Sacramento County

2004- 2005 Grand Jury

Final Report

June 30, 2005

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

DEDICATION TO THE

HONORABLE RICHARD K. PARK, ADVISOR JUDGE

The 2004- 2005 Sacramento County Grand Jury dedicates its final report to

Judge Richard K. Park, former Advisor Judge to the Grand Jury. Judge Park

retired from the Superior Court bench on January 7, 2005, after a 20- year

distinguished career.

Judge Park first served as Advisor Judge to the Grand Jury in 1993- 1994.

He was asked to take the advisory responsibility again in 1998, and

continued in this role until his retirement in January.

We thank him for his many years of service to the Sacramento County

citizenry and for his service to more than eight Grand Juries.

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury also welcomes its new Advisor Judge the

Honorable Raymond M. Cadei of the Superior Court of Sacramento.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

-- This page left intentionally blank --

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Table of Contents

Letter from the Grand Jury Foreman iii

Roster of 2004 – 2005 Grand Jurors v

Grand Jury Committee Assignments vii

Picture of the 2004 – 2005 Grand Jury ix

The 2004 – 2005 Year In Review xi

Charter of the Sacramento County Grand Jury xix

Reports and Investigations

Sacramento County Civil Service Commission......................................................... 1

Complaint Against Sacramento Independent Taxi Owners Association’s

Hiring Practices.......................................................................................................... 11

Failure of Sacramento County to Oversee the Delivery of Services Contracted

to Galt Community Concilio, Inc............................................................................... 17

The Handling and Security of Inmate Correspondence

at the Sacramento County Main Jail .......................................................................... 31

Student Safety Walking to Inderkum High School.................................................... 35

Landscaping and Lighting District Assessment Practices

in the City of Folsom ................................................................................................. 39

The Development of New Partnerships and Programs

to Assist Foster Children............................................................................................ 43

Homeland Security: Ready or Not? .......................................................................... 53

************************************************************************

Elk Grove City Council and Conflict of Interest Issues ( released 2/ 28/ 05)

Grand Jury Comments on the Responses of the Elk Grove City Council,

the Sacramento Sheriff’s Department, and the Sacramento County

Board of Supervisors to the Grand Jury’s Recommendations

in the report “ Elk Grove City Council and Conflict of Interest Issues”

( Complete responses can be found on the Grand Jury website @ www. sacgrandjury. org)

i

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

-- This page left intentionally blank --

ii

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

2004- 2005

Sacramento County Grand Jury

Dean K. Beyer

Insurance Executive, retired

Sacramento

William S. Borden, Jr.

Business Principal

Sacramento

W. Bernard Bowler

IBM Executive, retired

Sacramento

Anthony S. Da Vigo

Deputy Attorney General, retired

Sacramento

Alonzo D. Hall

State of California

Administrative Executive, retired

Sacramento

Howard L. Harris

Associate Professor, Dean of

Students, retired

Sacramento

Marilyn A. Isenberg

Executive Director, State Industrial

Development Commission, retired

Sacramento

Melissa W. Kubiak

Public School Teacher, retired

Sacramento

Patricia K. Macht

Assistant Executive Officer

Public Affairs

California Public Employees’

Retirement System

Sacramento

Robert H. Reynolds

Department of Defense, retired

Antelope

William G. Rutland, Jr.

Self Employed ( Government

Relations Firm)

Sacramento

Michael H. Scheible

Deputy Executive Officer,

California Air Resources Board

Sacramento

Susan E. Scotland

Community Volunteer

Sacramento

Aletha M. Smith- Forsythe

Federal Systems Analyst, retired

Gold River

William R. Uhrig

US Navy, retired

Orangevale

Barbara D. Ullman

Community Volunteer

Sacramento

Jeanne M. Whiting

Code Compliance Officer, retired

Folsom

Robert S. Willett

Attorney, retired

Sacramento

Norio Yamada

Department of Defense, retired

Reserve Deputy

Sacramento

v

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

-- This page left intentionally blank --

vi

vii

2004- 2005 Grand Jury

Committee Assignments

Officers:

W. Bernard Bowler, Foreman Alonzo D. Hall, Sergeant- at- Arms

Barbara D. Ullman, Foreperson Pro Tempore Anthony S. Da Vigo. Parliamentarian

Patricia K. Macht, Secretary Susan E. Scotland, Provisioner

Jeanne M. Whiting, Telephone Tree Coordinator

Administrative/ Municipal Affairs Criminal and Juvenile Justice

William S. Borden, Jr., Chair Alonzo D. Hall, Chair

Anthony S. Da Vigo Dean K. Beyer

Alonzo D. Hall William S. Borden, Jr.

Patricia K. Macht Anthony S. Da Vigo

Robert H. Reynolds Howard L. Harris

William G. Rutland, Jr. Marilyn A. Isenberg

Michael H. Scheible Robert H. Reynolds

Aletha M. Smith- Forsythe William G. Rutland, Jr.

Robert S. Willett Barbara D. Ullman

Jeanne M. Whiting

Continuity Edit

Dean K. Beyer, Chair Patricia K. Macht, Chair

Alonzo D. Hall William S. Borden, Jr.

Jeanne M. Whiting Marilyn A. Isenberg

Norio Yamada Melissa W. Kubiak

Michael H. Scheible

Susan E. Scotland

Education Environment, Public Works & Special Districts

Melissa W. Kubiak, Chair Jeanne M. Whiting, Chair

Dean K. Beyer Howard L. Harris

Patricia K. Macht Marilyn A. Isenberg

Susan E. Scotland Michael H. Scheible

William R. Uhrig Aletha M. Smith- Forsythe

Barbara D. Ullman William R. Uhrig

Robert S. Willett Robert S. Willett

Norio Yamada Norio Yamada

Health and Human Services

Anthony S. Da Vigo, Chair

Howard L. Harris

Melissa W. Kubiak

Robert H. Reynolds

William G. Rutland, Jr.

Susan E. Scotland

Aletha M. Smith- Forsythe

William R. Uhrig

Barbara D. Ullman

viii

-- This page left intentionally blank --

ix

-- This page left intentionally blank --

x

-- This page left intentionally blank --

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Year In Review

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury Perspective

The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury served for a year and completed its term on June 30, 2005.

We received and reviewed more than 64 allegations and complaints.

This final report details specific investigations leading to recommendations for the named

districts and county agencies. However, these investigations do not cover the entire

scope of the activities the Grand Jury pursued. This Year in Review section provides

additional information on tours, presentations, and complaint evaluations.

The work of the Grand Jury is organized by the following subject Committees:

Administrative and Municipal Affairs; Education; Criminal and Juvenile Justice;

Environment, Public Works and Special Districts; and Health and Human Services.

Committees are assigned complaints and investigations according to subjects. The Edit

Committee oversees the preparation of single- issue reports and the final report to the

citizenry. The Continuity Committee prepares and provides for effective transition from

one Grand Jury to the next and organizes collegial events.

Following are Year In Review Reports from each subject Committee.

Administrative & Municipal Affairs Committee

The Committee is responsible for reviewing and investigating complaints relating to the

policies, procedures and actions of public agencies within Sacramento County. The

Committee may be required to review the budgets, organizational charts, manuals and

other information concerning allegations and conduct interviews.

The Committee reviewed 14 complaints this year, and of these, 12 were from citizens,

one was initiated by the Grand Jury itself and one was a carry over from the previous

Grand Jury. Five qualified for investigation and four resulted in reports that are included

in the Final Report.

The Committee arranged to have a former Sacramento City Manager address the Grand

Jury. The subject was Sacramento County Local Government Organization and Finance.

The Committee received a briefing on the November 2004 elections. Members of the

Sacramento County Registrars Office briefed the Grand Jury prior to and following the

November 2004 election. The briefings were conducted by the County Registrar; the

Assistant County Registrar and the Administrative Services Officer.

The Grand Jurors were given an opportunity to serve as observers at polling places to

provide objective feedback to the County Registrar. Members of the Grand Jury

monitored 82 polling places during the General Election in November 2004 and the

Special Election in March 2005. The Grand Jury members who visited these polling

xi

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

places reported that overall, the County Registrar did an effective, efficient job in

providing polling places, collecting ballots and counting ballots. This excellent

performance was particularly noteworthy because the November election itself brought

out a record number of voters.

Criminal and Juvenile Justice Committee

The role of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Committee ( C& JJ) is to review and

investigate complaints regarding the criminal justice agencies within Sacramento County.

C& JJ ensures that the agencies and correctional facilities comply with their policies and

procedures, as well as state and federal laws. During the year, C& JJ received 25

complaints from citizens and inmates. Eight of the complaints were investigated.

Of the complaints investigated, one report was issued by the full Grand Jury and is

included in this final report.

Complaints investigated but not reported on include a range of subject matter such as:

• Law enforcement – violation of rights, abuse and retaliation( s).

• Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center – unhealthy conditions in dorms, cigarette

smoke and other carcinogens

• Sacramento Main Jail – suicide, inmate abuse and sanitation issues.

In response to news reports of recent suicides at the Sacramento Main Jail, the

Committee inquired into this situation and followed up on the findings and

recommendations of the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury. After lengthy discussions with Jail

authorities, including several site visits, the Committee determined the Jail has

implemented many of the prior Grand Jury’s recommendations and has even established

additional preventative programs. For example, bed sheets used in all recent suicides are

being replaced by blankets. In addition, welding of open spaces around bunks is

underway. The Grand Jury supports Jail staff in their continuing efforts to deal with this

difficult issue.

The Committee investigated a complaint alleging that an improper standard was used by

a Sheriff’s deputy to take the complainant into a Welfare & Institutions code 5150

involuntary hold. The statutory standard for such an action is “ probable cause” to believe

that a person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to himself or others. It was

claimed, however, that the deputy acted upon a lesser standard based on his consideration

of potential liability if he were released, and the complainant later damaged himself or

another. The Sheriff’s Patrol Operations Order 7/ 11 contained no reference to liability.

The Assistant Sheriff and the Chief of Internal Affairs now agree that the proper 5150

standard is “ probable cause”, regardless of any consideration of potential liability.

xii

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

The Committee also arranged the Grand Jury’s mandatory tours of correctional facilities

within Sacramento County. The California Penal code section 919( b) requires that the

Grand Jury inquire into the condition and management of the prisons.

During its tours, the Grand Jury was briefed by correctional staff and spoke with staff and

inmates. The Grand Jury toured the facilities, inquired about medical services,

educational and vocational programs, and observed facility conditions.

Facilities toured included:

• California State Prison, Sacramento

• Folsom State Prison

• Sacramento County Main Jail

• Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center

• Sacramento County Work Release Facility

• Sacramento County Juvenile Hall

• Warren E. Thornton Youth Center

• Sandra Larson Women’s Facility

• Sacramento County Boys Ranch

• Sacramento Juvenile Assessment Center

• Coroner’s Office, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

• Laboratory of Forensic Sciences, Sacramento County District Attorney’s

Office.

Education Committee

The role of this Committee is to monitor the activities of school districts within

Sacramento County, as well as the Los Rios Community College District. The

Committee examines citizen complaints alleging school district irregularities and initiates

investigations into various educational issues.

During the year, the Education Committee received eight complaints, one of which was a

rollover from the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury. Of that number, it opened five of the

complaints for investigation. One investigation is published in this final report.

The Committee closed two complaints after an investigation determined that school

management followed proper procedure. The other two complaints were also closed but

are worthy of special comment here.

The Committee received a complaint about the San Juan Unified School District

( SJUSD) and the adoption of the Phase II Systems ( PARS) retirement incentive program.

When the PARS program failed to save SJUSD substantial dollars as expected, an

internal district investigation was conducted. Concerns were raised that the investigation

should have been done by an independent source; the district hired Vilfer and Associates

to conduct this audit. Due to the findings and recommendations in their Nov. 1, 2004

xiii

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

report, the Education Committee felt that SJUSD and the community had the information

needed to move forward and no further investigation was conducted by the Grand Jury.

