HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05101994 - 1.56 � 1
1 .56
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on May 10, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, McPeak, DeSaulnier and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Grand Jury Reports 9404 and 9405
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the following Grand Jury Reports are REFERRED
to the Internal Operations Committee:
Grand Jury Report 9404 entitled "West County Booking Unit"
Grand Jury Report 9405 entitled " Bureaucratic Child Abuse"
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervis rs on the date shown.
ATTESTED.__ ! i 9 9
of sup avisorrS end County AdminiisBoard
as or
BY Deputy
cc: Internal Operations Committee via CAO
County Administrator
County Sheriff-Coroner
Director of Social Services
1. S(=1
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345
Report No. 9404
WEST COUNTY BOOKING UNIT
"TO BE OR NOT TO BE"
RECIE1 V F®
gj - Z
CLERK BOARD
COSTA C
�
CONTF�A
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date:
udith M. Mullin
Grand Jury Foreman
Accepted for .Filing: r
D a t
li Richard E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge
of the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and every elective county officer or agency head
for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
5_. .. of that county-officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which Fthat officer or agency head supervises or
.controls. Iii ani► city and county, the mayor shall also
k comment on the findings and recommendations. All such
comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the
,-
presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled"the_
grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports
shall be placed on file with the clerk.of the public agency
and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury
final report by, and in the control of the currently impan-
eled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five.years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963 ch.
674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs- 107, 187, 1980 ch.
543, 1981 ch. 203, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch- 221 §1,
effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury" defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury reliort to be based only on own investigation. Penal
Code §939.9-
INTRODUCTION
The West County Detention Facility opened in Richmond in mid-
1990. This ultra-modern, program-oriented facility for medium
security prisoners was built at a cost of approximately
$53,527,904. Included in this county owned and operated structure
is a state of the art booking unit which was intended to service
the needs of city police forces as well as the Sheriff's Department
in the western portion of Contra Costa County. The unused booking
intake unit has never opened and remains empty.
FINDINGS
1. The Martinez Detention Facility is the only booking location
open for adults in Contra Costa County.
2. Most cities in the county must transport prisoners to the
Martinez Detention Facility for booking.
3. All prisoners arrested by Sheriff's deputies must be
transported to the Martinez Detention Facility for booking. -
4. City police and Sheriff's deputies are "off the streets" for
protracted periods of time, due to the need to transport
prisoners to the Martinez Detention Facility.
5. City police and Sheriff' s deputies frequently experience
lengthy delays booking prisoners at the Martinez Detention
Facility.
6. Actual costs involved in personnel, equipment and stress
caused by not utilizing the Booking Unit at West County
Detention Facility have never been determined.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The necessity of transporting prisoners to the Martinez
Detention Facility creates an unreasonable financial burden on
municipal police services.
2 . A time and/or cost study has never been developed to reflect
actual hours spent and transportation costs involved in having
only one booking location open in the County.
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1993-1994 Contra Costa Grand Jury recommends that:
1. The Board of Supervisors, within 60 days, complete an analysis
of the actual costs and hours spent by police departments and
Sheriff's deputies in transporting and booking prisoners at
the Martinez Detention Facility.
2 . The Board of Supervisors complete a study, within those same
60 days, to measure the costs and/or savings to the County and
local agencies that could be realized by utilizing the West
County Detention Facility Booking Unit.
COMMENTS
Citizens want to see more peace officers on the street
protecting lives and property. It has not been determined how many
hours peace officers spend transporting and booking prisoners.
Local communities will benefit if police services are concentrated
on crime suppression. A solution cannot be formulated until the
facts are known.
Too often elected and appointed representatives are concerned
about county money vs. city money. Will we utilize taxpayer's
money more efficiently to make Contra Costa County a safer place to
live. . .that is the question?
2
A REPORT BY
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
1020 Ward Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(510) 646-2345 SF CP ED
19°4
Report No. 9405
N1AY 3
l ERVISORS
ARK 130A P,COS-T CO-
BUREAUCRATIC CHILD ABUSE
"Power tends to corrupt;
absolute power corrupts absolutely. "
John Emerich Edward Dalberg,
Lord Acton
Approved by the Grand Jury:
Date: X4117 /�
J (lith M. Mullin
rand Jury Foreman
Accepted for Filing:
e: !'
j Ri and E. Arnason
Judge of the Superior Court
SECTION 933 (C) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
§933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury
Recommendations.
• (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge
-of the superior court on the findings and recommendations
` t: _pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and every elective county officer or agency head
for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section.-914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court,with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
commaA on the findines and recommendations. All such
comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the
presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the_
grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports
shall be placed on file with the clerk.of the public agency
and the office o€ the county clerk, or the mayor when
applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One
copy shall be placed on file with the applicable grand jury
final report by, and in the control of the currently impan-
eled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a
minimum of five.years. Leg.H. 1961 ch. 1284, 1963 ch-
674, 1974 chs. 393, 1396, 1977 chs- 107, 187, 1980 ch.
