adult and Senior Services reports that an additional staff

person would be required to process the claims. However, the Grand Jury was informed

during interviews that there is a statewide consortium comprised of county fiscal persons,

and that Sacramento County already has a TCM coordinator position. APS could not

substantiate if this position is still active and what duties are involved.

Persons with expertise in TCM validated the additional reporting requirement by the

social worker because specific documentation is necessary to obtain reimbursement. The

documentation would require training and/ or specific software. There are a number of

public and private agencies located locally and nationally that use various forms of

software for this purpose. Persons with expertise in TCM indicate that the use of TCM

software actually minimizes the time a worker spends on documentation, and the

software also ensures reimbursement through this proper documentation.

The Grand Jury did not find that Sacramento County Adult Protective Services lacked

coordination with local agencies. The Grand Jury did determine that APS could expand

on its coordination more effectively. To the credit of Sacramento County Adult and

Senior Services, it had established a multidisciplinary team ( MDT) long before it was

mandated in Senate Bill 2199. This was in effect during the years before the major

budget cuts. APS continued to support and maintain the need for a forum to present

difficult cases and coordinate with other agencies, even when staffing, money, and

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

15

options were very limited. It has assisted in reaching positive resolution for many of

these cases. APS continues to chair this type of forum and has enjoyed increased

participation from a number of community agencies. Currently, Sacramento County's

MDT meets one time per month for 2 hours.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding # 1. During FY 2000/ 2001, with an augmented budget, APS increased its staff

and its ability for emergency response, but has not provided enhanced services such as

case management as required by SB 2199. APS concurs that there is a need for case

management, but attributes its absence to lack of staff and funding.

Recommendation # 1. Sacramento County APS should immediately implement a pilot

program of case management for the identified highest risk cases. APS should

implement case management as specified in SB 2199 and the two- year study.

Finding # 2. APS administrators were unable to provide members of the Grand Jury with

documentation requiring the 90 day cap, and it is unclear whether this is imposed by state

regulations or self- imposed by the County.

Recommendation # 2. Adult Protective Services needs to remove the 90- day cap on the

amount of time a case can remain open.

Finding # 3. Adult Protective Services has not pursued Targeted Case Management

funding. Although TCM provides money at a 50% reimbursement, it is additional

funding separate from their current revenue source.

Recommendation # 3.

a. Adult Protective Services should explore the possibility of additional funding

through Targeted Case Management or MediC al Administrative Assistance.

b. If APS no longer maintains an MAA/ TCM Coordinator, then it would be

advisable for APS to hire a consultant to determine if they qualify for a

coordinator and how best to increase reimbursement for services.

c. APS should consider the purchase of appropriate software to assist in proper

documentation.

Finding # 4. There appears to be a philosophy within APS of using crisis intervention

and quick closure as the primary remedy. If the cases opened from January 1998 through

January 2002, as noted, had been effectively resolved through case management, they

would have resulted in savings of approximately $ 2,700,000 over that four- year period.

The savings would be greater if the impact to other systems, such as emergency rooms,

law enforcement, etc. were considered.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

16

Recommendation # 4. Adult Protective Services should reconfigure its system of

triaging/ prioritizing cases after the initial response in order to better determine the need

for type and length of continued services to reduce re- opening of cases.

Finding # 5. APS workers and staff of other agencies regularly consult on individual

cases for multi- problem individuals which can become time intensive. Sacramento

County's Multidisciplinary Team ( MDT) with its composition of numerous community

agencies, meets one time per month for two hours. Given the number of cases that are

processed through APS, the use of the MDT only once a month is not adequate. The

Grand Jury determined that Adult Protective Services could expand on its coordination

with community agencies, and it could utilize this collaboration and coordination more

effectively through an expanded use of the MDT.

Recommendation # 5.

a. The MDT should meet on a weekly basis to alleviate the burden/ workload of each

individual agency involved in each case by allowing presentation and follow up in

less than 30 days as needed.

b. APS needs to develop continued and expanded collaboration with social service,

health, and criminal justice agencies in order to link clients with necessary services

and supports to more effectively create stability. Beyond the scope of referral, APS

should collaborate on the cases and follow up on the success of the referral.

Response Required

Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and

recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of

the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:

·   Director, Department of Health & Human Services

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

17

- blank page -

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

18

Bureau of Family Support

Subject of Investigation

The operations of the Sacramento County Bureau of Family Support.

Reason for Investigation

The Bureau of Family Support has a well- publicized history of being overwhelmed by its

workload. The Grand Jury opened an investigation to determine if there were any

opportunities to improve its efficiency.

Method of Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury conducted interviews with staff of the Bureau of Family

Support and examined written materials provided by the Bureau.

Background

The Bureau of Family Support provides child support enforcement and collection

services for custodial parents ( its clients), and attempts to obtain reimbursement from

non- custodial parents for funds expended by the County. Historically, it has functioned

as a part of the Office of the District Attorney, but on July 1, 2002 it will become a

separate county department. Recent legislation has established the California Department

of Child Support Services and a plan for a state- directed, locally delivered, child support

program to be uniformly administered in all 58 counties.

The Bureau of Family Support provides services to its clients in an environment of

urgency and anxiety. It has done so for several years while maintaining a high caseload

per worker and periods of understaffing. Disagreements frequently arise between the

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

19

Bureau and its clients as to level of service and the appropriateness of priorities. As a

result, clients are frustrated and bureau staff is stressed. So far as the public is concerned,

these conflicting views, to which client advocacy groups contribute, tend to mask true

conditions in the Bureau.

Facts

The Bureau has in the past been overwhelmed by its workload. This has largely been the

result of processes and procedures that relied on “ hardcopy” files, notorious for

generating frustrations and delays when they are “ out” or are misplaced or lost. The

labor intensive nature of maintaining records in this format, and the sheer physical

limitations which it imposes, created a situation in 1994- 1995 which forced the Bureau to

employ temporary workers to do location searches on non- custodial parents, case

evaluations, and case closures as required by federal funding mandates. The Bureau also

relied on a state- approved and funded computer project that ended up having to be

abandoned.

Personnel turnover has exceeded 20%, in part because of the movement of some

employees to the new California Department of Child Support Services. The current

vacancy rate is over 10% of all full time equivalent staff positions, and the understaffing

is critical because it exists in entry- level positions where client contacts and services

occur. Apart from stress on staff and clients, this understaffing inhibits the Bureau’s

ability to locate and recover funds.

In the last several years there have been a number of improvements in processes and

procedures, that have partially offset the Bureau’s continuous understaffing. Despite

these improvements the Bureau had to reduce the time a case can remain open from three

years to two. This is due in part to the need to maintain statistics within approved federal

guidelines. Because of these guidelines, there is no procedure for maintaining cases in a

semi- inactive status. As a result, semi- annual or quarterly asset location checks are not

done.

The Grand Jury learned the Probate Department of the Sacramento Superior Court has no

process or procedure requiring the entry into an electronic database of the personal

identification of individuals who are to obtain funds from probated estates. Such a

requirement would enable the Bureau to locate non- custodial parents and their assets.

Currently, the Bureau must rely on tips from custodial parents to learn of pending

disbursements from probated estates.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

20

Findings and Recommendations

Finding # 1. The public and clients do not appear to understand the scope of client

services offered by the Bureau of Family Support. This causes stress to bureau staff and

inhibits good relations between the Bureau, its clients, and client advocacy groups.

Recommendation # 1. The Board of Supervisors should publish an annual audit of the

Bureau of Family Support. At a minimum, the findings should include scope of service,

waiting periods, unfilled positions, progress in collections, and cases opened and closed.

Finding # 2. The 10% vacancy rate of all full time equivalent staff positions in the

Bureau of Family Support has a substantial negative impact on the Bureau’s operating

objectives, and creates an environment in which staff feels overwhelmed and clients feel

frustrated and unhappy.

Recommendation # 2. The Board of Supervisors should provide for urgent or emergency

funding of staff positions whenever the Bureau’s vacancy rate is over 10% of all full time

equivalent staff positions.