This is the second case in two years that a Grand Jury was involved in investigating

recently formed retirement systems for school districts. In both cases, the school districts

failed in its objectives. The Grand Jury is concerned about this trend, and suggests that

all school districts be extremely cautious when considering similar options in the future.

The Committee received a complaint alleging improper use of grant funds allocated to

develop the Licensed Psychiatric Technician Program by the Grant Joint Unified School

District ( GJUSD). This grant was administered by the Sacramento Employment and

Training Agency ( SETA). The Committee interviewed appropriate staff. The Grand

Jury found that the program is fully operational, and could not find evidence that funds

were improperly used. The Grand Jury concluded no further investigation was warranted

and closed the complaint.

As part of its role to monitor schools and school districts, members of the Grand Jury met

with the County Superintendent of Schools and discussed a variety of issues which

included the California High School Exit Exam, the “ No Child Left Behind” Act and

districts’ responsibilities for long- range planning.

Members of the Committee toured high schools in four Sacramento school districts:

• Inderkum High School in the Natomas Unified School District. Inderkum

High School is a new model for schools— a 21st century high school, and is a

recipient of the 2004 Leroy F. Greene Design Award for Excellence. Through

collaborative planning, facilities will be shared among Inderkum High School,

American River College and the Sacramento Public Library Authority.

Inderkum is a self- contained campus with all classrooms under one roof and

uses solar and geothermal energy to maintain the facility. The tour and a

presentation were led by the high school’s principal and vice principal.

• Monterey Trail High School in the Elk Grove Unified School District.

Monterey Trail is a new campus sharing a library with Edward Harris, Jr.

Middle School. The school has separate buildings for the various disciplines

and all were well equipped with the latest technology. The Committee was

impressed with the facility and the District’s plans for future facilities. The

Elk Grove Unified School District is now the largest school district in the

County and is striving hard to meet the needs of its students. The tour and a

presentation were led by the Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and site

Principal.

• Folsom High School is in the Folsom- Cordova Unified School District.

Folsom High School is six years old and built on over 60 acres. It presently

houses over 2600 students. The campus has a state- of- the- art gymnasium and

athletic fields which host various statewide California Interscholastic

xiv

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Federation championships. There is also a modern theater which shares use

with the City of Folsom. Presentations were given by District and site staff,

followed by a tour of the campus with an outstanding vocal demonstration

given by the jazz choir.

• C. K. McClatchy High School in the Sacramento City Unified School

District.* McClatchy High School is the second oldest high school in

Sacramento. Built in 1937, it still utilizes the original buildings. The

Committee was interested in how the bond funds from Measures E and I were

spent. McClatchy High School is an outstanding example of bond money

being well spent. Both the infrastructure and exterior work done to

McClatchy have improved student and staff morale. It is also appreciated by

the surrounding community. A presentation by the District Superintendent

was followed by a tour given by the site Principal, Vice Principal, members of

the District staff and the architectural firm involved in the renovation.

At a subsequent visit to McClatchy, Committee members learned of the new

concept of Small Learning Communities ( SLC). This idea was recently

implemented in the district high schools. All students at McClatchy are

members of a program within the school. The specializations include: Arts

and Medical Health/ Human Services; Engineering/ Technology; Business;

Humanities and International Studies; and International Community.

Educators hope that students will feel a stronger sense of connection to the

school, their peers, and their instructors through this concept. The Grand Jury

encourages the Sacramento City School Superintendent and school

administration to provide their full support to this program, and to give this

program the time it may require to fully flourish.

All school districts are working to implement the “ No Child Left Behind” Act and have

programs in place to help students pass the California High School Exit Exam.

(* It should be noted that Grand Juror W. Bernard Bowler recused himself from any participation in the

discussion, preparation, editing and approval regarding the Sacramento City Unified School District.)

xv

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Environment, Public Works and Special Districts Committee

The Environment, Public Works and Special Districts ( EPW& SD) Committee reviews

local and County government entities, as well as over 112 Special Districts.

The Committee reviewed four citizens’ complaints and, of these, one qualified for

investigation with findings and recommendations and is included in the final report. The

others generated further investigation and were then closed without comment.

This Committee made inquiries of the County Health Officer regarding West Nile Virus

and any proposed actions to safeguard and inform local residents of the possible hazards.

It was concluded that appropriate measures are in effect to address this growing concern.

We also revisited the posting of Environmental Health notices in restaurants. Most

restaurants visited were found to be in compliance regarding posting, although some

postings were difficult to find without inquiry.

In addition, the following tours and presentations were organized:

• A joint Committee effort was initiated by Environment, Public Works &

Special District and Administrative and Municipal Affairs Committees to

coordinate a presentation by a retired Sacramento City Manager. He

discussed the operation of special districts, their operations and the

management tools finance directors use to develop financial plans and manage

expenses.

• A joint meeting was held with EPW& SD and Health & Human Services

Committee to discuss air quality issues with the Air Pollution Control Officer

of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District ( AQMD).

The Grand Jury decided that the appointment of the Air Pollution Control

Officer, the first change in over 20 years, was an opportune time to address

what local measures should take place to improve the Sacramento region’s air

quality, which according to the US Environmental Protection Agency ranks

among the 10 worst nationally. He encouraged support for regional

enforcement and coordination between AQMD and the Sacramento Area

Council of Governments’ Blueprint project.

• The Committee visited the Sacramento International Airport and discussed a

number of issues with Airport staff. The issues examined included: planning

for the airport expansion, the coordination of land use development decisions

and planning that affect flight operations at the airport, the financing of airport

operations and expansions, security improvements and the provision of public

transport to the Airport.

xvi

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Health and Human Services Committee

The role of this Committee is to investigate and gather information on policies and

procedures of health and human service agencies serving Sacramento County. These

include: Bureau of Family Support, Coroner’s Office, Department of Health and Human

Services, Department of Human Assistance, Department of Mental Health, Public

Administration/ Public Guardian, Senior and Adult Services, and Welfare Fraud.

The Committee received nine complaints, two of which were rollovers from the 2003-

2004 Grand Jury. Of that number, five cases were opened for investigation. Three

complaints were closed after investigation but are worthy of special comment here. Two

investigations are published in this final report.

The Grand Jury received a complaint that the County of Human Assistance does not have

adequate procedures concerning the investigation of claims of fraudulent receipt of Cal-

Works benefits, acknowledgement of complaints, and publication of complaint

procedures. The Grand Jury investigated the process by which the Fraud Investigation

Division ( FID) of the Department of Human Assistance handles and responds to claims

made by citizens of fraudulent receipt of CalWorks ( formerly AFDC) benefits by others.

The Grand Jury found that under the circumstances and workload under which it

operates, FID procedures produce a timely investigation of complaints, but recommends

that a standard procedure be developed for acknowledging citizen complaints.

The Grand Jury received a complaint alleging that the County Department of Health and

Human Services has no oversight of services rendered by contract providers, specifically

with regard to procedures to be followed when children become missing and unaccounted

for during rendering of services. The Grand Jury investigated the procedures and

protocols, if any, to be followed when a child under the care and supervision of a County

contracted private service providers cannot be provided for. The County Department of

Health and Human Services will study and develop such a protocol.

The Grand Jury received an inmate complaint about conditions in jail shower facilities.

The Grand Jury investigated and determined that the shower facilities have been

undergoing a retrofit process for approximately eight months to replace the entire

plumbing system leading to the showers. The project is continuing.

Nine members of the Grand Jury toured the County Public Health Lab, including its bio-terror

facilities. The facilities serve the FBI, the County of Sacramento and all of

northern California except coastal counties. The Grand Jury was informed that it was the

best equipped bioterrorist laboratory in the United States.

xvii

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

-- This page left intentionally blank --

xviii

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Charter of the Sacramento County Grand Jury

Under Penal Code section 933, the Grand Jury is an independent body that reviews

operations of the County, Cities, School and Special Districts within Sacramento County.

The Grand Jury is an arm of the Court and has subpoena powers.

The Grand Jury is empowered to investigate citizen complaints about government or may

investigate matters acting on its own initiative. It also may investigate allegations of

criminal activity. Criminal cases are presented by the District Attorney’s Office for

possible indictment. If it is determined that there is probable cause to believe an accused

person or persons has committed a crime, the Grand Jury can issue an indictment. An

indictment is an accusation, not a finding of guilt.

The Grand Jury is made up of 19 citizens who have been nominated by a Superior Court

Judge and then drawn at random from a group of 30 qualified individuals. A minimum of

12 of the 19 jurors must authorize the undertaking of an investigation. The Grand Jury

has five subject committees that carry out authorized investigations: Administrative &

Municipal Affairs; Education; Criminal & Juvenile Justice; Environment, Public Works

& Special Districts; and Health and Human Services. The Grand Jury also has two other

Committees critical for its success: the Continuity Committee and the Edit Committee.

By law, Grand Jurors may not disclose evidence obtained in their investigations or reveal

the names of complainants. Similarly, witnesses are prohibited from disclosing any

proceedings of the Grand Jury.

The results of major investigations are contained in reports that include findings and

recommendations. Twelve jurors must concur to release a report to the public. These

documents can be published as stand alone reports or be included in the Final Report at

the expiration of the Grand Jury’s term of office. Copies of Grand Jury reports are

available on www. sacgrandjury. org.

Any individual may file a complaint with the Sacramento County Grand Jury. All

complaints are held in the strictest confidence. A complaint form is at the back of this

report, or may be downloaded from www. sacgrandjury. org, or may be obtained by

calling the Grand Jury Office at ( 916) 874- 7559.

xi x

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

-- This page left intentionally blank --

xx

Reports and Investigations

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

1

Sacramento County Civil

Service Commission

Issue

The focus of this Grand Jury investigation is to determine if the processes and procedures

of the Sacramento County Civil Service Commission ( Commission) are adequate and

appropriate when it considers the merits of appeals by County employees concerning

disciplinary actions taken against them by their employers.

Reason for the Investigation

During the last six months, a great deal of public and media attention has been drawn to a

number of decisions in which the Commission overturned the Sacramento County

Sheriff’s decision to dismiss several sheriff’s deputies for misconduct. The

Commission’s actions resulted in these deputies being fully reinstated to duty. Public

concern over these reinstatements caused the Grand Jury to initiate an investigation.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed all five members of the Commission.

The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents:

• Sacramento County Charter, Article XVI

• Rules of the Sacramento County Civil Service Commission.

The Grand Jury obtained the following documents pertaining to five cases appealed to the

Commission which involved disciplinary action taken against sheriff’s deputies:

• Notice of Final Order of Disciplinary Action

• Transcripts of Proceedings before the Hearing Officer

• Hearing Officer’s Proposed Decision

• Transcripts of Proceedings before the Commission

• Commission’s Final Decision and Order.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

2

Background and Facts

Introduction

The Grand Jury has limited its examination of this matter to the underlying processes,

procedures and interpretations of law under which the Commission conducts appeals of

disciplinary actions. The Grand Jury reviewed the transcripts of five specific cases, and

used these cases to understand the processes, procedures, and interpretations that affect

the Commission’s considerations and deliberations. However, the Grand Jury did not

attempt to review the specific merits of any particular case or outcome.

The Commission’s Charge and Current Composition

The Commission, consisting of five members, each appointed by one of the Sacramento

County Board of Supervisors for alternating five year terms, is established under Article

XVI of the Sacramento County Charter. Its mandate is to establish and enforce policy

and rules governing classification of civil service positions and the recruitment,

examination, and appointment of County employees. It is also charged with the

responsibility to investigate and decide appeals from any phase of the employee selection

process, from the classification plan, and from disciplinary actions against County

employees. This Grand Jury review is specifically centered on how the Commission

considers appeals by County employees concerning disciplinary actions taken against

them by their appointing authorities.

The Commission has established its own rules on how to handle appeals of disciplinary

actions. The Commission has considerable discretion in setting these rules and can

amend its rules by majority vote. 1

Processes and Procedures Respecting Appeals from Disciplinary Action

Commission Rule 11.4 pertains to the causes for which disciplinary action may be taken

against a County employee. No such action may be taken without good cause. “ Good

cause” is defined as any facts which, based on relevant circumstances, may be reasonably

relied on by the appointing authority in the exercise of reasonable discretion as a basis for

disciplinary action. An essential element of good cause is the exercise of “ reasonable

discretion” by the appointing authority. Good cause is lacking where the appointing

authority’s exercise of discretion is unreasonable, but it is not lacking on the mere basis

that the Commission or the Commission’s hearing officer would, under the same

circumstances, have exercised its own discretion differently.

