Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08042009 - SD.3RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE response to Grand Jury Report No. 0910, entitled “Restrictions Impede Gand Jury Investigation,” and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to forward the response to the Superior Court no later than August 19, 2009, as recommended by the County Administrator. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Response to Report only. BACKGROUND: On May 19, 2009, the 2008/09 Grand Jury filed the above-referenced report, which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County Administrator, who prepared the attached response that clearly specifies: A. Whether a finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented; B. If a recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and by what definite target date; C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted by cannot be APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/04/2009 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Susan A. Bonilla, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Dorothy Sansoe, 335-1009 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: August 4, 2009 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: SD. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:August 4, 2009 Contra Costa County Subject:Response to Grand Jury Report 0910 - Restrictions Impede Grand Jury Investigation implemented within BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) a six month period; and D. The reason for not accepting or adopting a finding or recommendation. The attached response was prepared with the assistance of the Employment and Human Services Department Child and Family Services Division and County Counsel. CLERK'S ADDENDUM APPROVED the report to the Grand Jury Report with modifications proposed today, including addition of a brief introduction to clarify the perspective of the agency and information clarifying the turnover in staff as related to the reduction in funding and subsequent 42% reduction in staffing levels in December 2008. ATTACHMENTS Response To Gran Jury Report 0910 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0910: RESTRICTIONS IMPEDE GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION FINDINGS 1. Section 925 of the California Penal Code requires that “The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or function of (Contra Costa) county”. Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. 2. Section 919(c) of the California Penal Code requires “The grand jury shall inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers of every description within (Contra Costa) county.” Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. 3. Section 939.9 of the California Penal Code requires that “A grand jury shall make no report … on any matter except on the basis of its own investigation of the matter made by such grand jury.” Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. 4. Section 827(a)(1)(P) of the Welfare and Institutions code provides that a case file may be inspected by “Any other person who may be designated by court order of the judge of the juvenile court upon filing a petition.” Response: The respondent agrees with the finding. 5. The Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau of the Employment & Human Services Department of Contra Costa County is subject to the oversight responsibilities of the Contra Costa County Grand Jury. Response: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Grand Jury has authority to investigate and report on county operations as set forth in Penal Code sections 888 and 925, not oversight responsibilities. 6. There have been numerous newspaper articles and anecdotal stories state-wide about foster children being placed in unsafe or abusive homes, not attending school and not receiving appropriate medical treatment. There have also been reported incidents during which a lack of oversight resulted in death. Response: The respondent partially agrees with the finding. There have been numerous newspaper articles reporting on the care of foster children throughout the state. The County is not aware of what incidents the Grand Jury is referring to that resulted in death and of these alleged incidents, which, if any, occurred in Contra Costa County. Newspaper stories and anecdotes are not generally accurate descriptions of incidents involving foster children. 7. Interviews by the Grand Jury suggest that the rapid turnover of assigned caseworkers and recent budget reductions are detrimental to the welfare of the foster children. Response: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The County is not aware of what interviews the Grand Jury is referring to in this finding. However, the County acknowledges the perception that staff turnover and budget reductions may impact the welfare of foster children. 8. CFS establishes a case file for each foster child. CFS maintains that they have detailed records covering such things as the cleanliness of the living facilities, school attendance, indications of domestic violence, substance abuse and all medical records. CFS has taken the position that these files may not be reviewed in their entirety by the Grand Jury. Response: The respondent partially agrees with the finding. CFS establishes and maintains case files for each foster child. The child’s case record contains information regarding that child and their family as authorized by state and federal law. CFS does not maintain records on all facilities; CFS only maintains records on facilities which are licensed by CFS. CFS has given the Grand Jury access to case files as authorized by the Welfare & Institutions Code 827 court order of January 21, 2009. These files included all court documents and contact notes written by social workers and all reports of child abuse or neglect on the child. CFS also gave the Grand Jury access to all public records that were requested. 9. The Grand Jury spent many months attempting to gain full access to a random selection of case files. This effort began in September, 2008, and has continued to the present. These efforts included numerous meetings, electronic correspondence, and telephone conversations with CFS senior personnel as well as attendance at court hearings. Response: The respondent partially agrees with the finding. The first Grand Jury request for records came in a subpoena dated October 10, 2008, which requested full access to all records. CFS informed the Grand Jury that the law prohibits the disclosure of juvenile case files pursuant to a subpoena. The Grand Jury was informed that it could request access to the juvenile case files by filing a petition with the juvenile court pursuant to 827 of Welfare & Institution Code. Subsequently, the Grand Jury filed a petition with the juvenile court, and following a hearing on January 21, 2009, CFS provided access as ordered by the judge. Prior to this hearing CFS was unable to legally act on any requests for access to case files 10. The Grand Jury has repeatedly requested that CFS provide access to review a random selection of complete current case files. This review would be conducted by a select group of Grand Jurors in a secure CFS location. Each request has been denied or indefinitely postponed. CFS contends that significant portions of the files be redacted before they can be reviewed by Grand Jurors. The redaction included all parties’ names (including children, parents and mandated reporters) and addresses, excluding the names of towns. The first names of the children did not have to be redacted. Response: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Grand Jury repeatedly requested un-redacted access to all case files. On January 21, 2009, the Juvenile Court ordered that a random selection of a limited number of cases could be reviewed by four members of the Grand Jury who had received child abuse and criminal clearance. The court further ordered that items in the records be redacted. CFS redacted information based on the court orders and HIPAA requirements. 11. As a result of a Superior Court hearing dated January 21, 2009, and based on Welfare and Institution Code 827, CFS agreed to provide Grand Jury access to requested case files, but due to a lengthy redaction process imposed by CFS, the Grand Jury has been unable to review any complete files. Response: The respondent partially agrees with the finding. CFS complied with the juvenile court orders regarding access to and redaction of a limited number of case files. CFS provided the Grand Jury with comprehensive information on nine case records. Members of the Grand Jury reviewed these records on three occasions starting on March 11, 2009. 12. Over 200 Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) have immediate and direct access to the complete current un-redacted case files of County foster children to which they are assigned. Conversely, the Grand Jury, in its legally authorized oversight role has consistently been denied access to complete case files. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. Court Appointed Special Advocates only have access to limited redacted child case files and only pursuant to an order of the juvenile court, and only after appointment by the juvenile court to a particular case as a child advocate. 13. The oversight provided by federal and state authorities appears to involve comparing reported CFS statistical information with similar statistical information from other foster care agencies. No review or oversight is apparent from any non-agency personnel inspecting actual current and complete case files. (Note: No peer review documentation, though requested, has been made available.) Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. The County has no direct knowledge of the Grand Jury’s perceptions and understanding of the agencies that audit CFS for legal compliance. Peer review documentation was provided to the Grand Jury on February 6, 2009. The federal Department of Health & Human Services and the State Department of Social Services routinely audit CFS legal compliance including examination of case files. RECOMMENDATION That the Employment and Human Services Department require CFS to allow full and unrestricted access by the Grand Jury. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because State law prohibits access to juvenile case files by grand juries absent a court order. CFS will continue to provide the Grand Jury with all public records upon request.