Finding # 3. Closing cases for an inability to locate non- custodial parents after two years

does not allow the fullest opportunity to locate highly mobile absent parents.

Recommendation # 3. The Bureau should negotiate with the California Department of

Child Support Services and other county child support agencies to create a common

category of semi- inactive cases to be kept open for at least three years for location

purposes.

Finding # 4. The availability of a database containing the names and Social Security

numbers of persons to whom probate distributions are made would aid the Bureau in

locating non- custodial parents to collect child support and other obligations.

Recommendation # 4. The Bureau should seek a change in the rules of the Probate

Department of the Sacramento Superior Court to establish such a database. In addition,

the Bureau should undertake an initiative with the California Department of Child

Support Services, other county child support agencies, and revenue agencies, to obtain

legislation requiring the establishment of such databases by probate departments

statewide.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

21

Responses Required

Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and

recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of

the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002, from:

·   Sacramento County Board of Supervisors: Findings and Recommendations

# 1 and 2

·   Director, Bureau of Family Support: Findings and Recommendations # 3

and 4

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

22

Changes Needed in Juvenile Mental

Health Services

Subject of Investigation

Mental health services for juveniles processed through the Sacramento County Juvenile

Justice System, with emphasis on Juvenile Hall.

Reason for Investigation

A distinct double standard appears to the Grand Jury to exist when we compare the

treatment of health problems with visible symptoms to mental health problems with no

outwardly visible symptoms. An example of this would be the public outcry that would

result from a high school coach forcing a student with a broken leg to run in a 100- yard

sprint and the equally unreasonable expectation of a student with untreated mental health

problems to “ be normal”.

The Grand Jury for 2000- 2001 published a report addressing the status of mental health

services in the county juvenile justice system. Within that report there were a number of

findings and recommendations. In follow- up to the previous report, the 2001- 2002 Grand

Jury investigated current conditions in the Sacramento County Juvenile Justice System.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury toured Juvenile Hall, the Warren E. Thornton Youth Center ( WETYC),

Boys Ranch and the Sandra Larsen Facility. Members of the Grand Jury also interviewed

Mental Health employees, the Mental Health Program Manager at Juvenile Hall, the

Deputy Chief of Probation and Probation Department personnel at Juvenile Hall. The

Grand Jury also reviewed the responses to the previous reports and looked for evidence

of their implementation.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

23

Background

As evidenced by previous Grand Jury reports, there is an increasing concern, not only

locally but nationally, for the growing number of juveniles with serious mental health

issues who are housed in detention instead of mental health facilities. The juvenile

justice system continues to be inadequately equipped to serve the mental health needs of

the juvenile population. The system continues to focus on custody rather than treatment.

The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury’s report, Mental Health Services in the County Juvenile

Justice System, cited a number of previous reports on these issues.

The 1999- 2000 Jury estimated 22% of juveniles in detention were suffering some form of

mental illness. In the 2000- 2001 report the estimation of those needing treatment had

grown to 25%.

Currently, approximately one of every three juveniles in the juvenile justice facilities

displays psychiatric problems. A report by the Criminal Justice Research Foundation

states, “ Youth Profile data developed has revealed that a significant number of youth in

our system are in need of expanded and specialized mental health services. For the past

36 months, about 29.2% of the custody population or approximately 132 juveniles

residing in Juvenile Hall, WETYC, and the Boys Ranch need mental health services.

System- wide, on an average daily basis, about 78 youth in detention are receiving

psychotropic medications.” Limited housing is available for those with psychiatric and

other special needs and therefore a large percentage of these youth remain housed in the

general population where the probability of behavior problems is greatly increased.

Lack of psychiatric facilities is a system wide problem. There is a lack of facilities to

adequately serve the number of individuals that need hospitalization. Such facilities need

to include acute and sub- acute care and be able to provide short- term diagnosis and

stabilization as well as longer- term care.

If adequate mental health services in the County were available; the county mental health

system could be more proactive in treating youth before their behavior results in entry

into the criminal justice system. More appropriate treatment after entry into the juvenile

justice system would also allow mentally ill youth to be stabilized for outpatient care or

increase their possibility for placement. Having juveniles receive treatment within an

appropriate mental health facility could assist in alleviating the impacted housing

problem that currently exists at Juvenile Hall. Many of the criminal behaviors exhibited

by juveniles are due in large part to their psychiatric issues. These issues end up causing

contact with the juvenile justice system. If left untreated, these behaviors will ultimately

lead to contact with the adult criminal justice system and an added and unnecessary

burden to taxpayers. Proper treatment in a mental health facility while still a juvenile

offers a possibility of avoiding this situation.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

24

Facts

Catholic Healthcare West ( CHW) provides mental health services within Juvenile Hall.

The Mental Health Division ( MHD) under the Department of Health and Human Services

( DHHS) of Sacramento County has recently taken over the monitoring of Catholic

Healthcare West. Although there has been little time to assess the impact this change will

have on services, it does provide direct oversight.

The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury’s Final Report recommended that MediCal funds be accessed

for the post- adjudicated juveniles. CHW has initiated a new program that can utilize the

MediCal funding that is available for post- adjudicated juveniles. MHD and CHW have

taken a positive step by initiating a field visit model in order to provide mental health

service for juveniles while awaiting placement. They are able to obtain MediCal

reimbursement for these services.

CHW clinicians from their outpatient clinics are making contact with the juveniles while

still in Juvenile Hall. This provides the opportunity to begin counseling and establishing

a relationship. When the juvenile is placed within the Sacramento area, that clinician can

follow the juvenile to provide continuing services. It is hoped the juvenile will live

within the area served by the CHW clinics. If not, at least the clinician has been able to

get to know the child, his/ her needs, and a treatment plan that may be shared with the

youth’s new clinician.

Juvenile Hall currently houses approximately 300 juveniles on a daily basis. On a single

day in April 2002, during a repeat visit by the Grand Jury, the population was 358. This

placed the facility well above the Board of Corrections' rated capacity of 261 beds and in

a condition that can only be considered as overcrowded. The Grand Jury learned this

overcrowded situation continues on a regular basis and that the State Board of

Corrections has granted a temporary increase in detention capacity.

Statistics obtained by the Grand Jury show that there could be approximately 40- 60

juveniles awaiting placement on any given day. It became apparent to the Grand Jury

that a lack of appropriate resources for placement creates a backlog within Juvenile Hall.

Many of these juveniles are difficult to place due to a variety of needs including mental

health needs and behavior problems. The Grand Jury also learned that many juveniles

are placed out of the county and sometimes out of state in order to provide adequate

treatment.

Currently only one psychiatrist serves all of the sites for the juvenile justice system and

this is at a 0.8 capacity rather than full time. This staffing level remains unchanged from

previous Grand Jury findings. According to those interviewed, there continues to be a

shortage of available child psychiatrists. The compensation and stressful working

environment make it more difficult to recruit both psychiatrists and other clinical staff to

meet the needs of youth in the juvenile justice system.

Space for mental health clinical staff to perform their duties at Juvenile Hall is limited.

This results in an environment that is not conducive to the delivery of mental health

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

25

services and counseling. The Probation Department and CHW staff confirmed that the

planned new building expansion at Juvenile Hall will provide CHW staff more

accessibility to juveniles with mental health issues. The Probation Department staff,

however, indicated that they are unable to designate psychiatric housing because of

mandated regulations and their belief that Juvenile Hall is a detention facility, not a

treatment facility.

Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations provides the Minimum Standards for

Juvenile Facilities. Although Juvenile Hall is a detent ion facility, Title 15, Section 1356

provides that a facility shall develop written policies and procedures ensuring the

availability of appropriate counseling and casework services for all minors. Section 1437

further specifies that the facility shall establish policies and procedures to provide mental

health services. Some of the services indicated include screening, crisis intervention,

stabilization and prevention of deterioration, and medication support. It also states that a

minor whose needs exceed the capability of the facility shall be referred and transported

for admission to a licensed mental health facility.