Certain behaviors are defined as constituting good cause per se. They include the

following:

• Inexcusable neglect of duty

1 Rule 1.5( a) and ( b)

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

3

• Conviction of a felony

• Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely

affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of

his position

• Discourteous treatment of the public

• Willful disobedience

• Incompetence

• Dishonesty

• Inexcusable absence without leave

• Failure of good behavior either during or outside of duty hours which is of

such a nature that it causes discredit to the employee’s agency or

employment.

Once an employee has been served by his or her appointing authority ( the head of the

agency by which the individual is employed), with an order of disciplinary action, the

employee is entitled to an informal hearing, known as a Skelly hearing, with the employer

or the employer’s designee, before the order becomes final.

After the employee has been served with a final order and decides to contest the action,

he or she files a notice of appeal with the Commission. An appeal hearing is then

conducted in due course by a hearing officer employed or contracted by the Commission

to hear sworn testimony of witnesses on both sides of the question. The hearing officer is

charged with determining whether the facts alleged in the order are true, whether such

facts constitute good cause for discipline, and what discipline is appropriate in light of all

relevant facts and circumstances. 2 Ultimately, the hearing officer prepares a Proposed

Decision, including Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Disposition, and

submits that document to the Commission.

Finally, a hearing is held before the Commission, where the issues contained in the

proposed decision are argued by representatives of the County agency and of the

employee. The commissioners may ask questions of the representatives at that time. The

hearing and deliberations are normally conducted in closed session. 3 After the hearing is

conducted, the Commission makes its final order affirming, modifying, or revoking the

Order of disciplinary action.

The Commission can sustain the proposed action, or it can decrease an order of

disciplinary action; it cannot impose a more stringent action. The Commission’s order is

subject to review by the Superior Court in an action called Administrative Mandamus.

2 Rule 11.12( a)

3 Rule 11.12( c) In all five cases reviewed by the Grand Jury, the hearing and deliberations were held in

closed session.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

4

Quorum of Three

In all five cases reviewed by the Grand Jury, the hearing before the Commission was

conducted by a quorum of three commissioners. In such a case, the three commissioners

must vote unanimously in order to prevent the case from having to be heard again.

All of the commissioners denied awareness of pressure to conform with the others in

view of the consequences of a contrary vote. In one of the five cases reviewed by the

Grand Jury, however, one of the members initially voted “ no” on the motion to adopt the

hearing officer’s Proposed Decision to reinstate a deputy sheriff who had been dismissed.

The member who voted “ no” then asked the Commission’s counsel what the effect would

be of the single “ no” vote. The Commission’s counsel explained that the case would

have to be postponed to the next calendar. The member immediately changed the “ no” to

a “ yes” vote, avoiding the necessity of a new hearing.

Use of Historical Consistency to Determine Appropriate Disciplinary Actions

The Commission tries to ensure that an individual employee is not “ singled out” for a

harsher discipline than was imposed in previous cases. However, no two cases are totally

alike, taking into consideration the circumstances, employment history, years in service,

remorse, and other factors in mitigation or aggravation.

In one case, for example, in which “ conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a

nature that it adversely affects the ability of the employee to perform the duties and

responsibilities of his position” was charged, great attention was centered on the

discipline imposed in other cases based upon the same charge. Yet of the 19 cases

selected to show that a lesser discipline was historically imposed, not one involved a

conviction for conduct “ of such nature,” as, or anything remotely similar, to the conduct

of the deputy in the case then pending before the Commission. As a result, a new

precedent was set for future cases involving the aggravated conduct in question, i. e.,

reinstatement with full back pay and benefits.

Finally, and perhaps more importantly, even assuming that two cases are substantially

similar, the appropriate standard to be applied in a particular case is expressly prescribed;

the discipline must be “ appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances,” 4 i. e.,

of the facts and circumstances of the case then pending before the Commission. The fact

that a lesser discipline was imposed in a prior case is not necessarily pertinent to the case

at hand, and may, conceivably, have been too lenient. It is not incumbent upon the

Commission to put itself in a position of having to decide whether a prior case upon

which it relies as precedent, was rightly decided.

4 Rule 11.12 ( a)

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

5

Lack of Recusal Policy

The Sacramento County Charter5 provides that the Commission shall provide for the

impartial hearing and determination of appeals from disciplinary action. 6

The Commission has no rule or formulated policy pertaining to recusal by a

commissioner in the event of actual or potential bias or the appearance of bias for or

against a party to an appeal. One commissioner explained that the practice with respect

to recusal by a commissioner is to abide by the judgments of the other commissioners.

The decision to recuse oneself from participation in a particular case must be made by the

commissioner in question, and no one else.

The Commission Rules have Ceded Too Much Power to the Hearing Officers in Two

Respects

First, the Commission has eliminated its ability to review a case based on the total

available record, including the transcript of the hearing before the hearing officer. Once

an appeal reaches the Commission, its own rules limit argument by the parties to the

“ four corners” of the hearing officer’s Proposed Decision. 7 In this regard, the

Commission, upon receipt of a Proposed Decision, may ( 1) adopt it in its entirety, ( 2)

refer it back to the hearing officer for clarification, ( 3) reduce the disciplinary action and

adopt the remainder of the Proposed Decision, ( 4) reject a proposed reduction in favor of

the disciplinary action originally imposed, or a lesser disciplinary action, and adopt the

remainder, or ( 5) reject the Proposed Decision in its entirety. 8 Under these Rules, the

Commission has no option to decide the case itself upon the record, including the

transcript. 9

All of the evidence which is introduced at the hearing before the hearing officer is

included in the transcript of the hearing. However, not all of the evidence may be

referred to in the hearing officer’s Proposed Decision. Any evidence, no matter how

relevant and persuasive, that is not referred to in the Proposed Decision, remains

unknown to the Commission. In effect, the Commission must decide the appeal only on

the basis of the evidence that the hearing officer is willing to disclose in the Proposed

Decision. The Commission has, in effect, ceded much of its authority and responsibility

to its hearing officers. 10 In this way, the hearing officer may effectively determine, not

merely propose, the result of a case.

5 Charter, Article XVI, § 71H( d)

6 See Gai v. City of Selma ( 1998) 68 Cal. App. 4th 213.

7 The sole exception is where new pertinent evidence could not with due diligence have been offered into

evidence at the time of hearing.

8 Rule 11.12 ( d)

9 Compare the State Civil Service Act ( Gov. Code § 19582 ( c)) and the California Administrative Procedure

Act ( Gov. Code § 11517 ( c )( 2)( E)).

10 A public agency endowed with a public trust is simply not allowed to yield its discretionary authority to

an employee or contractor without recourse. 71 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 266, 268- 271 ( 1988); 63

Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 240, 242- 243 ( 1980)

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

6

Second, the Commission has not only limited any argument before the Commission to the

content of the Proposed Decision, but has further restricted any argument relating to

evidentiary, procedural, or legal issues which were raised or could have been raised at the

hearing, including any description of evidence which was accepted or rejected by the

hearing officer, or the weight of the evidence, or the credibility of any witness. 11

Thus, whether ( 1) highly relevant evidence was rejected by the hearing officer, or ( 2) an

allegation was proven by a preponderance of the evidence, or ( 3) a prescribed procedure

relating to the hearing was followed, or ( 4) legal issues, presumably including

constitutional issues, were correctly decided by the hearing officer, are all beyond the

scope of argument to the Commission which will have no part of any such discussion.

The decisions of the hearing officers in all those matters are absolutely beyond the

purview of the Commission.

The Elements of Each Cause for Disciplinary Action Should be Properly Interpreted by

the Hearing Officers and the Commission

Based upon its review of the cases referred to above, the Grand Jury believes that the

Commission’s review process failed to ensure that the following prescribed causes for

disciplinary action were properly applied in one or more cases:

• Civil Service Rule 11.4( p) ( Failure of good behavior either during or outside of duty

hours which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to the employee’s agency or

employment)

• Civil Service Rule 11.4( j) ( Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as

to adversely affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties of his position).

The critical point in each of these two causes, is that the words “ is of such a nature that,”

and “ is of such a nature as,” respectively, may not be ignored. 12

Beginning with the Rule regarding the failure of good behavior, it is well settled law that

it is not incumbent upon the County employer to prove an actual discredit to the agency.

It is sufficient that the failure of good behavior is “ of such a nature” as to result in a

discredit to the agency.

Similarly, the Rule regarding conviction of a misdemeanor does not require proof of an

actual adverse affect upon the employee’s ability to perform his duties. It is sufficient

that the conviction is “ of such a nature” as to result in an adverse affect upon such

performance.

A third of a century ago, the California Supreme Court13 interpreted the meaning of the

following cause for discipline under the State Civil Service Act: 14 “ Other failure of good

11 Rule 11.12 ( c)( 2)

12 It is a fundamental rule of legal construction that no provision may be interpreted in such a manner as to

render some of its words superfluous. ( 82 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 90, 99 ( 1999)

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

7

behavior either during or outside of duty hours which is of such a nature that it causes

discredit to the appointing power or to the person’s employment.”

The court held that under that terminology the words “ causes discredit” cannot be

construed literally, and that public knowledge of the behavior in question is not an

element of the offense. Thus, the Supreme Court explained, the charge of “ Failure of

good behavior which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to the agency” pertains to

the conduct, not to publicity. Hence, it would be unnecessary, for example, to introduce

newspaper articles concerning the employee’s behavior to prove actual discredit to the

agency.

The same reasoning would apply to the cause for disciplinary action pertaining to

conviction of a misdemeanor. Proof by positive evidence of some degree of actual

adverse affect upon the employee’s ability to perform the duties of his position is not

germane to the case. Even without the introduction of positive proof, it may in a

particular case be reasonably inferred15 that an employee’s usefulness in the exercise of

all or any part of the full scope of his duties has been affected.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. The votes of three of the five commissioners are required to decide an appeal

from disciplinary action. Therefore, where only three hear an appeal, all three must vote

unanimously to reach a decision. In such a case, there is a significant incentive for each

of the three commissioners to reach the same decision. Such an incentive is inconsistent

with the duty of each commissioner to exercise his or her individual judgment and

consideration.

Recommendation 1. A minimum of four commissioners should hear appeals from

disciplinary action except in the event of compelling circumstances. In no case should a

vote be changed for the sole purpose of reaching a decision.

Finding 2. The Commission affords too much consideration in its determination of

proper discipline to historical consistency. This policy is at odds with its duty to

determine in each case the discipline which is “ appropriate in light of all relevant facts

and circumstances” of that case.

Recommendation 2. The Commission should determine whether the discipline imposed

is appropriate in light of all relevant facts and circumstances of the case under review,

and should afford less weight to consistency of the proposed disciplinary action with

13 Nightingale v. State Personnel Board ( 1972) 7 Cal. 3rd 507, 513- 514

14 Gov. Code § 19572( t)

15 An inference is the result of reasoning from evidence. It does not fall outside the record, but is simply a

deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts

established by the evidence. ( Evid. Code § 600( b); and Cf., 74 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 70, 71n3 ( 1991))

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

8

disciplines imposed in previous cases. The exceptions are cases involving substantial

claims of discrimination based on race, sex, religion or national origin.

Finding 3. The Commission’s Rules do not define a formal recusal policy to be followed

in the event of an actual, potential, or appearance of, bias in a particular case.

Recommendation 3. The Commission should adopt and enforce a recusal policy to be

followed in the event of actual, potential, or the appearance of bias. Each commissioner

should be independently responsible under the policy for the decision to recuse or not to

recuse himself or herself from each particular case.

