July
29, 2014
Plumas
County News
By
Dan McDonald, Managing Editor
The county’s mental health and
alcohol and drug programs need an image makeover.
That’s the recommendation of
Plumas County Grand Jury in its newly released 2013-14 report.
The report, which is included
as a supplement in today’s paper, credited both departments with making
positive strides. But it said both should do more.
The jury said both departments
— which have suffered from revolving-door leadership changes and negative press
— need to improve communication with the criminal justice leaders and other
county departments.
The jurors recommended each
department launch a public relations campaign to repair its public image.
The grand jury conducted six
investigations for this year’s report.
In addition to A&D and
mental health, the jurors reiterated the need for a new county jail. They said
all three departments were feeling the strain of the Assembly Bill 109 Inmate
Realignment.
The jurors were also critical
of the county for not knowing what buildings it owns — or at least not having a
reliable list of assets readily available.
In another report, the jurors
wondered why a committee that is supposed to conduct an annual county audit
hasn’t done so in two years. They noted the audits stopped after the county
fired its chief administrative officer.
While the grand jury
highlighted problems in each of its investigations, the jurors refrained from
the harsh criticism found in recent reports.
In fact, the report commended
the county recorder’s office “for its fine work” in the way it handles the
election process.
Absent from this year’s report
was the usual strong criticism of the county supervisors.
Following is a snapshot of all
six grand jury investigations.
Alcohol and drug
The grand jury said the Plumas
County Alcohol and Other Drug Services Department (AOD) hasn’t been providing
adequate services.
The jury noted the department
has faced an uphill battle after being shut down from 2008 to 2012.
They said the department’s
instability over the years “has occurred simultaneously with an increase in
drug and alcohol addiction among Plumas County residents.”
The department’s closure,
coupled with three new directors in three years, has added to the problem.
The report stated AOD didn’t
clearly understand its role in the county’s Alternative Sentencing Program. The
program is designed to help inmates (up to 70 percent of whom have drug and
alcohol issues) re-enter society.
Adding to AOD’s challenges is a
lack of staff and facilities. The jurors found the department doesn’t have the
resources to handle its caseload and public outreach.
Instead of having a detox
facility available, correctional officers at the jail are often overseeing
individuals withdrawing from alcohol and drugs. “It’s dangerous and potentially
life threatening,” the jurors wrote.
The grand jury recommended that
AOD hire more help, using money from federal grants.
It also recommended that AOD be
integrated into a behavioral health services model along with the mental health
department.
The jurors suggested AOD work
with Plumas District Hospital on a plan to transport intoxicated people who are
willing to go to a medical detoxification facility rather than the county jail.
AOD needs to launch a public
relations campaign immediately, the jurors said. It needs to quickly repair its
public image and let the public know what it does.
Finally, the grand jury
recommended that at least one county supervisor be delegated to help the new
AOD director revamp the department.
Mental health
The grand jury said it didn’t
plan to investigate the Plumas County Mental Health Department. But during its
AOD investigation, the jurors said they kept hearing about “a lack of
coordination” with mental health.
A series of newspaper articles
about the department’s leadership changes and a high-profile teen suicide
prompted the jurors to investigate.
While the jurors were
complementary of the department’s new director for his ideas, enthusiasm and
communication with the county supervisors, they identified many procedural
problems — particularly a lack of coordination with the sheriff’s office. They
said mental health “needs to get proactive and plan for increased needs and
step up in support.”
“There have been decades-long
historical problems concerning the sheriff’s department in the coordination of
5150s (individuals at risk of harming themselves or others), in determining
that an individual’s problem is not alcohol or drug related, and insufficient
therapy for inmates at the jail with mental health related problems,” the jury
wrote.
The jurors said mental health,
like the AOD department and the local criminal justice system, has been
strained by the AB 109 population.
Mental health has also been impacted
by the Affordable Care Act. The result is an “ever-increasing” wait list.
The jurors recognized mental
health’s effort to shorten the waiting list, which it has done. But the grand
jury said the department needs to add staff and should consider changing its
protocol to better assist law enforcement.
Among the grand jury’s
recommendations were that mental health “implement measures to increase trust
and communication by creating mental health and HIPAA (privacy rule) trainings
with the Sheriff’s Department and re-examine the 5150 hospitalization and
release procedure.”
The grand jury said mental
health, like AOD, needs to improve its image with the public. The jury
recommended the department “immediately launch a public relations campaign to
repair its public image and increase its profile.”
Jail inspection
The grand jury reinforced the
recommendations of previous juries in calling for a new jail.
The jury said it continues to
be a safety hazard for corrections officers, inmates and the community.
Until a new facility is built,
the jury recommended “some minor low-cost improvements” including repairing
security systems and cameras.
They grand jury said the jail
still needs to increase staff. It also needs to do a better job of screening
inmates before placing them in dormitory cells.
The jurors said dormitory rooms
should separate the sentenced inmates from the non-sentenced inmates to reduce
conflicts.
The jury was impressed with the
jail’s inmate work program. They recommended expanding the program to include
more and varied tasks.
“This program could be used to
construct/install physical security measures at the jail to better protect the
facility,” they wrote.
County assets
The grand jury said it was
surprised the county couldn’t provide a list of buildings that it owns.
The jurors discovered the lack
of a comprehensive list when they wanted to check them out for any potential
liabilities and possible revenue-generating recommendations.
“We were not able to properly
identify, by district, what the county owned, how a building was being used,
potential environmental hazards, or if buildings were being adequately
utilized, let alone, if there were buildings available for potential business
use,” the report stated.
The jurors recommended that the
facility services department build a list of county-owned properties by Sept.
30. It should include a description of the building’s current use, value and
the condition of the structure.
They recommended the list be
updated every year.
Elections process
Members of the jury visited the
Plumas County Elections Office four times during the investigation. And they
liked what they saw.
Two members of the jury
observed the Plumas County registrar of voters elections process Nov. 5, 2013.
“It’s a well-run department,”
the jurors wrote. “Procedures have been carefully worked out over the years and
are followed by the elections processors.
“The Grand Jury would like to
publicly commend the Elections and County Recorder’s Office for fine work.”
Audit committee
“Who are they and what do they
do?”
That was the title of the grand
jury’s report of this investigation.
According to the county, the
Board of Supervisors, on Oct. 3, 2006, passed a resolution to establish a
Plumas County Audit Committee.
The committee is supposed to
include the county auditor/controller, the county administrative officer, the
county treasurer and two members of the grand jury.
However, the grand jury said
the committee hasn’t met for two years.
“Confusion exists as to what
the purpose of the Audit Committee is for and because of this, convening the
Audit Committee on an annual basis is not a priority for the members for the
committee,” the jurors wrote. “It’s unclear who is responsible for convening
the Audit Committee.”
The grand jury said the
supervisors should revisit the purpose of the committee and decide if one is
needed.
“The county does not appear to
be following its self-imposed obligation as required by statute,” the jurors
wrote.
No comments:
Post a Comment