A limited number of beds are available in Sacramento County at Sutter, Sierra Vista, and

Heritage Oaks Hospitals for youth requiring psychiatric hospitalization. However,

Sacramento County frequently sends juveniles to San Francisco, Vallejo, and Modesto in

order to house them within a psychiatric facility. Some youths are also sent as far as

Metro Hospital in Los Angeles. This movement and housing incurs a greater cost to the

county for their care. This is not unique to this county, but should not deter Sacramento

County from pursuing a local juvenile psychiatric facility.

The Minor Emergency Response Team ( MERT) sees approximately 160 juve niles

requiring crisis intervention or authorization for inpatient care per month. This team is

housed directly adjacent to the adult crisis unit at Sacramento County Mental Health

Treatment Center. This facility used by the Minor Emergency Response Team is not

adequate to handle the number of juveniles requiring crisis services. By regulation,

MERT staff is only allowed to hold a youth for 23 hours.

In its 2000- 2001 report, the Grand Jury recommended the County provide a “ 25- bed free

standing, secure facility for juveniles whose mental conditions require acute and sub

acute levels of care.” In their response to the report, county officials stated, “ the Criminal

Justice Cabinet has contracted for a feasibility study that will evaluate the needs,

including the number of beds, the various funding sources, the costs, and the feasibility of

building such a facility.” The results of this study have not been made public.

The Grand Jury learned from information provided by the Mental Health Division for

FY 2001- 2002 that:

·   22.5 Clinicians, 6.5 Administrative Staff, and 2.0 Child Psychiatrists for all three

facilities are allocated. Within the allocations there are 3.0 vacant clinician

positions at the Sandra Larsen Youth Facility, 1.2 vacant psychiatrist positions,

and 2.0 vacant clinician positions at Juvenile Hall.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

26

·   Because of cost increases, DHHS/ MHD is requesting additional funding authority

from the Board of Supervisors, through the 380 ( Final Budget) Process, to fund

the additional positions present in the FY 2001- 2002 agreement. This will

include 2.6 Clinicians and 1.13 Child Psychiatrists. Subsequent to the approval of

additional funding, positions will be added by agreement through an amendment.

·   In the FY 2002- 2003 agreement, the Behavior Improvement Program ( BIP) will

not be funded. BIP will be funded through a separate contract between Probation

and Catholic Healthcare West ( CHW). The staffing for the FY 2002- 2003

agreement between DHHS/ MHD and CHW, assuming no increase in funding is:

15.9 Clinicians, 6.0 administrative Staff, and 0.87 Child Psychiatrist.

It is evident to the Grand Jury that, while allowing for the transfer of the Behavior

Improvement Program to a contract overseen by Probation with CHW, the statistics still

show a decrease of 2.6 Clinicians and 1.13 Child Psychiatrists for FY 2002- 2003.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding # 1. Approximately 160 juveniles per month need crisis intervention.

Additionally, 132 juvenile wards need daily mental health services. Limited facilities are

available to house youths with mental health and psychiatric needs in the juvenile justice

system of Sacramento County. This inability frequently requires sending juveniles out of

the area to San Francisco, Vallejo, Modesto and Los Angeles in order to house them

within a psychiatric facility at significant additional cost to the county.

Recommendation # 1. The 2000- 2001 Grand Jury recommended Sacramento County

build a 25- bed free standing` secure facility for juveniles. In its response DHHS indicated

they had initiated a feasibility study for such a facility. This Grand Jury reaffirms that

recommendation. Further, Sacramento County should now move forward and build such

a facility.

Finding # 2. There are currently vacant staff positions and an urgent need for additional

mental health positions within the juvenile justice facilities of Sacramento County that

should be immediately filled.

In spite of a demonstrated and urgent need for mental health staff, Sacramento County

proposes to decrease the number of mental health positions for FY 2002/ 03.

Recommendation # 2. The Board of Supervisors, DHHS, and the Mental Health

Division should find the financial means to hire additional staff willing to work in a

detention facility. This may require a restructuring of the pay scale or offering other

incentives in order to recruit additional qualified staff.

Finding # 3. Clinical staff is forced to work in limited space within the existing juvenile

justice facilities. This environment is not conducive to mental health counseling and

treatment.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

27

Recommendation # 3. Sacramento County needs to provide adequate and sufficient

space in the juvenile centers for clinicians to provide mental health services.

Response Required

Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and

recommendations contained in this Report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of

the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002, from:

·   Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

·   Chief Probation Officer, Sacramento County Probation Department

·   Director, Department of Health and Human Services

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

28

The Directed Brokerage Program of the

Sacramento County Employees’

Retirement System

Subject of Investigation

The directed brokerage program of the Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement

System ( SCERS).

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury initiated an investigation to determine whether the Sacramento County

Employees’ Retirement System has a directed brokerage program in place and, if so, is it

being managed in as efficient a manner as possible.

Method of Investigation

Information concerning the directed brokerage program, and the policies and procedures

under which it operates, was obtained from SCERS. Additional information was

obtained from brokers.

Background

SCERS is a public employees retirement system managed and administered in

accordance with provisions of the County Employees’ Retirement Law of 1937

( California Government Code Section 31450, et seq.). The purpose is to provide

retirement, disability and/ or survivor benefits to eligible members and their beneficiaries.

As of December 31, 2001 SCERS had assets of $ 3.369 billion held in trust for pension

benefit obligations.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

29

The Board of Retirement has chosen to employ external investment managers to invest

the fund’s assets. As of December 31, 2001 there are seventeen investment managers

investing eighteen portfolios. SCERS also has investments in five commingled real

estate funds. To assist the Board in carrying out its responsibilities, SCERS hires

professional investment consultants and legal counsel who, along with investment and

accounting staff, closely monitor the activity of the managers and assist the Board in

developing and implementing investment policy.

SCERS has a widely diversified portfolio designed to reduce risk and achieve a return of

greater than 8% over a period of five or more years. This objective is being achieved and

the fund is meeting its performance objective.

“ Directed brokerage” exists when a pension plan directs its investment managers to

execute a portion of their trades through a selected brokerage firm or list of brokers with

whom the plan has a directed brokerage agreement. A broker who is willing to

participate in a directed brokerage program allows the pension plan to recapture a portion

of the commissions directed to it by the plan’s money managers in exchange for an

assured order flow of business.

By participating in a directed brokerage program, a plan can either recapture a portion of

commissions as cash to the plan or defray research expenses that it would otherwise pay

out of its operating budget. In all cases, trades and transactions must be made so as to

obtain the best execution for the plan. Since the major transaction cost is not the

commission but other implicit risks in market movement, liquidity, etc., directed

brokerage and commission recapture are very minor components in the decision to

purchase or sell securities.

The main objective of a properly run directed brokerage program is to make the process

transparent and complementary to the money manager trading style and profile, as well as

avoid problems or conflicts in execution of a trade. Since most retirement plans do not

have portfolios of sufficient size to require a dedicated staff person, a number of firms

provide administration and implementation of directed brokerage programs. These firms

relieve the plan of the need to enter into multiple broker agreements. By using

" corresponding brokers," a plan can provide its money managers with enough broker

choice and flexibility to make the program effective.

The main means of determining whether a directed brokerage program is effective is to

review and evaluate the percentage of yearly commissions that a plan requires its

managers to direct, and the conversion ratio that the plan is able to negotiate with

brokers.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

30

Facts

In 1996 SCERS adopted a policy that directed its investment managers to negotiate for a

commission of three cents a share or less, as long as the manager can obtain “ best

execution.” Based on the information provided to the Board by its Chief Investment

Officer and its investment consultant, the Board of Retirement decided not to direct

managers to use discount brokers or directed brokerage.

At the time of adoption of the 1996 policy, SCERS’ Chief Investment Officer estimated

that the policy adopted could save approximately $ 150,000 annually. Reports received

by the Grand Jury indicate that commission costs have varied from 2.6 cents to 3.4 cents

per share for all managers.