Finding 4. The Commission, by its own rules, does not allow itself the ability to consider

information contained in the full transcript of a disciplinary appeal hearing before a

hearing officer. The transcript contains “ all relevant facts and circumstances” which the

Commission should be able to consider in making a final decision. The hearing officer’s

proposed decision may contain only those facts and circumstances deemed pertinent to

that officer’s proposed decision, and rarely contains “ all” of the relevant facts and

circumstances. By limiting the basis for its review only to the material in the hearing

officer’s proposed decision, the Commission has limited its ability to make a duly

informed final decision.

Recommendation 4. The Commission should amend its rules to preserve its option to

consider information contained in the full transcript of the case under appeal, and to

maintain its option to hear any case with or without a hearing officer, or if previously

heard by a hearing officer, to rehear the case with or without a hearing officer.

Finding 5. The Commission, by its own rules, has precluded any argument on appeal

from a disciplinary action relating to evidentiary, procedural, or legal issues which were

raised or could have been raised before the hearing officer, or to the weight of the

evidence, or the credibility of a witness. Thus, the hearing officer’s determinations as to

all issues of evidence, procedure, or law, including the weight of the evidence, or the

credibility of witnesses, are not subject to review by the Commission. By refusing to

consider any such argument, the Commission has ceded too much of its authority and

responsibility to exercise its own judgment in making a final decision, to the discretion of

the hearing officer.

Recommendation 5. The Commission should amend its rules to allow for argument

before the Commission relating to evidentiary, procedural, and legal issues, raised before

the hearing officer, including descriptions of evidence, weight of the evidence, and

credibility of witnesses.

Finding 6. Improper interpretations as to the elements of proof were applied in one or

more of the cases reviewed related to the following causes for disciplinary action:

( a) “ Failure of good behavior . . . which is of such a nature that it causes discredit

to [ the employee’s] agency or employment”, and

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

9

( b) “ Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely affect

the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his

position.”

Recommendation 6. The Commission:

( a) should not require proof of actual discredit to the employee’s agency, when

deciding whether there was a “ Failure of good behavior . . . which is of such a

nature that it causes discredit to the [ employee’s] agency or employment”, and

( b) should not require proof of an actual adverse affect upon the employee’s

ability to perform the duties of his position, when deciding whether there was

a “ Conviction of a misdemeanor which is of such a nature as to adversely

affect the employee’s ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of his

position.”

Response Requirements

Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require 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, 2005, from:

􀂃 The Sacramento County Civil Service Commission, Findings 1 - 6;

Recommendations 1 - 6.

( It should be noted that Grand Juror Marilyn A. Isenberg recused herself from any participation in the

investigation, discussion, preparation, editing, or approval of this report.)

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Complaint Against Sacramento Independent

Taxi Owners Association’s Hiring Practices

Issue

Sacramento Independent Taxi Owners Association ( SITOA) is a nonprofit corporation

organized to provide taxi service to the Sacramento International Airport. SITOA has a

contract with Sacramento County ( the County) that gives SITOA members the exclusive

right to pick up passengers at the airport. The contract requires the use of fair, equal and

non- discriminatory practices when hiring drivers. Does SITOA use fair, equal and non-discriminatory

practices when hiring new drivers?

Reason for the Investigation

The Grand Jury received a complaint that SITOA engaged in discriminatory hiring

practices. The complainant alleged the following specific actions occurred:

• SITOA officials hired relatives

• New drivers had insufficient driving experience and bad driving records

• There was discrimination based on religious, national and racial factors.

It was further alleged that the County may not have been receiving the appropriate

income from the taxi fares as required by the contract, because there was no way to

confirm independently how many fares were picked up at the airport by members of

SITOA.

Method of Investigation

The Grand Jury interviewed the following:

• Assistant Director of Sacramento International Airport

• Deputy County Counsel assigned to airport representation

• SITOA’s Attorney.

The Grand Jury reviewed the following materials:

• September 17, 2002 Consent Agenda Item, Board of Supervisors, County of

Sacramento, Subject: Authorize the Director of Airports to Negotiate an Agreement

for Taxicab Services at Sacramento International Airport Between The County of

Sacramento And Sacramento Independent Taxi Owners Association ( 9/ 10/ 2002,# 3)

11

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

• July 29, 2004 Letter to Deputy County Counsel, Sacramento County Counsel from

Richard K. Turner, Kuykendall & Simas, LLP, re: Sacramento Independent Taxi

Owner’s Association Membership Investigation Report

• September 23, 2004 Letter to Attorney for SITOA from the Deputy County Counsel

re: SITOA Clarification of Relationship.

Background and Facts

In June 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved a request for proposals for the exclusive

rights to provide taxicab services at the Sacramento International Airport ( Airport). In

September 2002, the Airport was authorized by the Board to negotiate an agreement with

the successful bidder, the Sacramento Independent Taxi Owners Association ( SITOA).

SITOA is a nonprofit corporation organized specifically to respond to the County’s desire

to contract with a single entity to provide taxi service from the Airport. SITOA’s

membership is composed of approximately 60 members, each of whom owns his or her

own cab, and operates the cab independently. Only SITOA members are authorized to

pick up passengers at the airport. SITOA does not provide compensation to its members.

As part of its contract with the County, SITOA agreed to maintain a specified number of

cabs at the airport to meet the demand for taxi service. In addition, the contract between

SITOA and the County states in part:

“… its officers, members, owner/ operators, agents and representatives shall at all

times conduct business in a manner which assures fair, equal, and non- discriminatory

treatment of all persons with respect to race, creed, color, sex, national origin, age or

disability. In particular, Contractor shall do the following:

A. Maintain open hiring and employment practices and shall welcome applications

for employment in all positions from qualified individuals who are members of

minorities.

B. Strictly comply with all requirements of applicable federal, state or local laws and

regulations issued pursuant thereto relating to the establishment of non- discriminatory

practices and assuring the service of all patrons or customers without discrimination

as to any person’s race, creed, color, sex, national origin or disability.”

In late March/ early April 2004, the SITOA Board decided to recruit 10 new members.

Information was released to the taxi- driving community seeking applications. Based on

information supplied by SITOA, there were 68 applicants. However, 39 had less than the

five years experience required by SITOA and were informed that they were ineligible for

consideration.

The qualifications for the remaining 29 applicants were reviewed by the SITOA Board of

Directors in a closed session. The review consisted of making sure the applicants filed

the application and had submitted a printout of their driving record on file with the

Department of Motor Vehicles. The Board members had the opportunity to discuss any

personal knowledge they might have about an applicant and were able to make

recommendations on the applicants’ suitability for membership in SITOA.

12

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Through this process some 25 applicants were determined to be qualified. A lottery was

used to determine which of the 25 would be selected for the available taxi slots. Ten

drivers were tentatively selected for membership, and seven more were tentatively

selected to be placed on a waiting list.

However, according to procedures used by SITOA, prior to being accepted into

membership each prospective new member should have been required to pass a written

test. The test evaluated the applicant’s basic knowledge of procedures, conduct of taxi

operation at the airport and also tested for basic math, writing skill and the ability to use a

map book correctly.

After the lottery, but prior to the administration of the written test, the SITOA President,

apparently without the approval of the Board, telephoned the 10 who had been tentatively

selected for membership to let them know of their selection. When it was later

determined that the lottery had been performed before all of the requirements for the

application had been met, the Board elected to repeat the application process. Shortly

thereafter, the SITOA President resigned.

After the decision was made to conduct a new review of all applicants, four drivers who

had been previously selected were informed their applications would not be approved.

The new review resulted in approval of 10 applications. A new waiting list was also

added which included five more. Of the candidates informed of their tentative approval

in the first review, four were informed that they would not now be selected. Also, a fifth

person was removed from the waiting list because of information obtained about the

candidate.

Because of the difficulties encountered in the initial application review process SITOA

requested its attorney do an internal investigation. The attorney hired an independent

investigator to study the matter.

The investigator found that while there did appear to be problems with the first process of

selection, there did not appear to be evidence of racial or religious discrimination in the

recent membership process. 1

SITOA’s attorney also stated that on a going- forward basis, a new process will be

developed to replace the lottery- style process. This new process will be conducted by a

third party independent evaluator and focus on screening, interviews, and other admission

qualifications.

SITOA has also worked with the Sacramento County Deputy County Counsel in an effort

to clarify the continuing relationship between SITOA and the County. As a result of the

discussions between SITOA and the County, SITOA has amended its selection protocol

to include:

1 The application to SITOA does not ask for race or religious affiliation. However, according to data

provided by SITOA the Association’s membership is drawn from a diverse variety of national

backgrounds. The national origins of 62 members listed by SITOA include 13 from the U. S., 13 from

India, 10 from Afghanistan, and eight from Laos. The remaining 18 members come from an additional 10

countries. SITOA also indicates 19 members are Christian, 18 are Muslims, 13 are Sikhs, eight are

Buddhist and four practice other religions.

13

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

• Posting announcements of new membership selection, and placement of

ads in The Sacramento Bee and one other weekly publication

• More timely review of applications

• Documented qualification requirements, including more prescriptive

requirements involving driver records

• More stringent review for truthfulness of information put on applications

• More structured interviews and requirement of a passing score on written

examination for membership

• Continuation of a lottery selection

• Posting of new members

• Establishment of a complaint appeal process

• Continuous reporting of any investigations to the Director of Airports.

The County Counsel’s Office was aware of the complaints and has issued a letter that

defines the membership selection processes that SITOA must follow. The letter states

that SITOA must review all existing drivers to confirm that they meet the new standards.

Those drivers with non- conforming DMV records are to be removed from membership in

SITOA. Airport staff also confirmed that they did not have a method to ensure that

SITOA members were properly reporting the number of fares they were picking up at the

Airport. Because of this they have implemented the use of transponders that will enable

the tracking of SITOA members at the Airport. The Airport also indicated it has assigned

an employee to address all taxicab related issues in the future. Airport officials may be

involved in ongoing hiring practices as they occur, and are charged with spot checking

various aspects of the taxi service to ensure the public’s interest is being met. SITOA’s

contract expires in November 2005. The County will re- open it up for bid with a new

Request for Proposal.

Findings and Recommendations

Based on the interviews conducted and the evidence reviewed, the Grand Jury

determined:

Finding 1. It could find no evidence that relatives were hired by SITOA, or of

discrimination based on religious, national or racial issues.

Recommendation 1. No recommendation.

Finding 2. There was no evidence that SITOA was initially handling applications

inappropriately.

Recommendation 2. Airport staff should ensure that taxi contractors follow the

procedures, protocols and requirements agreed to by it and the Sacramento County

Counsel’s Office.

14

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Finding 3. The County Airports Office failed to provide oversight of SITOA’s hiring

procedures prior to the complaints by applicants. However, the County Counsel now has

the assignment to ensure compliance of the rules and to research future contracts.

Recommendation 3. County Counsel should continue to oversee the County contract

between taxi contractors and the Airport.

Finding 4: The Airport had no way of ensuring that the appropriate fees were being paid

to the Airport. The Airport indicates that transponders have now been installed in all of

the cabs to record each trip. This will provide a way to track the fees due to the Airport

by the drivers.

Recommendation 4. The Airport should continue to have an assigned employee oversee

all taxicab issues, provide periodic public reports on the taxicab services of the airport,

and act on problems in a timely manner.

Response Requirements

Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require 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, 2005, from:

• Sacramento County Director of Airports, Findings 2 – 4, Recommendations 2 -

4.

The Grand Jury cannot require SITOA’s legal counsel to respond to the findings and

recommendations in this report. However, we believe that the public would be best

served if the law firm of Kuykendall & Simas, LLP would respond to Recommendation

2.

15

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

-- This page left intentionally blank --

16

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Failure of Sacramento County to Oversee

the Delivery of Services

Contracted to Galt Community Concilio, Inc.

Issues

These issues include:

• Whether the County of Sacramento provided appropriate oversight for its contracts

with the Galt Community Concilio, Inc.

• Whether the County held the Concilio accountable for performance under those

contracts

• Whether the County of Sacramento provided adequate oversight for its approximately

$ 263 million in contracts with other providers of social, mental health, and alcohol

and drug treatment services.