543, 1981 ch. 20.3, 1982 ch. 1408 §5, 1985 ch- 221 §l,
effective July 12, 1985, 1987 ch. 690 §1, 1988 ch. 1297.
Cross-References
Admissible evidence. Penal Code §939.6.
"Grand jury" defined. Penal Code §888.
Grand jury rel5ort to be based only on own investigation, Penal
Code §939.9.
SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
The Contra Costa County Grand Jury's investigation of the Social
Service Department, Report No. 9402 on ADOPTION VS LONG TERM FOSTER
CARE, has led to the Grand Jury's discovery of disturbing and
shocking practices. This report shall focus on evidence
demonstrating a brutal pattern of threats, intimidation, and
coercion of select prospective adoptive parents. This has resulted
in bureaucratic child abuse in Contra Costa County.
FINDINGS
1. Due to the Social Service Department's disorganization (Grand
Jury Report No. 9402 on Adoptions) , the Department lacks focus
on its mission .to find homes for Contra Costa children.
2. The Social Serv.jce Department confirmed that the County will
lose state funcling if it refers children to private adoption
agencies or to. other counties.
3. Many foster parents are routinely threatened with removal of
the children from their foster care home if the foster parents
express a desire to adopt them.
4. Contra Costa County officials create artificial barriers to
adoption by repeatedly citing excuses such as:
a. lack of staff
b. reduced funding in the adoption unit
C. lack of clerical support
d. the social worker is on vacation
e. your file is lost
f. the social worker is on leave of absence
g. your social worker took your file home
h. it can take as long as ten years to complete an adoption
5. Prospective, qualified adoptive parents, discouraged from
adopting children in Contra Costa County, have frequently
finalized adoptions in other counties.
6. Social workers use intimidation tactics to dissuade
prospective adoptive parents. This is done by disseminating
disinformation that obscures the truth.
7 . The Social Service Department's Adoption Unit threatens
prospective adoptive parents with the loss of the County
"safety net" (foster care subsidy and ancillary services) .
1
8. The Social Service Department's Adoption Unit negatively
exaggerates some children's limitations by branding them as
"ugly" and having few social skills, thus keeping these
adoptable children in the more expensive and less nurturing
environment of foster care limbo.
9. Prospective adoptive parents and long term foster care parents
have been threatened with the institutionalization of their
children when they question the authority of the Social
Service Department.
10. The Social Service Department staff have demonstrated, and
management has condoned, insensitive and callous behavior
toward prospective adoptive parents and children.
11. There is an ongoing practice of complacency by the Social
Service Department's management toward inappropriate and
unethical behavior.
12 . The current system lacks a process whereby inequities and/or
wrongdoing can be addressed. Prospective adoptive parents
wishing to file a grievance against a social worker are
advised that no formal process exists for grievance resolution
in the Social Service Department, contrary to State law.
13 . Every level of management, up to and including the Board of
Supervisors have been informed of numerous problems with the
Social Service Department and have failed to act.
CONCLUSIONS
1. It is understood that prospective adoptive parents need to be
apprised of the ramifications of adoption; particularly those
of special needs children. It is clear from the performance
of the Social Service Department staff that they have gone
beyond what is reasonable.
2 . It is abundantly clear that the Social Service Department's
objective is to hold hostage a high custody count of children
in order to secure state subsidies which enables the
Department to maintain its current staffing.
3 . The Social Service Department has lost sight of its mission,
the care and protection of Contra Costa County's emotionally,
and socially parentless children.
4 . The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator' s
indifference and lack of concern for child welfare has served
to cloak the adoption nightmare of the Social Service
Department.
2
- I
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury, because of the urgency
of this matter, recommends that the Board of Supervisors, within 30
days initiate and document in writing a comprehensive program to
correct management and adoption service problems in the Adoption
Unit, and to:
A. Appoint an impartial investigator, reporting to the
County Administrator, to correct management and adoption
service problems.
B. Instruct the impartial investigator to evaluate the job
performance. of all directors, managers, supervisors, and
social workers responsible for adoption services; and
recommend remedial action including re-assignment,
disciplinary action, dismissal, and if warranted by the
facts, referral to the County District Attorney for
criminal investigation.
C. Immediately initiate, and complete within six months, a
study to determine the viability of the County's adoption
services being privatized.
D. Immediately initiate, and complete within six months, a
study to determine the viability of the County's adoption
services being transferred to the California State
Department of Social Services; and
E. Immediately upon completion, all reports and studies are
to be made available to the general public.
COMMENTS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report Nos. 9402 and
9405 are not meant as an indictment of the entire Social Service
Department. The reports were, however, written and published to
identify the gross misconduct of the Adoption Unit which directly
affects vulnerable, adoptable children of Contra Costa County.
3