In early 2001, after a review of trade costs and a report from SCERS’ investment

consultant on directed commissions and commission recapture, the Board initiated a

commission recapture program to lower trade costs further than its 1996 policy. The

Board considered and agreed to accept a proposal from State Street Bank to administer a

commission recapture program through its network of recapture brokers. State Street

Bank estimated that SCERS would earn approximately $ 250,000 annually from

commission recapture, given their trade volume.

After SCERS investment managers were contacted for an evaluation of their trade

volume through brokers in the State Street Bank network, a goal was set for each

manager for the first year. The overall objective was for domestic equity managers to

direct 25% of their trades, and for international equity managers to direct 20% of their

trades. SCERS is currently evaluating the first year of the program to determine its

effectiveness.

SCERS accepted a Letter of Understanding with State Street Bank dated February 27,

2001 establishing the Bank as the sole source to provide the administration of its directed

brokerage program and to be its correspondent broker. Further, State Street Bank is

SCERS’ Custodian Bank. SCERS initiated its program after State Street Bank offered to

lower its custody fees by $ 5,000, an estimated 50% a month, if State Street Bank was

selected to administer the program. SCERS began its directed brokerage program in

March 2001.

SCERS has been receiving commissions recaptured at a conversion of 1.428: 1 ( 70%) on

U. S. equities and 2: 1 ( 50%) on international equities. The directed commission target

( the percentage of total annual commissions to be “ directed”) for U. S. commissions is

30%, and the target for international commissio ns is 20%. In ten months of operation in

2001, SCERS had directed brokerage commissions of $ 203,000 in domestic equities and

$ 36,000 in international equities.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

31

Directed brokerage is not a new or emerging part of the securities industry. Other public

retirement systems have had programs in place since the early 1990s. The average

amount of commissions recaptured by SCERS in ten months of operation in 2001

amounted to approximately $ 287,000 per year. In addition to the recaptured

commissions, SCERS is saving $ 60,000 a year in reduced custody fees by participating in

a directed brokerage plan run by its Custodian Bank.

During initial discussions, the Grand Jury learned from SCERS the commission recapture

percentage for international equities was 50%. The industry averages provided by a

survey of directed brokers ranged between 60 and 62.5%. SCERS has subsequently

negotiated an increase in the commission recapture percentage from 50 to 60%, an

increase to the plan of 20%.

Findings

The manager target of 20% is low for directed trades of international securities compared

to conservative targets of other plans. A target of 30% is acceptable to money managers,

but it would be appropriate to raise the target by at least 5%.

It would be appropriate for SCERS to receive monthly money manager reports of

commissions independent of reports supplied by State Street Bank. Without independent

reports, it is difficult to audit the actual commissions and to reconcile variances that

continually occur between manager and brokers. This is especially true for international

trades.

The fact that State Street Bank sought a directed brokerage arrangement with SCERS

instead of SCERS proactively seeking to establish a directed brokerage program on its

own initiative, indicates a breakdown in the yearly review process. The arrangement

between SCERS and State Street Bank has resulted in savings of approximately $ 310,000

a year. Had a directed brokerage arrangement been in place from 1997, upon a one year

review from the 1996 Board decision, the savings to SCERS would have amounted to an

estimated $ 1,500,000.

It appears that SCERS’ lack of annual review of best practices in the industry resulted in

their not taking advantage of discounted commissions and directed brokerage. Directed

brokerage arrangements have the ability to reduce net commission costs to the lowest

level of discounted commission.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

32

Findings and Recommendations

Finding # 1. The commission recapture rate for the SCERS directed brokerage program

should be evaluated annually.

Recommendation # 1. The Board of Retirement should adopt a policy requiring SCERS

to review annually the commission recapture percentage for securities, ensuring that the

plan maintains best practices in the industry.

Finding # 2. Although intended as a trial target during the first year of the directed

brokerage program, a 20% international target for money managers of the SCERS

directed brokerage program is substantially less than that acceptable to money managers.

Recommendation # 2. SCERS should readjust the international target for money

managers upward to 30% if possible, but to not less than 25%.

Finding # 3. It does not appear that SCERS is receiving monthly money manager reports

of commissions independently of reports supplied by State Street Bank.

Recommendation # 3. In order to maintain a proper audit trail and enable the

reconciliation of variances, SCERS should direct its money managers to supply monthly

reports of all commissions generated in a portfolio that identifies directed commissions.

Finding # 4. SCERS Board and management have not made regular reviews of directed

brokerage issues or surveyed best practices in the industry. This has resulted in SCERS

not achieving the significant savings available through a directed brokerage arrangement.

Recommendation # 4. The Board of Retirement should direct its Chief Investment

Officer to begin a practice of periodic attendance at directed brokerage conferences and

seminars, and follow up such attendance with in- service workshops for the Board and

SCERS management.

Response Required

Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and

recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of

the Sacramento Superior Court by Septembe r 30, 2002, from:

·   Board of Retirement, Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

33

- blank page -

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

34

Domestic Violence Batterer Treatment

Programs in Sacramento County

Subject of Investigation

Court- ordered batterer treatment programs for domestic violence offenders, certified by

the Sacramento County Probation Department.

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury received two complaints regarding batterer treatment programs. The first

complaint alleged that the Probation Department is allowing a particular batterer

treatment program to operate under different standards than those required of all other

such programs in the County. The second complaint alleged that the Domestic Violence

Unit of the Public Defender’s office is directing clients to avoid certain programs which

are officially certified by the Probation Department.

Method of Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury interviewed key personnel in the County Probation

Department, the District Attorney’s office, the Public Defender’s office, program

providers, and several participants in batterer treatment programs. The Grand Jury also

reviewed the authorizing legislation for court- ordered batterer treatment programs,

Batterer Treatment Provider Standards implemented by the County Probation

Department, the Certification and Renewal checklist used by the Sacramento County

Probation Department, and other documents relating to batterer treatment programs.

Grand Jurors also made unannounced visits to several certified programs and, with

permission of the participants, attended a two- hour class at each site.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

35

Background

California Penal Code Section 1203.097 provides that persons convicted of domestic

violence crimes and sentenced to formal probation are required to participate in a fifty-two

week batterer treatment program. Section 1203.097 establishes specific requirements

for training, staff, the number and duration of sessions per week, and absence and

payment policies. Successful completion of the fifty- two week program and payment of

fees are conditions of probation. Failure to complete the program is a violation of

probation and results in the issuance of an arrest warrant.

The goal of batterer treatment programs, as stated in Section 1203.097, “ shall be to stop

domestic violence,” and county probation departments are given “ sole authority to

approve the issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of approval and to cease new

enrollments or referrals to a Batterer’s program . . . ”

In response to this mandate, the Sacramento County Probation Department established

Batterer Treatment Provider Standards for these programs. The Provider Standards also

include a fee schedule set by the Superior Court, based on ability to pay, which all

certified programs are required to use. The sliding scale ranges from $ 0 up to $ 45 per

class, and fees may change over the fifty- two weeks of the program as the income levels

of participants fluctuate.

Once a defendant is convicted of a domestic violence crime and placed on formal

probation, he or she is required to report to the Probation Department. Penal Code

Section 1203.097 provides that the Department “ shall determine which batterer’s

program would be appropriate for the defendant,” and a probation officer shares the list

of “ certified” providers in the county with the probationer and notifies him or her to

enroll. Certified programs have met all requirements of the Probation Department, and

have been placed on an official list.

Facts

Several interviews with providers and Probation Department personnel established that

the Domestic Violence Unit in the Public Defender’s office often directs defendants to

certain programs on the certified list and away from others. The Public Defender

attorney interviewed expressed that attorneys in the unit have the right to give advice to

clients concerning such a choice, that advice to clients is an attorney’s prerogative, and is

based on problems other clients have had with certain programs. The attorney had never

visited any of the certified programs. Probation Department personnel indicated their

awareness of this problem and stated that they have been unsuccessful in resolving it.