Reason for the Investigation

In September of 2003 the Grand Jury received a complaint regarding misuse of funds by

the officials of the Galt Community Concilio, Inc. ( the Concilio), a non- profit 501. c. 3

corporation. The Concilio was primarily supported with federal, state and county funds

provided via contracts with the County of Sacramento. Since the original complaint was

made, the Concilio has greatly restructured and reduced its operations, terminated

employment of its previous Executive Director and filed for bankruptcy protection.

Given these events, the Grand Jury decided that it would not be fruitful to pursue an

investigation of the alleged misuse of funds by the Concilio.

However, the Grand Jury concluded there were several issues related to the oversight

provided by the County of Sacramento that warranted further investigation. These issues

related to how the County administered its contracts with the Concilio and the

appropriateness of the actions taken by the County to address: 1) the Concilio’s

nonperformance relative to those contracts, and 2) the Concilio’s overall ability to

provide the contracted services to the community. Additionally, the Sacramento County

Grand Jury examined the contract proceedings of Sacramento County departments with

other community organizations that provide a service.

Method of Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury interviewed:

• Director and staff members of the Department of Health and Human Services

( DHHS) of the County of Sacramento

17

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

• Agency Administrator of the Countywide Services Agency of the County of

Sacramento

• Staff members of the Department of Human Assistance ( DHA) of the County of

Sacramento.

The Grand Jury reviewed the following materials:

• Videotape of the discussion of the Concilio at the June 18, 2003 meeting of the

Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

• Contracted audits of the Concilio for fiscal years 1999- 2000, 2000- 2001, 2001- 2002

and 2002- 2003

• Contracts between the Concilio and the County of Sacramento

• County budget materials and a listing of recent contracts between the County DHA

and DHHS and contractors for the provision of social and health services

• Chronologies of communications and actions taken by staff of DHA and DHHS

relative to the Concilio in the period from 1998 to the present

• Communications between County staff and the Concilio and among County agencies

regarding the Concilio

• Transcript of the interview with the previous Concilio Executive Director

• Documents related to the bankruptcy filing by the Concilio

• Correspondence between the Concilio and the Internal Revenue Service

• Correspondence between the Concilio and the State Attorney General’s Office.

Background and Facts

Background on this Investigation

The 2003- 2004 Grand Jury was unable to complete within its term an investigation into

the allegations of the misuse of funds by the Concilio. Based upon the information that

was uncovered during its investigation, the 2003- 2004 Grand Jury recommended that this

matter be carried over and investigated by the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury.

A review of the documents suggested to the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury that there were

numerous improprieties in the financial operation of the Concilio and problems with the

oversight provided by those departments of the County of Sacramento that contracted

with the Concilio. The 2004- 2005 Grand Jury determined that further investigation was

warranted and opened this matter for review.

The specific issues for investigation were:

􀂃 Propriety of the financial operation

􀂃 Oversight provided by the County

􀂃 The Concilio’s overall ability to provide the contracted services.

18

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

During the initial stages of this investigation the Grand Jury reviewed information

concerning two issues. The first issue was the propriety of the financial operation of the

Concilio itself. The Grand Jury considered information related to the legality and

propriety of the Concilio’s financial operations, the actions of its Board and former

Executive Director, and the performance of the Concilio in meeting its obligations under

its contracts with the County of Sacramento.

The Grand Jury concluded that it would not be productive to continue further

investigation and publish a report related to the internal functioning of the Concilio. This

decision was reached for several reasons.

First, the Concilio is now operating with a reconstituted Board, under new management,

and at a very reduced level of operations. Second, the Executive Director who served

during the period of alleged financial misconduct was terminated from employment at the

Concilio in June of 2003. It does not appear that the current staff of the Concilio was

responsible for past practices. Third, the Concilio filed for bankruptcy in January 2004.1

At the time this report was written, the operations of the Concilio have been substantially

reduced and are under the review of the Bankruptcy Court. The Grand Jury believes that

any determination of legal culpability for alleged misconduct by former Concilio

officials, who are not officials within the normal purview of the Grand Jury, is a matter

for consideration by the Sacramento District Attorney.

The second aspect of the investigation is the oversight provided by the County of

Sacramento agencies. These issues involved how County agencies administered

contracts with the Concilio and the appropriateness of the actions taken by the County to

address: 1) the Concilio’s nonperformance problems relative to those contracts, and 2)

the Concilio’s overall ability to provide the contracted services to the community. These

issues are the principal subjects of this report.

The Concilio: Background

The Concilio is a non- profit 501. c. 3 corporation primarily supported with federal, state

and county funds provided via contracts with the County of Sacramento. The Concilio

was formed in 1975 and provided an array of social and health services to the

communities in southern Sacramento County. Historically the Concilio’s social services

included senior services, emergency rent, utilities and mortgage assistance, food and

clothing assistance, transportation services and job skill training. Health services

included primary care, diabetes testing, pregnancy testing and prevention, prenatal and

parenting classes and drug abuse counseling.

The Concilio and Sacramento County: Contracts

Table 1 that follows shows the principal sources of operating revenue for the Concilio for

the three fiscal years ( FY) ending June 30, 2003. These estimates were generated from

1 United States Bankruptcy Court, Sacramento Division, Case No.: 04- 20758- A- 11

19

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

information provided in the Auditors’ Reports2 for the Concilio for FY 2000- 2001, FY

2001- 2002 and FY 2002- 2003.3 During these years, contracts between the Concilio and

the County’s Department of Human Assistance ( DHA) and the County’s Department of

Health and Human Services ( DHHS) totaled $ 3,158,0004 and amounted to 88 percent of

the Concilio’s government funding. Total revenues for the Concilio during this time,

including net income from fundraising revenues, 5 were approximately $ 4,000,000.

Grants from DHA and DHHS provided almost 80 percent of the Concilio’s total

revenues, and the Concilio was highly reliant on the County for its overall operations.

Table 1

Summary of Grants Made to Concilio for

FY 2000- 2001 through FY 2002- 2003

DHHS Award DHA Award Sacramento

FY Amounts Amounts County Total Other Grants6

2000- 2001 $ 196,000 $ 620,000 $ 816,000 $ 90,000

2001- 2002 $ 522,000 $ 620,000 $ 1,142,000 $ 170,000

2002- 2003 $ 785,000 $ 415,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 182,000

3 year totals $ 1,503,000 $ 1,655,000 $ 3,158,000 $ 442,000

Expansion of County Funding for Concilio Programs and Switch to Fee- for- Service

For many years the Concilio provided a wide range of social services paid for by

contracts with DHA or its predecessor agencies. These services included, among other

things, transportation services, emergency aid to the needy and assisting in the

development of job skills. The contracts administered by DHA averaged $ 569,000 per

year for the four- year period ending on June 30, 2003. These services were on a cost-reimbursement

basis. Under this approach the Concilio was paid for expenses,

principally staff salaries and benefits, it incurred in providing services under the contract.

In FY 1998- 1999, the Concilio also began to provide drug and alcohol treatment services

via a contract with DHHS. The initial award for FY 1998- 1999 was $ 25,000. By FY

2002- 2003, it had increased to $ 166,000. These services were also on a cost- reimburse-ment

basis. Over the four years ending on June 30, 2002, the average funding awarded

by DHHS for these contracts was approximately $ 126,000 annually.

2 Prepared by Straine and Co., Certified Public Accountants, for FY 1999- 2000 and 200- 2001, dated

January 30, 2002 and by McCurry & White LLP for FY 2001- 2002 and 2002- 2003. Certified Public

Accountants, dated March 24, 2004.

3 All references to fiscal year cover the period from July 1 through June 30 of the indicated years.

4 All funding numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

5 Net income was used because, although fundraising revenues were large, so were expenses. Net revenues

for the three year period totaled approximately $ 32,000 on gross revenues of $ 1,335,000.

6 Actual revenue shown in the audits derived from state and federal Grants, principally SETA, FEMA, Title

III Aging and State Pregnancy Prevention grants.

20

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

In mid- FY 2001- 2002, the DHHS contracts with the Concilio were expanded to include

mental health services to children and expanded alcohol and drug treatment services. The

contract period was to run through the end of FY 2002- 2003. The awards were $ 284,000

for FY 2001- 2002 and $ 567,000 for FY 2002- 2003.

These were new services that had not previously been provided by the Concilio. The

method of qualifying for payment was also different. Previous DHA and DHHS

contracts with the Concilio were on a cost- reimbursement basis. The new DHHS

contracts were on a fee- for- service basis. The Concilio would not be paid until it

demonstrated that the services covered by the contract had been delivered in accordance

with the contract. Successful performance under these contracts would require that the

Concilio train existing staff, hire and train new staff, establish a new client base and

demonstrate that the services allowed by the contract had been provided to eligible

clients.

As shown in Table 2, awards7 to the Concilio from DHA remained fairly steady while

those from DHHS grew rapidly between FY 1999- 2000 and FY 2002- 2003.

Table 2

History of Concilio funding by DHA and DHHS

Award Amounts and Type of Award by Fiscal Year

Cost- Reim-

FY DHHS DHA8 bursement Fee- for- Service

1999- 2000 $ 118,000 $ 620,000 $ 738,000 - 0-

2000- 2001 $ 196,000 $ 620,000 $ 816,000 - 0-

2001- 2002 $ 522,000 $ 620,000 $ 786,000 $ 356,000

2002- 2003 $ 785,000 $ 415,000 $ 415,000 $ 785,000

With the awards described above, the Concilio was expected to provide an increased

range of services and to become the major agent for the County in supplying social,

mental health, and alcohol and drug treatment services in the cities of Galt and Isleton

and the unincorporated area of southern Sacramento County.

The DHHS staff recognized that the Concilio would face significant challenges in gearing

up to provide these services. They indicated that Concilio staff was trained and qualified

in FY 2001- 2002 to provide these new services. The DHHS staff also provided

substantial guidance and assistance to the Concilio during this period and well into

FY 2002- 2003.

7 The “ award” is the amount authorized in the contracts; actual payments were in some cases much less.

8 Specifically, the DHA provided awards of $ 397,000 in FY 1999- 2000, FY 2000- 2001, FY 2001- 2002 and

FY 2002- 2003 for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families services. DHA also provided funding for

CalWorks and other programs of $ 273,000 for both FY 2000- 2001 and 2001- 2002, and $ 126,000 for

FY 2002- 2003.

21

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Financial Difficulties Encountered by the Concilio in FY 2001- 2002 and 2002- 2003

From July 2001 through June 2003 the Concilio faced a steadily worsening financial

situation. According to the audit performed by McCurry & White, the Concilio

experienced numerous financial and accounting problems related to:

• Cash accounting and cash flow

• Issuance of payroll checks

• Operation of its accounting system

• Reporting to regulatory agencies

• Control over accounting for property and equipment

• Control over purchases and cash disbursements.

Other documented problems included the failure to pay payroll taxes due to the Internal

Revenue System, the writing of checks with insufficient cash in accounts to cover those

checks, and the inability to make payments on a $ 526,000 loan made to the Concilio by

the Rural Community Assistance Corporation ( RCAC).

This loan was used by the Concilio to purchase property in April 1999 to develop an

improved, one- stop central service facility. In addition to the loan for the purchase of the

property, the Concilio incurred an estimated $ 136,000 in pre- development costs related to

this property. 9 The Concilio was unable to fulfill the original loan conditions on the

original schedule and renegotiated a loan extension with RCAC in June 2002.

The financial condition of the Concilio further worsened during this period because of the

Concilio’s inability to generate a sufficient caseload under its contracts with DHHS for

drug and alcohol treatment and mental health services. As stated previously, these

contracts, which totaled $ 851,000 over the two- year period, were on a fee- for- service

basis. Payments under the contracts could only be made after the Concilio had delivered

the authorized services to eligible clients. According to information provided by DHHS

and DHA staffs, the Concilio had provided no eligible billings through November 2002,

and the total billings were only $ 6,000 by February 200310. Despite the lack of clients,

the Concilio had hired new staff whose salaries depended on income from the contract.

Because of this situation the Concilio was faced with additional expenses but lacked a

viable source of revenue to pay those expenses.