Grand Jurors were told by the former director of a discontinued domestic violence

batterer treatment program that this practice of directing clients to certain programs and

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

36

away from others was the main factor leading to reduced numbers of participants and

ultimate closure of that program.

Penal Code Section 1203.097 mandates that “ in making referrals of indigent defendants

to approved batterer’s programs, the probation department shall apportion these referrals

evenly among the approved programs.” The practice of the Public Defender’s office in

directing clients to certain programs makes it difficult for the Probation Department to

ensure that indigent clients are spread evenly among the certified programs. Although

the Public Defender’s office attorney stated that advice regarding programs was not a

binding referral, providers interviewed commented that advice from an attorney to a

client is taken very seriously and often results in defendants selecting programs based on

that advice.

Grand Jurors were informed by a variety of sources that the intent of the law is to ensure

that no program has an inordinate number of non- paying clients that might jeopardize its

solvency. Penal Code Section 1203.097 provides that certified programs “ . . . shall allow

up to 10% of the total Probation/ Court referrals per group as indigent, but no program

shall be required to maintain more unless stip ulated by the program.” This mandate is

difficult to achieve if the Probation Department lacks control over referrals.

The Probation Department currently has twelve certified batterer treatment program

providers, and has succeeded in obtaining a good geographical distribution around the

county. Two of the twelve were certified as recently as April 2002.

One certified program, operated through the Grant Joint Union High School District’s

Adult Education Program, is not required by the Probation Department to adhere to the

fee schedule adopted by the Superior Court, and charges a flat $ 10 fee to all participants.

According to Grant District personnel, the program is an authorized Adult Education

class and the District is therefore able to collect Average Daily Attendance ( ADA) funds

to supplement its batterer treatment program fees. Participants in the Grant District’s

program who are indigent may have the $ 10 fee waived if they sign up for an additional

adult education class.

Members of the Grand Jury were told that Grant District’s program was put in place in

response to a need expressed by the courts for a more economical program. However, a

number of providers are concerned that not all providers are being held to the same

standard of payment. They rely on referrals of court- ordered offenders to stay in

business. These providers believe that a “ level playing field” must be maintained and

client referrals distributed throughout the area to ensure the continuance of an appropriate

number of programs.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

37

Findings and Recommendations

Finding # 1. The Probation Department does not have total control of the referral process

for batterer treatment programs in Sacramento County, as assigned by Penal Code

Section 1203.097. The Public Defender’s office has assumed a role in advising clients to

enroll in certain programs and to avoid others.

Recommendation # 1. The Probation Department should assume total control of the

referral process. The Public Defender’s office should stop advising its clients to enroll in

specific batterer treatment programs and to avoid others. The Public Defender’s office

should refer specific problems identified with certain providers to the Probation

Department, which has authority to monitor programs and ensure compliance with

standards.

Finding # 2. The Probation Department is allowing one of its certified batterer treatment

program providers to be in noncompliance with its prescribed standards and fee schedules

in violation of Penal Code Section 1203.097.

Recommendation # 2. The Probation Department should immediately remedy this

violation, and require all batterer treatment programs to comply with the approved

standards and fee schedules.

Response Required

Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and

recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of

the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:

·   Public Defender, Sacramento County Public Defender’s Office:

Finding and Recommendation # 1

·   Chief Probation Officer, Sacramento County Probation Department:

Findings # 1 and 2 and Recommendations # 1 and 2

Grand Juror Vicki Cody recused herself from any participation in the investigation,

discussion, preparation, editing and approval of this report.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

38

Elk Grove Unified School District Fails

Fiduciary Responsibilities

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging that the Elk Grove Unified School District

paid more than twice the fair market value for a property located at the intersection of

Bond and Bradshaw Roads.

Method of Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the District Superintendent and members of his

staff, the Elk Grove Unified School District Board President, the complainants and other

interested parties. Because of the reluctance of some witnesses to appear before the

Grand Jury and the sensitive issues involved, the Grand Jury requested the assistance of

the Attorney General's office. Subpoenas were prepared and served, and on April 24,

2002, under questioning from a Deputy Attorney General, sworn testimony was received

from additional witnesses.

Background

The Elk Grove Unified School District ( District) encompasses an area that includes the

southern portion of the City of Sacramento as well as the recently incorporated City of

Elk Grove. The City of Elk Grove has experienced phenomenal growth over the past

decade, and for that reason the District has had to construct new schools at a rapid pace.

A four year school construction bond measure was passed by the State of California in

1998.

During the first several months of 2000, the District attempted to purchase property for

the construction of a mega- school to be located in the area of Elk Grove Florin and

Gerber Roads. The District met with considerable resistance from residents who objected

to a school in that area, and decided to look for property elsewhere. In order to take full

advantage of the bond issue the District had to move quickly in purchasing an alternate

site.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

39

Facts

One of the areas the District identified as a possible school site was in the vicinity of the

intersection of Bond and Bradshaw Roads. To locate available parcels of land in the

area, the District contacted several well- known land developers/ real estate brokers.

One land developer identified a 106 plus acre parcel that was for sale on the northwest

corner of Bond and Bradshaw Roads. The Grand Jury understands that neither the

previous owner of this land nor his real estate broker was aware of the District's interest

in purchasing land in the area. The land developer purchased the parcel of land for

$ 4,000,000 ( roughly $ 37,000 an acre).

Within days of entering into this purchase contract, the land developer informed the

District that he had property for sale at the corner of Bond and Bradshaw Roads. The

District entered into negotiations with the land developer for the purchase of this

property.

Two independent appraisals were commisssioned by the District to determine the fair

market value of the land. The first appraisal placed the value of the land at $ 4,350,000

( roughly $ 41,000 per acre). The second appraisal placed the value at $ 6,942,000

( roughly $ 65,000 an acre). Both appraisers used the same standards, but differed as to

which properties were to be compared. Although the two appraisals differed greatly,

District staff did not question the value set by the second appraisal. The Grand Jury was

told the difference between the two appraisals was probably caused by the volatility of

the real estate market during this time, July 2000.

According to testimony received by the Grand Jury, the District is required by law to base

its sales price negotiations on the appraised value of the land plus or minus 10%. The

Grand Jury also learned the District had the opportunity to negotiate a price with the

seller of the property based on either appraisal. The District accepted the higher appraisal

because it believed that it more accurately reflected the market value of the land. The

District purchased the property for $ 6,928,400 ( roughly $ 63,000 an acre).

The District admits that it was unaware the parcel had previously been for sale over a

year at approximately $ 4,000,000. The District staff did not canvass the area looking for

property for sale but instead turned to a select group of real estate agents and land

developers to locate desirable property. District staff also admitted that the original

broker for this piece of property was not among the group contacted. Had District staff

members responsible for property acquisition driven by the corner of the property, a short

distance from District Headquarters, they would have seen a large broker's sign

advertising the property. Also, had the District advertised its interest in purchasing

property in the area, the original broker for the property told the Grand Jury he would

have contacted the District.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

40

Finding and Recommendation

Finding # 1. District staff members exhibited a very careless attitude toward their fiscal

responsibilities when negotiating the purchase of property. The Grand Jury also

concluded that had the District been more diligent in its search for school property, it

might have purchased the property for a price closer to the lower appraised value of

$ 4,350,000. The Elk Grove Unified School District failed in its fiduciary responsiblity to

taxpayers in the purchase of property located at the intersection of Bond and Bradshaw

Roads. This failure resulted in a loss to taxpayers of approximately $ 2.4 million.

Recommendation # 1. The Elk Grove Unified School District should:

a. develop formal policies and procedures for the purchase of school site

property that protect financial interests of the taxpayers and eliminate the

appearance of favoritism to any landowner, land developer or real estate

agent;

b. publish in a newspaper of general record an official notice of any decision by

the District to establish a new school or seek a new site location. An offical

notice should also be delivered to the local Board of Realtors;

c. direct staff to use all available resources for the selection of property for

school construction including physical inspection of properties for sale within

the area of interest as well as Multiple Listing and newspaper ads.

Response Required

Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the finding and

recommendation contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the

Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:

·   Board of Education, Elk Grove Unified School District

The following grand jurors recused themselves from any particpation in the

investigation, discussion, preparation editing or approval of this report:

·   Rhea Brunner

·   A. Michael Koewler

·   James M. Moose, Jr.

·   Jimmie E. Ward

The Grand Jury Advisor Judge also recused himself from providing legal advice on

this report.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

41

- blank page -

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

42

Encroaching Land Use Imperils

Sacramento’s Airport System

Subject of Investigation

The present and prospective negative impact on current and future plans for operations,

growth and development of Mather Field and Sacramento International Airport by

encroaching land development.

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury has concerns about the negative impact to the Sacramento County

Airport System’s current and future plans for operations, growth and development at both

Sacramento International Airport and Mather Field as a result of planning, zoning and

land use decisions made by local political bodies.

Land use decisions made by the Board of Supervisors, County Planning Department and

Commission, the City of Sacramento Pla nning Department, and the City of Sacramento

may seriously affect both airports’ operational status as well as future expansion plans.

These decisions create a high probability for curfews, limited operations, restricted flight

paths and the necessity of obtaining operational variances for continuation or expansion

of air transit operations.

These decisions have and will continue to expose Sacramento International Airport,

Mather Field, and the taxpayers of Sacramento County to potential liability for damages

from lawsuits brought against airport operations at both facilities. This liability arises

from lawsuits that could be brought by surrounding commercial operations and

residential homeowners in new developments allowed to build in close proximity to

known and pre- existing major aviation facilities.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

43

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury has sought to determine the nature of the challenges and difficulties

facing the operation and development of both Sacramento International Airport and

Mather Field. The Grand Jury has also looked for effective solutions and remedies to

these difficult problems. Documents obtained from the Sacramento County Airport

System ( System) and the Sacramento County Planning Department were reviewed and

interviews conducted with members of these departments and the Sacramento City

Planning Department. The Grand Jury also searched out and reviewed media articles and

other publications available in the public record.

Background

" Since Sacramento International opened Oct. 29 1967, the 5,500- acre airport site has

been a virtual island in a vast sea of farmland. The $ 22 million airport, which drew

thousands of sightseers during the opening weekend, was the first new major commercial

airport west of the Mississippi that was built from the ground up.

The economic impact of the airport is enormous. A county report issued two years ago

revealed Sacramento International, Mather and Sacramento Executive airports pack a $ 2

billion- a- year economic punch - twice as much as a decade earlier.

‘ It's important for the airport and the areas around us to move forward in a

complementary way," said Robert Leonard, assistant director of airports.’"

- The Sacramento Bee, April 7, 2002-

Sacramento County has been in the enviable position of not having Sacramento

International Airport be a nuisance to the surrounding area. By design or good fortune

Sacramento International Airport has had the luxury of not having to operate under many

of the limiting restrictions that other major airports suffer such as curfews, limited flights,

restricted flight paths and the need for operational variances. Sacramento International

Airport has benefited from its strategic placement in a " sea of farmland." That benefit is

now rapidly eroding.

Similarly, Mather Field was protected from the encroachment of residential building and

development while a United States Air Force Base. In the late 1980s the Air Force

announced the closing of Mather Field with operations turned over to the County of

Sacramento. On May 5, 1995 the Board of Supervisors voted to promote development of

Mather Field as an air cargo facility. At that time there was minimal residential housing

in close proximity.

Operations at Mather Field decreased significantly after the Air Force ceased operations,

and the airfield has not operated near its peak capacity since that time. However,

operations have continually increased since the base started operations as a civilian

airfield. At present there are no operating limitations or restrictions. The chance of this

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

44

being the situation in the future is in serious doubt given the development and building

that has been allowed and approved by the Board of Supervisors.

One of the most important responsibilities of the System is to plan, develop and operate

the airports in ways that maximize the benefits to the six- county Sacramento region. To

carry out the objectives of the System, the Board of Supervisors has deemed it

appropriate to have an Airport Master Plan. One segment of this plan will address

Mather Field. Another segment will address Sacramento International. The Airport

Master Plan, when adopted, becomes an integral part of the County General Plan. The

current Airport Master Plan, under which the System operates, dates back to the early

1980s and does not include Mather Field. This master plan deals with the development

of airport projects and operations, and at this time provides the basis for land use

planning surrounding only Sacramento International. The revised Airport Master Plan

will address land uses surrounding both major airports.

The Board of Supervisors has responsibility for planning, zoning, development and land

use through its control of the General Plan. The Board of Supervisors controls any land

use, development, zoning, and construction project within the unincorporated areas of the

county. Within the Sacramento city limits, the City Council has independent and

exclusive control of planning, zoning, development and land use.

Facts

The State of California Department of Transportation’s method of handling land use

issues surrounding an airport provides for the creation of an Airport Land Use

Commission ( ALUC) made up of representatives from various governmental entities

( cities and counties) in the immediate area. The ALUC makes an evaluation based on

projected airport operations and produces a Comprehensive Land Use Plan ( CLUP).

The ALUC determines the noise contours surrounding the airport and establishes land

uses that are consistent with the airport’s measured noise contours averaged over a 24-

hour period. Under the state regulations, the ALUC is required to prepare a CLUP up to

a 65dB contour line. The 65dB contour line ( the outer perimeter of the CLUP) represents

points from the airport that will have an average noise level of no more than 65dB over a

24- hour period. The Airport Land Use Commission does not have any enforcement

ability for a CLUP. The adoption of the ALUC’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan rests

with the city or county’s governing body. At Sacramento Interna tional Airport, the

Board of Supervisors requested the CLUP outer perimeter be extended to the 60dB

contour line. This CLUP is the most progressive in the state. No residential construction

restrictions or airport protections result from the operation of Sacramento International

Airport beyond the current CLUP. At Mather Field, the Board of Supervisors adopted a

Mather Airfield Policy Area ( MAPA) larger than the governing CLUP that also extends

to a 60dB contour line.

Mather Field started its civilian use by having an Airport Layout Plan developed. Since

planners were unable to determine the future extent of the airfield’s use, the maximum

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

45

capacity was employed. An Airport Layout Plan is a basic requirement for permission to

operate. The plan was also needed in order to develop an Environmental Impact Report

and Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Unsure whether air cargo carriers would locate at

Mather Field, the System decided to delay the development of a master plan segment for

Mather Field.

In Comprehensive Land Use Plans that use noise contour lines for their perimeters,

measurements are averaged over a 24- hour period. Since an average is used, there can be

single events that can be significantly higher. Sound level is measured on a logarithmic

scale, and thus an event of 90dB is much higher than the current CLUP perimeter line of

60dB. The significance of this issue can be compared to living on a street that is the main

route to a hospital but ten blocks away. The disturbance of allowing ambulances to run

their sirens along the street may only occur four or five times a day so that the “ average

noise level” on the street is low. However, if these events occur routinely or exclusively

between 11 p. m. and 2 a. m., they could be termed a nuisance because of the time and

intensity of these “ single” events.

The operational spheres of influence ( 5- mile radius) of both Sacramento International

Airport and Mather Field, the area where noise from single events can easily exceed

60dB, are larger than the current CLUPs identify. Currently school sites are prohibited

from being located within a 2- mile radius of a major airport.