The Concilio received a 10% advance of $ 56,700 for the mental health contract in July

2002, and it appears that these funds were used to pay Concilio salaries and other

expenses that did not produce services that would qualify for payment. The Concilio was

never able to develop the client base needed to generate the units of service envisioned in

the contract. Ultimately, the Concilio was unable to repay the $ 56,700 advance and

could not generate sufficient additional revenue under the fee- for- service contracts to

cover its other expenditures. The staff of both DHA and DHHS eventually concluded

9 Page 3 of the June 18, 2003 Report to the Board of Supervisors on the Concilio Financial Condition by

DHA and DHHS staff

10 An average billing rate of $ 47,000 per month would have been required to provide all of the services

authorized by the mental health contract for FY 2002- 2003.

22

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

that the Concilio had a total of $ 246,000 in excess costs incurred that could not be paid

under the fee- for- service contracts. 11

By the spring of 2003, the fiscal mismanagement problems of the Concilio were widely

known, its financial situation had worsened, and its ability to function deteriorated

rapidly. In May 2003, the entire Concilio staff was terminated from employment.

Following that action, a re- constituted Board of Directors was formed. Funding from

DHHS was not continued for FY 2003- 2004, and contracts with DHA were reduced to

$ 289,000 for FY 2003- 2004. The loss of these contracts represented a reduction of more

than 70% in funding from the Concilio’s principal source of revenues, the County of

Sacramento.

DHHS and DHA Knowledge about Concilio’s Problems; Proposal to Restructure

Contracts with the Concilio and Design a Corrective Action Plan

Interviews and materials12 provided by the staff of both DHHS and DHA indicate that

both departments were aware from the conception of the fee- for- service contracts that the

Concilio could have problems generating sufficient units of service to offset the cost of

operating programs under the contracts. However, both DHHS and DHA staff indicated

that they were not aware of the extent of the Concilio’s financial difficulties or of its

improper management practices prior to the latter part of FY 2002- 2003.

However, DHHS and DHA did have warnings in mid- FY 2002 that the Concilio was not

properly providing financial information and might not be meeting the conditions of its

contracts. In January 2002, an interoffice DHA memo13 noted that Concilio “ services

covered under CALWORKS and TANF are very few and perhaps the contracted amounts

should be reviewed.” The memo went on to say “ DHA is paying a large portion of ( the

Concilio’s) staff salaries, but it appears the staff is not dedicated to DHA functions but

the overall function of the Concilio.” In February 2002, DHHS notified the Concilio that

fiscal shortcomings14 needed to be addressed. Specifically DHHS noted that the Concilio

did not submit a timely and correct annual cost report and was late in providing the

financial audit for FY 2000- 2001.

By October 2002, internal DHHS internal e- mails show that DHHS staff was clearly

aware that the Concilio was facing serious revenue shortfalls under its contracts. Internal

e- mails in February 2003 show that DHHS knew that the Concilio was falling further and

further behind in delivering services that qualified for payment. In March 2003, DHHS

11 Page 4 of the June 18, 2003 Report to the Board of Supervisors on the Concilio Financial Condition by

DHA and DHHS staff

12 DHHS and DHA provided the Grand Jury with detailed chronologies of their correspondence with and

discussions concerning the Concilio. Copies of written material and many e- mails were also provided.

These materials and the information provided in interviews with DHHS and DHA staffs were used by the

Grand Jury to develop the information provided in this section.

13 January 30, 2002 memo from DHA staff to Jerry Plummer, Subject: Galt Community Concilio Contract

# CW 58- 02

14 February 7, 2002, letter from Toni J. Moore, Administrator, Alcohol and Drug Services Division, DHHS,

to Sharon Gillies, Executive Director of the Concilio

23

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

notified the Concilio that the financial audit for FY 2001- 2002 as called for in the DHHS

and DHA contracts was overdue, and notified the Concilio that “ no further processing of

unpaid claim( s) will take place until two copies of the FY 2001- 2002 audit report are

received.” 15 In April, DHHS wrote the Concilio to express concerns about the Concilio’s

inability to repay its 10 percent contract advance as scheduled. 16

Throughout the second half of FY 2001- 2002 and most of FY 2002- 2003, DHHS staff

responded to this situation by working with the Concilio staff to deliver the services

under the contracts. However, by June 2003, DHA and DHHS staffs recognized the

severity of the Concilio’s financial situation. DHA staff reviewed the Concilio’s books17

and determined the Concilio’s inability to pay its debts and its lack of revenues and cash

flow. It was clear to DHHA and DHA that the Concilio was seriously overextended and

would never be able to develop a sufficient client base and meet its obligations under the

fee- for- services contracts. In their June 18, 2003 report to the Board of Supervisors

DHHS and DHA concluded, “ Due to the requirements of the funding source the Concilio

was unable to generate the units of service needed to offset the cost of operating the

programs and is left with a shortfall of approximately $ 246,000.” 18 DHA and DHHS

also reported that major restructuring of the Concilio’s programs would be necessary for

it to continue as a viable entity.

The Corrective Action Plan

In response to the Concilio’s situation, DHA and DHHS staff worked with the remaining

Concilio personnel to provide for additional cash flow and ongoing revenue and to reduce

the liabilities faced by the Concilio. The major elements of this plan were:

• The County would switch the fee- for- service contracts to a cost- reimbursement basis

and pay $ 246,000 to reimburse the Concilio for expenses it incurred but which were

not payable under a fee- for- service approach.

• The Concilio would sell the property for the one- stop facility to retire the loan debt

and predevelopment costs estimated to be $ 738,000.

• The Concilio would pursue other actions to cancel debt or produce additional

revenue. These were estimated to produce an additional $ 130,000 in savings.

• The County would continue to fund the Concilio for social services via a $ 269,000

contract with DHA, and

• The Concilio would complete financial audits for FY 2001- 2002 and FY 2002- 2003;

additional funding of $ 20,000 would be provided by the County for this purpose.

15 March 25, 2003, letter from Toni J. Moore, Administrator, Alcohol and Drug Services Division, DHHS,

to Sharon Gillies, Executive Director of the Concilio

16 April 2, 2003 letter from Ann Edwards- Buckley, program Manager, child and family Mental Health,

DHHS to Sharon Gillies, Executive Director of the Concilio

17 June 3, 2003 untitled report that does not identify the author or recipients, Subject: Galt Concilio

18 Page 1 of the June 18, 2003 Report to the Board of Supervisors on the Concilio Financial condition by

DHA and DHHS staff

24

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

On June 18, 2003, the contract amendment and the overall corrective action plan were

approved in a 5- 0 vote of the Board of Supervisors by Resolution 2003- 0795.

Outcome of Corrective Actions

Unfortunately, the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors to provide $ 246,000 in

funding and to institute a corrective plan proved insufficient to resolve the Concilio’s

financial situation. The Concilio filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the

Bankruptcy Code in January 2004. A reorganization plan was filed in May 2004 and a

new Executive Director was hired. The Concilio now operates with eight staff members

rather than the 28 it previously employed. County support of the Concilio has been

greatly reduced and amounts to a single contract with DHA for $ 289,000 for FY 2004-

2005. The Concilio has greatly reduced its operation and maintains a much- scaled down

level of services. At the time of this report, it was unknown how successful the Concilio

would be in surviving bankruptcy and continuing its operations, albeit at a much scaled

down level.

The County is Heavily Reliant on a Large Number of Community- Based

Organizations for Health and Human Assistance Services

The Grand Jury requested and received a listing of the FY 2004- 2005 contracts and

service agreements between DHA and current service providers. Similar information was

provided by DHHS for its contracts with community based organizations. The FY 2003-

2004 budget for the County provides information on the number of contracts for services

made by DHA and DHHS. Table 3 provides a summary of the current contracts and

agreements for services made by DHHS and DHA.

Table 3

Summary of Current DHHS and DHA Contracts and Agreements

Number of Entities

Category Amount funded Agreements Funded

DHA Contracts $ 53,000,000 48 32

DHA Service Agreements19 $ 22,000,000 89 44

DHHS - CBO contracts20 $ 109,000,000 130 64

DHHS – other contracts21 $ 79,000,000 126 N/ A

Total $ 263,000,000 393

The information shows that the County depends on a large number of contractors to

deliver approximately one- quarter of a billion dollars in annual services to citizens and

communities. The contractors include a wide range of non- governmental entities: large,

19 Information on service agreements is for FY 2004- 2005 and was provided by DHA

20 Contracts with community based organizations, as defined by DHHS

21 Approximate number and amounts, based on FY 2003- 2004 DHHS budget information

25

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

medium and small non- profits, and individual contractors who deliver a broad range of

human assistance and health related services. Some contractors are larger entities that

derive only a relatively small fraction of their income from these contracts. 22 Others are

individual medical providers with relatively small contracts for direct medical services.

However, much of the funding goes to contractors similar to the Concilio in that they are

relatively small to medium sized community- based, non- profit agencies whose operations

depend heavily on contracts with the County. For example, DHA indicated that it

currently has 48 contracts or service agreements for a total of $ 7,300,000 with 27 small

community- based service providers. DHHS has 130 contracts for $ 109,000,000 with 64

organizations with similar characteristics. Many contractors have multiple contracts for

various purposes with both DHA and DHHS.

County Oversight of the Concilio and Other Non- Profit Agencies that Provide

Countywide Social and Health Services

According to the staff of DHA and of DHHS, evaluation of performance by non- profit

service providers is often assessed functionally by various staff experts. For example, the

DHA contract with the Concilio provided funding for a wide range of social services, job

training, senior services and emergency services. The description of services to be

provided under the contract is very general. Only the general nature of the services, 23 an

expected number of clients to be served over the contract period and minimum hours of

operation are described. Rather than detailing the services to be provided, the Concilio’s

contracts are structured to provide funding for a specified level of staffing. 24 Various

County staff with expertise in each area are then assigned responsibility for determining

that adequate service is being provided in each area.

In the case of the DHHS mental health contract with the Concilio a “ Service Performance

Monitor” was specified, and the contract requirements are both detailed and extensive.

However, even though one individual is named for the purpose of the contract, that

individual is not responsible for assessing the overall performance and viability of the

contractor.

The staff of both DHA and DHHS indicated there are no Countywide policies that govern

how County staff monitors overall performance of non- profit agencies. There is also no

single department or individual designated with the overall responsibility to ensure that

contracted agencies operate in a financially responsible manner and meet the overall

requirements of their contracts with the County.

22 Examples include the University of California, Davis, Medical Center; local school districts and Sutter

Health Central

23 Examples of the descriptions include: Provide emergency services ( food, clothing, shelter and

transportation); provide gas vouchers or bus passes; provide nutrition/ cooking classes and housing

workshops, etc.

24 For example, the DHA contract with the Concilio for Community Based Support Services specifies the

percent of time and salaries that will be paid to 12 Concilio staff.

26

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Summary and Conclusions

As these facts illustrate, the Concilio was suffering severe financial problems at least as

early as April 2002. Cash flow was problematic; bills were not being paid; payroll taxes

went unpaid; checks were approved but never issued. This situation persisted until May

of 2003, when basic payroll could not be met and the entire staff was laid off. However,

despite written documentation of performance problems at the Concilio in early 2002,

neither DHA nor DHHS, who collectively provided more than three- quarters of the

Concilio’s revenues, were able to recognize the magnitude of the problem. In fact,

DHHS worked to greatly expand the Concilio’s mental health, drug and alcohol services,

an effort that added to the Concilio’s financial problems because it resulted in an even

greater gap between revenues and expenditures.