The operational sphere of influence ( 5- mile radius) of Mather Field ( the area where noise

from single events can exceed 60dB) is much larger than the current CLUP or MAPA

identifies. Currently school sites are prohibited from being located within a 2- mile radius

of a major airport. Although the Board of Supervisors has allowed the Village of

Zinfandel project to be approved for development and proceed as a residential housing

project, the Sacramento Bee reported:

" the Aeronautics Division at Caltrans denied permission to the developers to build

schools on the Zinfandel site because state airport safety experts concluded that aircraft

operations at Mather ‘ will present a safety hazard and subject the school sites to

disruptive noise levels.’ In a 1998 letter Caltrans outlines its objections – ‘ The entire

project site is within the base and crosswind legs of the traffic pattern. In these areas,

aircraft will be at lower altitudes, descending to land or climbing after departure; pilots

are making considerable aircraft configuration changes, air speed and power changes,

flap changes, etc. Pilot workloads in these areas of the traffic pattern require

maneuvering the aircraft while scanning for traffic and communicating with either air

traffic control or directly to other pilots........... aircraft operations at Mather will present

a safety hazard and subject the school sites to disruptive noise levels............ We

conducted a review of the entire project area and determined the Zinfandel Project Site

will not offer a suitable school site because of overflight hazard.’"

- Sacramento Bee 3/ 18/ 2000-

As stated previously, a new Airport Master Plan is being developed. The Board of

Supervisors and the Sacramento City Council have allowed plans and projects to be put

in place that encroach on the operational sphere of influence of both Sacramento

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

46

International and Mather Field. This encroachment is commonly called “ moving to the

nuisance.” This has allowed builders and developers to place residential housing in close

proximity to the airport.

In the Mather Field area, the Board of Supervisors has allowed residential encroachment

into the operational sphere of influence needed for full long- term growth and

development of the airport. In the absence of a master plan for Mather Field, the Board

of Supervisors could have declared a building and developmental moratorium until a

master plan was adopted. Instead the Board of Supervisors has allowed builders and

developers to foreclose future growth options at Mather Field. The Villages of Zinfandel

project is a prime example. Approval of the Villages of Zinfandel project prevented any

possibility of extending Mather Field's current northern runway and making it a Category

3 ( Cat 3) runway. Category 3 runways are capable of total instrument landings and

takeoffs in all kinds of weather, day or night. These runways require more safety

clearance on the ground.

The Grand Jury also learned that any proposed new runway to the south of the current

southern runway would be prevented from becoming a Cat 3 runway, if the proposed

developments immediately to the south, southeast and east are permitted. As a result of

the lack of definitive land use planning that addresses the needed infrastructure for the

airport, plans and projects have been put into place that " move to the nuisance" next to

and into the flight paths of Mather Field.

The Grand Jury learned tha t existing and planned developments are rapidly encroaching

on the operational sphere of influence at Sacramento International. The preferred site for

a new Category 3 runway directly to the east of the airport had previously been

preempted by a planning decision made many years ago. The Board of Supervisors

declined to revisit this issue and directed staff to find another location.

The concept of “ moving to a nuisance” has been routinely upheld in legal cases. Moving

to the nuisance is a situation where expanding land development and home building

slowly but steadily begins to move toward what is commonly held to be an obvious

nuisance such as a dairy, a land fill, an industrial plant or an airport. Unpleasant noises,

smells, fumes or health issues can be used to either shut down or curtail the operations of

the offending entity. It does not matter that homeowners knew of the location and nature

of the nuisance before they purchased. Airport defenses of " being there first" and " being

on notice" of airport operations have not been successful against plaintiff lawsuits for

monetary damages or specific relief i. e. curfews, limiting operation or forced removal of

the operation. Airports in particular have been subject to many restrictions relating from

lawsuits brought by landowners. San Diego’s Lindbergh Field has an 11: 30 p. m.

departure curfew. Orange County's John Wayne airport has similar restrictions. San Jose

airport has had lawsuits filed over “ nuisance” at each end of the runway that taken

together come close to $ 100 million in damages.

The Board of Supervisors has delayed adopting a master plan segment for Mather Field

while stating to the public the County’s intention to develop the airfield into a busy,

“ World Class” air cargo hub. These planning decisions encroached upon the planned

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

47

long- term operational sphere of influence of the airfield. These actions by the Board of

Supervisors were in direct conflict with the projected growth and development plans for

Mather Field as an air cargo hub. As a result, the air cargo operators have been operating

in a climate of business uncertainty on issues related to the airfield’s infrastructure and

future. This uncertainty has continued until recently when many of the infrastructure

improvements sought by major carriers were met. A major exception is the request for

two Cat 3 runways. The carriers cite accident potential and/ or regularly required

maintenance as the need for redundant runways to avoid flight diversions to another

airport. Currently there are no Cat 3 runways at Mather Field.

The Grand Jury is aware that there is in Sacramento County, as in most counties

everywhere, a persistent and unrelenting pressure for growth and development which

most political entities have been unable to resist. Pressure could force decisions to be

made that are in direct contradiction to planning and land use professionals expert

opinion and advice.

The Board of Supervisors and the City of Sacramento have consistently allowed

developers and residential builders to " move to the nuisance." The reluctance of the

Board of Supervisors to create a buffer zone around Mather Field beyond the current

CLUP has allowed builders and developers of residential housing projects to encroach on

the flight paths of runways to the east and southeast. Similarly, the City of Sacramento

and the Board of Supervisors have allowed new housing and planned development to the

south and east of Sacramento International that approach the existing CLUP perimeter.

The reluctance to create a buffer zone around the airports beyond the current CLUPs has

allowed developers to plan projects and homeowners to move into homes that suffer from

the nuisances of being located near a major aviation facility. New homeowners complain

of airport noise and threaten lawsuits because the responsible agencies have not required

a mandatory Grant of Avigation and Noise Easement.

A Grant of Avigation and Noise Easement is similar to utility company easements

contained in most residential deeds that allow a limited use of property by another. An

Avigation and Noise easement grants permission to use the airspace above the identified

property to the holder of the easement. An Avigation and Noise easement prevents the

landowner from suing the holder of the easement for nuisance and monetary damages

except in extreme and unusual cases.

The System developed maps ( see Figures 1 and 2) defining the expected noise contour

lines for Sacramento International Airport. These maps show the expected noise

contours at both 60dB and 55dB for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. The 55dB

lines were projected to show the potential impact that may be considered as residential

development continues to encroach on the airport. The noise contour lines at 55dB for

2005 reach past Highway 99 at Elverta Road on the east, an area where there are

thousands of proposed houses being planned for construction, and past I- 80 at I- 5 on the

southeast, completely encompassing all the new residential construction permitted by the

City of Sacramento west of I- 5 and north of I- 80.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

48

For land uses within the noise contour of 65dB, the State of California has deemed the

following land uses to be incompatible:

·   Residential dwellings

·   Public and private schools

·   Hospitals and convalescent homes

·   Churches, synagogues, temples and other places of worship

In essence, the state has mandated that high concentrations of people are incompatible

with airport operations in an area encompassed by an expected sound level of 65dB.

Sacramento County has elected to extend this zone to include the 60dB level. The Grand

Jury learned from Airport System staff that this zone could soon be expanded to include

the 55dB level at Sacramento International. As the area around Mather Field continues to

develop, it would seem prudent to expect a similar extension to the 55dB level.

Figure 1- 60dB Contour Lines at Sacramento International Airport

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

49

Figure 2 – 55dB Contours at Sacramento International Airport

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

50

Findings & Recommendations

Finding # 1. The existing Airport Master Plan is over 20 years old and is currently being

revised.

Recommendation # 1. With regard to Sacramento International Airport, the Board of

Supervisors should:

a) expedite the revision and approval of the Airport Master Plan.

b) make the growth, development and operation of Sacramento International Airport

the highest planning, development, zoning and land use priority and objective for

the airport’s operational sphere of influence, a 5- mile radius of the airport.

c) show on the Airport Master Plan all future runways and operations planned

through 2035.

d) work with local cities and counties surrounding Sacramento International Airport

to prevent residential and commercial/ industrial encroachment into flight paths of

all current and planned runways.

e) provide planning for additional Category 3 runways.

f) enact and enforce changes needed in the General Plan to insure that no land use

decision will be approved that restricts, conflicts or interferes with Sacramento

International’s growth, development and operation.

Finding # 2. The Board of Supervisors did not include plans for Mather Field in the

Airport Master Plan or in the alternative did not impose a developmental moratorium

upon acquisition from the U. S. Air Force.