The lack of effective oversight by DHHS and DHA of the Concilio was aggravated by

the lack of enforcement of contract provisions, especially those related to annual audits

and financial reports. Furthermore, the financial bailout of the Concilio proposed by

DHHS and DHA and approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 18, 2003, was an

action that further undermined the principle that contractors should be required to provide

the services required in contracts in order to be paid. The intent to save a long standing

community organization, expressed by the Board during its June 18, 2003 meeting, was

understandable. However, the Board’s approval of an after- the- fact redefinition of what

the County would pay for under its contracts was inappropriate and poor policy. This

investigation reveals that the County is substantially deficient in tracking the performance

and viability of its contracted service providers. In summary, the current oversight

system:

• Lacks an accountable system that ensures proper financial operation and performance

of non- profit agencies that contract with the County to provide services

• Has no formal policies to trigger a review of an organization receiving monies for

providing services to the public

• Does not identify either an individual or department responsible for overseeing the

operation of non- profits to ensure performance and responsible management

• Fails to ensure timely audits are prepared as required by contracts.

Partially because of these deficiencies, the County did not identify and address the

serious problems at the Concilio in a timely manner. As a result, contracted services

were not provided, County funds were likely misspent, and the County’s efforts to

institute a corrective action plan were ultimately unsuccessful.

Even more alarming is the fact that the DHHS and DHA together administer almost 400

annual contracts or service agreements with service providers throughout the area. These

agreements deliver approximately one- quarter of a billion dollars in annual services. As

was the case with the Concilio, there are often several different DHA and DHHS

contracts with the same service provider. Many of these non- profits are small or

medium- sized entities that receive a large portion of their funding through contracts with

27

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

the County. The County is highly dependent on these contractors to provide social and

health services, but fails to seriously oversee the operation of these entities.

It is not known if other non- profit service providers will experience the types of financial

problems that led to the bankruptcy of the Concilio. However, if such problems occur or

develop, the Grand Jury believes that County does not have a system in place to detect

and address them in a timely manner.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. Neither DHHS nor DHA had an effective system for oversight of their many

contracts with the Concilio and did not have a system to determine if the Concilio was

properly managed and capable of meeting the requirements of the contracts. The County

generally lacks an oversight system for the approximately 400 contracts, which total $ 263

million annually, that it has with non- profit providers of social, mental health, and

alcohol and drug treatment services. If the financial problems occur at other nonprofit

service providers, it is likely that they would not be detected and addressed before

services suffered.

Recommendation 1. The County should establish clearly defined procedures to ensure

that the financial operations and program performance obligations are met by all non-profit

and community- based service providers that have substantial service contracts with

the County. As part of this procedure, clear responsibilities need to be established for

contract management and coordination of multiple contracts. In the case where a single

non- profit service provider is providing multiple services under multiple contracts, a

single lead county official should be identified as responsible for overall evaluation of

performance and assurance that performance problems are addressed. Performance goals

and objectives should be developed, measured, documented and reported.

Finding 2. When DHHS became aware that the Concilio was not providing the level of

services called for in the contracts, it was slow to remedy the situation. When it became

clear that the Concilio was in a financially untenable situation and could not provide the

services called for in its contracts, DHHS proposed, and the County Board of Supervisors

approved, a questionable bailout. The County modified the method of payment and

essentially forgave the Concilio of the obligation to provide the services called for in the

DHHS contracts. This allowed the Concilio to receive a $ 246,000 payment for expenses

it incurred in its unsuccessful attempt to provide services called for in its contracts.

Recommendation 2. The County should assure that contract provisions, such as audit

requirements, that are essential to ensuring legal and proper use of contract monies are

implemented and enforced. In addition, the County should implement requirements for

the County’s grant/ contract monitors to ensure the grantee/ contractor has engaged an

auditor at least 30 days prior to the end of the fiscal year.

Finding 3. DHA and DHHS did not ensure annual audits were completed in a timely

manner. These agencies did not inquire about the status of the FY 2001- 2002 audit until

28

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

February 2003, seven months after the end of the fiscal year. The FY 2001- 2002 audit

( along with the FY 2002- 2003 audit) was not completed until March 2004. The delay

further compromised the ability of these departments to detect the severe financial

problems at the Concilio.

Recommendation 3. Once a criteria for payment under a contract is established ( such as

a fee for documented service to individual clients), the County should not modify its

approach and utilize a different method of payment ( such as reimbursement for expenses

incurred) for any payments made for past performance.

Response Requirements

Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require 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, 2005 from:

􀂃 Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, Findings 1 – 3, Recommendations

1 – 3.

􀂃 Agency Administrator, Countywide Services Agency, Findings 1 – 3,

Recommendations 1 - 3.

( It should be noted that the Grand Jury Advisor Judge Raymond Cadei recused himself

from the review of this report.)

29

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

-- This page left intentionally blank --

30

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

The Handling and Security of Inmate Correspondence

at the Sacramento County Main Jail

Issue

Is inmate correspondence being handled in a secured manner in accordance with the

policies established by the staff of the Sacramento County Main Jail?

Reason for the Investigation

The Sacramento County Grand Jury received a complaint alleging mailboxes located in

the housing units or “ jail pods” were unsecured, thus allowing others to have access to

mail deposited in the mail receptacles. It was further alleged that on repeated occasions,

mail was delayed, lost or not delivered. The Grand Jury believed it important to

determine if inmates’ mail was being adequately handled and secured.

Method of Investigation

The following reports and documents were reviewed:

• Main Jail Inmate Handbook

• Sheriff’s Department Operations Order for Inmate Correspondence ( Revised

09/ 02)

• Sheriff’s Department Operations Order for Grievances ( Revised 09/ 01)

• Sacramento County Main Jail – Inmate Information

• Random sample of approximately 200 inmate grievances

The following individuals were interviewed:

• Assistant Commander, Main Jail Division

• Administrative Sergeant – Training Manager – Main Jail Division

• Project Manager in charge of maintenance and Main Jail facilities

• Officer in charge of mail inspection and distribution

• An inmate trustee

In addition, the Sacramento County Main Jail was visited on three separate occasions.

31

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

32

Background and Facts

The Grand Jury opened an investigation to determine whether a systemic problem existed

regarding the processing and security of inmate mail at the Main Jail. Was outgoing

inmate correspondence, in fact, accessible to other inmates to be read, rifled, and perhaps

destroyed by other inmates before being processed by the Jail staff?

The Sheriff’s Department Operations Order for Inmate Correspondence has clear

guidelines for the handling of incoming and outgoing mail. It states, “… each housing

pod… shall be equipped with a mail drop box. All inmates shall deliver their outgoing

correspondence into the provided mailbox in their respective housing location.” Jail

representatives stated having no prior knowledge of inmate complaints or grievances

regarding mail security, after inmate mail was placed in the mail receptacles.

In the Main Jail, a secured mail drop is a receptacle that has a cover with a slot to deposit

mail. The cover has a lock, the key to which is the responsibility of the floor officer.

Outgoing mail collection takes place in the late evening and the delivery of inmate mail

occurs in the early morning directly to the inmate’s cell.

On a visit to the Main Jail, the Grand Jury observed an inmate trustee placing a paper bag

( to collect inmates’ mail) in the receptacle of an unsecured mail drop— a condition which

the inmate indicated had existed for at least six months. Other similar circumstances

were also observed-- some pods had secure mail drops, covered and locked; others did

not.

In another visit, members of the Grand Jury went to the Jail at 11 p. m. to view the mail

inspection/ sorting/ delivery process. Envelopes were inspected to determine the contents.

Letters with no return address were returned to the U. S. Post Office. Letters containing

gang information, pornography or other inappropriate content were returned to the

sender. It appeared that every effort was made to find an inmate, even when the address

was not completely correct. The Grand Jury found the handling of the mail by the

distribution officer to be efficient and professional.

In an effort to investigate other allegations of delayed, missing or lost mail, the Grand

Jury reviewed 200 inmate grievances. Six of those grievances related to mail handling,

including issues involving the misaddressing of both outgoing and incoming mail, non-receipt

of magazines, mishandling of legal mail, and delays in receiving mail. Officers

who responded to the grievances often instructed the inmates to reread the inmate

handbook for the rules relating to correspondence.

It should be reported that the Jail staff who worked with the Grand Jury in this

investigation was helpful, courteous and receptive to Grand Jury comments.

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. The staff of the Main Jail was negligent in allowing inmate mail drops to

remain unsecured and at risk of being accessed by other inmates. The Grand Jury was

advised that a total of 16 mail drops needed to be made secure.

Recommendation 1. Unsecured mail drops should be repaired promptly as promised by

the Main Jail authorities.

Finding 2. Jail floor officers did not notify maintenance personnel of defective slots so

repairs could be made in a timely manner.

Recommendation 2. Main Jail staff should develop a procedure to ensure that mail-related

deficiencies as noted in this report are promptly reported and repaired.

Finding 3. Jail staff, in responding to inmate complaints of mail not received or delayed

mail delivery, instructed inmates to review the rules regarding correspondence in the

Inmate Handbook.

Recommendation 3. Main Jail staff should post next to the mailbox in each pod a sample

envelope addressed per the rules in the Inmate Handbook.

Response Requirements

Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require 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, 2005, from:

􀂃 Sheriff, Sacramento County, Findings 1 – 3, Recommendations 1 - 3.

33

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

-- This page left intentionally blank --

34

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Student Safety Walking To

Inderkum High School

Issue

Is there a safe path of travel along Natomas Boulevard for students walking to Inderkum

High School?

Reason for the Investigation

It was brought to the attention of the Sacramento County Grand Jury that there was not a

completed pedestrian pathway to Inderkum High School from North Park Drive to New

Market Drive on the west side of Natomas Boulevard. Students must cross Natomas

Boulevard at several points along their route to the high school in order to stay on a

sidewalk. However, it was noticed that some students take the shorter way and walk

along Natomas Boulevard next to automobile traffic. The Grand Jury believed it was

important to investigate when a complete walkway would be constructed providing

sidewalks for the high school students.

Method of Investigation

The following individuals were interviewed:

• Principal of Inderkum High School

• Vice Principal of Inderkum High School

• Manager of New Growth Division – Sacramento Development Services

Department

• Assistant City Manager and Director for Development Services

The following documents were reviewed:

• North Natomas Financing Plan

• Natomas Boulevard Improvement table

In addition, several members of the Grand Jury walked the route. ( See map on page 38).

35

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Background and Facts

The Grand Jury opened an investigation to determine what the future plan was for

students to be able to walk to Inderkum High School in a safe and logical manner. At

various places along Natomas Boulevard between North Park Drive and New Market

Drive, sidewalks end in an abrupt manner, not connecting to either a crosswalk or

pavement. On the west and east side between Del Paso Road and New Market Drive

walkways are complete. From New Market to Inderkum High School on the south side

there is also a completed sidewalk. There is no sidewalk from New Market to Inderkum

High School on the north side and from New Market to North Bend on the west side.

From North Bend to a walkway along the collection pond there is an area of about 35 feet

where there is no walkway. At that point students must go to the crosswalk at North

Bend, cross Natomas, continue on the east side to New Market, cross again and continue

to Inderkum High School. From North Bend to North Park on the east side, there is a

sidewalk.

Inderkum High School opened in September 2004 with approximately 700 students.

When the school adds another grade for the 2005- 2006 school year, the projected

enrollment is 1100 students, more than a 50 percent increase. The posted speed limit

along Natomas Boulevard is 45 miles per hour but it has been observed that traffic

frequently exceeds 45 miles per hour. Students do not always cross at the marked

crosswalks, but tend to walk on the non- paved areas which are unsafe and become muddy

and very slippery in inclement weather. With the increased student population there is a

greatly expanded risk of a student being injured.

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. Student safety is in jeopardy because there is not a completed pedestrian

pathway along Natomas Boulevard from North Bend to New Market on the west side.

Recommendation 1. In the interest of student safety, paved access in these areas needs to

be completed.

Finding 2. The City has plans and the appropriate finances in the 2005- 2006 budget to

complete the pedestrian pathways sometime during the 2005- 2006 fiscal year, but that

may not occur until June 2006.

Recommendation 2. The City needs to ensure the completion of these areas to be used by

students is done by the start of the school year, August 22, 2005.

36

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Response Requirements

Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require 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, 2005, from:

􀂃 Sacramento City Council, Findings 1, 2 and Recommendations 1, 2.

37

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

38

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Landscaping and Lighting District Assessment Practices

in the City of Folsom

Issue

Does the City of Folsom properly lower property assessments in a particular assessment

district when surplus accumulations occur? Have fraudulent projects been created to

conceal excess accumulation of property assessment funds?

Reason for the Investigation

A complaint was received alleging that the City of Folsom failed to properly reduce the

assessments paid by property owners in the Steeplechase Landscaping and Lighting

District, and instead used the funds to create an illegal surplus. It was further alleged that

fraudulent projects were included in the City’s Engineering Report to conceal the illegal

accumulation of funds from the over assessment of parcels.

Method of Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury:

• Reviewed the 2003- 2004 budget for recommended assessment per parcel for several

districts, including Steeplechase, The Residence, and Silverbrook Landscaping and

Lighting Districts

• Viewed a tape of the Folsom City Council meeting of April 4, 2003, when the subject

of a possible over assessment was brought to the attention of the Folsom Council

members

• Reviewed California Streets and Highways Code, specifically Sections 22500- 22509,

which may be cited as the “ Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972;” Section 22526,

defining incidental expenses; Section 22556, levying a new assessment; Sections

22565- 22574, Engineer report requirements; and Sections 22655- 22663, collection

and distribution of monies collected by tax assessment

• Reviewed California Constitution Article 13D ( Assessment and Property- Related Fee

Reform), implementing Proposition 218 requiring a vote of approval by the property

owners before a new fee or charge can be imposed or increased. Article 13D became

effective on July 1, 1997

• Reviewed an independent auditor’s review of specific district assessments contained

in the engineer’s report prepared by Shilts Consultants, Inc., Engineering, the firm

hired by the City of Folsom

39

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

• Interviewed the Folsom Neighborhood Services Director, the Folsom Landscaping

and Lighting Districts Manager, and the Folsom Assistant City Attorney.

Background and Facts

As of March 1, 2005, there were 24 Landscaping and Lighting ( L& L) Districts in the

City of Folsom. The purpose of landscaping and lighting districts is to maintain and

service the public improvements within each district. Such improvements generally

consist of landscape corridors and median islands as well as street lights.

Each L& L District is formed in accordance with the 1972 Landscaping and Lighting

District Act. When a district is formed, an annual per parcel assessment is established

which is collected by the County ( via a resident’s tax bill) and remitted back to the City

of Folsom to administer the district’s improvements. The annual assessment is created

and established to cover operating and maintenance costs of the public improvements and

is adopted each year by the City Council.

During the meeting with Folsom officials, the reason for specific expenditures and the

methods of handling funding excesses were discussed. Folsom officials explained that

each district has certain landscaping issues-- plants, dividers, fences or walls that require

repair and replacement at different times. Districts are also responsible for graffiti

abatement, damage repair due to accidents or vandalism, and other such costs. If the

budget allows, entire sections of walls and fences are repaired or replaced as necessary.

Projects are determined after an on- site inspection of each district.

Grand Jury members reviewed maps showing where each Folsom L& L district is located

and why a type of fencing works in some areas and why block walls are needed in others.

In the Steeplechase Landscaping and Lighting District, a portion of fence was recently

replaced. This project was noted in the budget and billing portion of the engineer’s

report. All funds were accounted for after the project was completed.

From the Shilt’s Engineering Report, Grand Jury members reviewed line items in the

budget for several districts and discussed the differences in funding found for what

appeared to be similar items, or when one district was smaller than another. The

assessments were the same for both. Although each district pays equally for the cost of

an engineering report, it does not pay equally for staff time. Larger districts require more

time to inspect, review and to determine an appropriate assessment for district projects.

In each of these cases Folsom officials provided facts and explanations that justified these

practices.

Folsom officials stated that assessments for projects are made after an on- site inspection

to determine the needs of each district for the coming year. The cost of projects that may

take more than one year to complete are pro- rated and funds may be accumulated to pay

for such projects in the succeeding year. There was no evidence of the creation of

fraudulent projects to conceal property over- assessments or any co- mingling of funds

between districts.

40

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

Using the Silverbrook Lighting and Landscape District as an example of a district with

surplus funds, Folsom officials addressed how assessments are lowered if there is a

surplus. Silverbrook was intended to be residential, but instead is mostly commercial. In

addition, light rail is coming to the area and extensive additional landscaping changes are

anticipated. The Silverbrook account has a balance of $ 92,442. Of that amount, $ 40,000

is retained as the amount needed in the budget for this year’s projects. The remaining

$ 52,442 is returned to the affected property owners as a credit on the County tax bill, or

as a zero assessment for the coming year.

Finding and Recommendation

Finding 1. The City of Folsom is in compliance with existing laws when the L& L

District uses its assessment authority. When a surplus occurs, credits are applied to the

tax rolls generated from the County Auditor. The credit is not specifically noted on the

tax bill, and as such, is not necessarily clear to property owners.

Recommendation 1. The City of Folsom should explain to property owners how

assessments are made and why credits are given rather than lowering assessments. The

L& L District and the City Council should continue their efforts to keep property owners

informed about the assessment and billing process.

Response Requirements

Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require 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, 2005 from:

􀂃 Folsom City Council, Finding 1 and Recommendation 1.

41

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

-- This page left intentionally blank --

42

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

The Development of New Partnerships and Programs

to Assist Foster Children

Issue

What are the new supplementary programs to assist foster children?

Reason for the Investigation

The Grand Jury decided to review new programs which the County has initiated with

partnerships in the community; these programs have been designed to help children in

Foster Care to improve the chances for reunification with their families and to help them

prepare for a successful and independent adult life. The Grand Jury wanted to find out

more about these programs, particularly from the perspective of the foster care

community of providers.

Method of Investigation

The following reports and documents were reviewed:

• Sacramento County Independent Living Program brochure

• Sacramento County Early Start to Emancipation Preparation Program pamphlet

• Emancipate! Foster Youth Emancipation Guide

• Casey Great Start Young Adult Program information brochures

• Adolfo Housing Services for Former Foster Youth brochure

• Information pamphlet from Juvenile Dependency Drug Court

• CPS Citizens Academy Binder

• Parent and Staff Shared Leadership Task Force, Children’s Protective Services’

brochure

• Parent Leadership Task Force 2003 Summary, Children’s Protective Services’

recruitment publication

• Shared Leadership Task Force Meeting Minutes, December 2004

• Making Memories brochure

• Wraparound Sacramento – Exceeding Expectations! by Maria Pagador and Jim

Hunt

• Facts about EMQ Children and Family Services ‘ Wraparound’ Program,

publication by EMQ Children and Family Services

• Intensive Service Options, California, U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services

Summary Report.

43

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

The following individuals were interviewed:

• Agency Administrator, Countywide Services Agency

• Deputy Director, Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services

• Child Protection Division Chief, Department of Health and Human Services

• Program Manager, Foster Home Licensing/ Family Maintenance

• Social Worker, Foster Care/ Group Home Placement

• Social Worker, Family Reunification

• Drug Court Coordinator, Alcohol and Drug Services Division.

The following sites were visited:

• Department of Health and Human Services Offices

• Sacramento County Drug Dependency Court

• The Specialized Treatment and Recovery Services ( STARS) office

• Parent Leadership Program meeting site.

A written survey was sent to a random selection of area Group Homes; the addresses

were provided by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Glossary of Terms:

CPS Children’s Protective Services

STARS Specialized Treatment and Recovery Services

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

DHA Department of Human Assistance

ILP Independent Living Program

ESTEP Early Start to Emancipation Preparation Program

AOD Alcohol and Other Drug

Background and Facts

The Grand Jury discussed with the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS)

managers several new programs developed to help improve the outcomes for children in

foster care. The Grand Jury believes a public review and recognition of these new

programs would be informative for the Sacramento community. The programs reviewed

include:

• Independent Living Program

• Drug Dependency Court

• Citizens Academy

• Parent and Staff Shared Leadership Task Force

• Making Memories

• Wraparound Services.

44

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

The Child Protective Services system, which helps coordinate these services, was

designed to protect children from unsafe home environments. Children can be legally

removed from homes that have been deemed unsafe or unhealthy. After temporary

placement, the child is put into the foster care system if the home is still not considered a

viable living situation. Children are then placed in either individual foster care homes or

are placed in group homes, depending on the circumstances of each case. The long

history of the foster care system includes inadequate care for thousands of children and

dismal outcomes for their success in life. This history has been extensively detailed in

many reports and will not be discussed in detail here.

The foster care system has begun to emphasize the concept of healing the family from

which the child is removed and to improve the rates of reunification with the families.

The Grand Jury decided to summarize some of the programs that the DHHS is utilizing to

attempt to promote better rates of success for foster children and their families.

Independent Living Program for Foster Youth

The Independent Living Program is a collaboration of services available to foster youth

between the ages of 16 and 21; this group, particularly the youth over the age of 18, has a

need for services to help them adjust to life beyond the foster care system. After the age

of 18, young people are “ aged out” of the system and have had serious problems learning

to live independently. A large percentage of these children become victims of physical

and sexual assault, have become homeless and many rely on public assistance. The

Sacramento Emancipation Collaboration was formed in 1999 to help address the needs of

these young people. Partners in the collaboration include several government agencies

such as DHA and DHHS and many community based organizations in the community. 1

The goals include helping foster youth obtain the services they will need to transition to

independence. Social workers, probation officers, foster families and school district

Foster Youth Services social workers can refer eligible youth to the program. Those

currently in foster placement and those who have emancipated from foster care can be

referred to the program. The ILP receives federal funds, which are administered by the

County. 2

Services for the youth in this program include classes on independent living skills and

personal growth; workshops on financial aid for college; services related to education and

career planning; assistance in finding appropriate community services; activities such as

graduation and award ceremonies, conferences, a speakers bureau and community service

activities. 3

Services in the Early Start to Emancipation Preparation ( ESTEP) program include one-on-

one tutoring, daily living skills, social and interpersonal skills, survival and youth life

skills education. An evaluation of participants in Los Angeles County showed an average

1 Sacramento Emancipation Collaboration information pamphlet

2 Sacramento County Independent Living Program brochure

3 Sacramento County Independent Living Program brochure

45

Sacramento County Grand Jury June 30, 2005

improvement of two grade levels in reading skills and an improvement in attitudes

toward school and learning. 4

Adequate housing for emancipated youth is another difficult issue for youth who are

leaving foster care and for those who are homeless. As part of the Sacramento

Emancipation Collaboration, Adolfo Housing Services helps find housing options for

former foster youth. In addition to a variety of support services such as those noted in the

above programs, this program focuses on transitional housing for up to 24 months and on

permanent housing through subsidized assistance. There is also a Housing Choice

Voucher program. 5

The Casey Great Start Young Adult Program publishes a comprehensive guide to

services for current and former foster youth, ages 12- 24. The guide has over 50 pages of

information on subjects ranging from employment, housing, education, health care,

childcare, and legal resources to recreation and transportation. Each subject area includes

specific information and a list of community resources where the young person can

obtain services and assistance. 6

The ILP also produces a regular newsletter, which highlights events and provides updates

on various aspects of the programs.

Independent Living Programs strive to help young people develop productive lives as

independent adults.

Drug Dependency Court

The mission of the Sacramento County Juvenile Dependency Court is “ to support the

Child Welfare Dependency System by encouraging and enforcing compliance with the

alcohol and other drug ( AOD) treatment and AOD testing orders of the Juvenile

Dependency Court”. The vision is “ to support the safe and timely reunification or

permanent placement of abused and neglected children by causing parents to immediately

address any AOD involvement.” The services are optional for parents whose children

have been removed from the home due to alcohol or drug abuse issues.

Among the program goals are to help parents receive treatment for AOD and to maintain

a sober lifestyle so that they can reunify with their children. There are eligibility criteria

for the program and once the parent( s) is determined to be eligible, a CPS Early

Intervention Specialist Social Worker will make an assessment. The parent who

volunteers receives the following services:

• AOD assessment and treatment authorization/ referral

• Assignment to a STARS recovery specialist

4 ESTEP brochure

5 Adolfo Housing Services for Former Foster Youth brochure

6 Emancipate! Foster Youth Emancipation Guide by Casey Great Start Program

46

Sacramento County Grand Jury Jun