Recommendation # 2. With regard to Mather Field, the Board of Supervisors should:

a. expedite the development and approval of the Airport Master Plan incorporating

Mather Field.

b. make the growth, development and operation of Mather Field as a “ world class”

air cargo hub the highest planning, development, zoning and land use priority

within a 5- mile radius of the airfild.

c. include a requirement for two Category 3 runways.

d. enact and enforce changes needed in the General Plan to insure that no land use

decision will be approved or allowed to continue that restricts, conflicts or

interferes with Mather Field's growth, development and operation.

Finding # 3. There are currently no plans by the Board of Supervisors and the City of

Sacramento to prevent residential construction from encroaching into the operational

sphere of influence of either Mather Field or Sacramento International airports.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

51

The Grand Jury believes it is therefore logical, relevant and instructive to consider the

evaluations and determinations by state safety experts of what is considered safety and

overflight hazards and disruptive noise levels when deciding on appropriate land uses. If

prohibiting a school site within a 2- mile radius of an airport is required by the state, and

children are at school only part of the day, it only seems logical that allowing residential

construction within that zone where parents and children would live 24- hours a day,

seven days a week is also inadvisable and inappropriate for exactly the same reasons.

Recommendation # 3.

a. The Board of Supervisors should require mandatory Grants of Avigation and

Noise Easements in favor of the Sacramento County Airport System, Sacramento

County and the City of Sacramento be obtained and required of anyone issued a

permit or given permission to build within the sphere of influence ( 5- mile radius)

of either airport.

b. The Board of Supervisors and/ or Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)

should require and make it a mandatory condition that a Grant of Avigation and

Noise Easement be granted to Sacramento County Airport System and

Sacramento County for any property located within a 5- mile radius of Sacramento

International Airport or Mather Field prior to any incorporation of a new city or

annexation of land by an existing city.

c. That a requirement for disclosure of these easements be included in any property

transfer, lease or other use within the operational sphere of influence of both

airports.

Response Required

Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and

recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of

the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002, from:

·   Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

·   Sacramento City Council

·   Director, Sacramento County Airport System

·   LAFCO: Finding and Recommendation # 3

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

52

Folsom Sewage Spills Continue

Subject of Investigation

Investigation into the cause and responsibility for a series of sewage spills in the City of

Folsom between 1995 and 2000.

Reason for Investigation

The pollution involved the American River and some of its tributaries. The Grand Jury

felt that it was appropriate to investigate because there is danger of environmental

damage to this source of drinking water, and to this area of recreation for a large number

of Sacramento County residents.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed management staff and a consultant to the City of Folsom,

Department of Public Works; representatives of the State of California, Central Valley

Regional Water Quality Control Board ( CVRWQCB); representatives of the Sacramento

Regional County Sanitation District ( SRCSD); and members of the Save the American

River Association ( SARA). Members of the Grand Jury also reviewed press reports

concerning the spills and attended Folsom City Council meetings and CVRWQCB

meetings.

Background

In the late 1980s the Folsom City Council adopted a general plan that allowed Folsom to

grow to approximately 70,000 residents by 2010. That general plan is still in place today.

By 1991- 1992 the demand for housing accelerated to meet the needs of new business

moving to Folsom. Recently, the Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO)

granted to Folsom “ sphere of influence” designation to acreage south of Highway 50.

This sphere of influence designation gives the Folsom City Council an important voice in

the use and development of this property. It will eventually lead to the annexation of the

property and expansion of the city borders. The Grand Jury is unaware of any plans the

Council has for this property.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

53

In 1995 the first of a series of sewage spills occurred. Subsequent studies conducted by

independent consultants contracted by the City of Folsom demonstrated the increased risk

for spills if needed maintenance and repair were not provided. The city administration

and city council failed to increase the maintenance and repair of its system but rather

relied on increased flow capacity being installed by the SRCSD to solve the problem.

This increased flow capacity was not provided until two weeks after the January 2000

spill.

Facts

The amount and frequency of sewage spills in Folsom has been well documented by

public agencies as well as the press. Between 1995 and January 2000 there were at least

five sewage spills from the City of Folsom that flowed into tributaries of the American

River. These include the 650,000- gallon spill in 1997 and a 700,000- gallon spill in

January 2000. This latest event combined with the history of a number of lesser spills

culminated in the state CVRWQCB fining the City of Folsom $ 700,000 for the January

2000 spill. In addition, in late spring of 2000, the CVRWQCB issued a Cleanup and

Abatement Order to the City. Subsequently, on March 1, 2002, the CVRWQCB

approved the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order and a National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System ( NPDES) permit. The Cease and Desist Order requires the City of

Folsom to put in place a system that repairs, replaces and monitors the Folsom sanitary

sewage collection system. It also requires Folsom to report periodically to the Regional

Water Quality Control Board the progress it is making towards updating the sewer

system. The Cease and Desist Order specifies April 2009 as the final date for the

elimination of all sanitary sewer overflows.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding # 1. The City of Folsom is largely respons ible for the sewage spills that occurred

from 1995 to 2000 including the January 2000 spill that resulted in a $ 700,000 fine.

Recommendation # 1. The City of Folsom should fully comply with the NPDES permit

and the Cease and Desist Order issued by the Cent ral Valley Regional Water Quality

Control Board. By readily accepting the actions the permit and order requires, the City of

Folsom can demonstrate to its residents and those who live downstream that Folsom is

committed to the best sewer system possible. These actions would also demonstrate

leadership in preventing damage to the surrounding environment.

Finding # 2. The City of Folsom has been granted “ sphere of influence” to acreage south

of Highway 50 by LAFCO.

Recommendation # 2. In view of the history of aggressive growth allowed by the City

of Folsom, no action should be taken by the current city council or future city councils to

annex the land south of Highway 50.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

54

This recommendation should remain in effect until the expiration and completion of the

Cease and Desist Order by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in April 2009.

Should the City of Folsom want to expedite development south of Highway 50, it should

fulfill the requirements of the Cease and Desist Order earlier than April 2009.

Response Required

Penal Code Section 933.05 requires that specific responses to both the findings and

recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of

the Sacramento Superior Court by September 30, 2002 from:

·   Director of Public Works, City of Folsom

·   Folsom City Council

Grand Juror James M. Moose, Jr. recused himself from any participation in the

investigation, discussion, preparation, editing, or approval of the report.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

55

- blank page -

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

56

Status of Volunteer Firefighters Serving

as Members of the Board of Directors of

the Wilton Fire Protection District

Subject of Investigation

Wilton Fire Protection District.

Reason for Investigation

The Grand Jury received a complaint regarding possible violations of the Health and

Safety Code, the Brown Act ( Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.), and other

provisions of the Government Code.

Method of Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury interviewed the complainant, the Chairman of the Wilton

Fire Protection District Board of Directors, and the Sacramento County Counsel, who is

the Grand Jury's legal adviser. A review was also made of the District Board of

Directors’ meeting minutes and the Wilton Fire Protection Policy and Procedure Manual.

Background

The Wilton Fire Protection District is a special district formed under Health and Safety

Code Sections 13800 et seq. The purpose of the District is to respond to all reported

emergencies in the community of Wilton and surrounding area.

A Board of Directors, consisting of five members, is responsible for the management of

the District. The citizens of the community elect all members of the Board. The District

has approximately 42 staff, of whom 35 are community volunteers trained to respond to

emergencies.

Volunteers are paid $ 8.00 per call plus $ 8.00 for any mandatory drill or training.

Changes in salary are approved by the Wilton Fire Protection District’s Board of

Directors.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2002

57

Facts

Three of the directors were also employed as volunteer firefighters at the time of this

complaint. One has since resigned from the Board, but continues to work as a volunteer

firefighter.

Government Code Sections 1090 through 1098 prohibit public officers from being

financially interested in contracts made by them in their official capacity. The provisions

apply to members of the Legislature, and to state, county, district, ju