[Solano County] Civil grand jury reports Solano Family Justice Center not meeting mission

Fairfield — 2020-21 Solano County Civil Grand Jury concludes that the Solano Family Justice Center “does not meet” its mission, and a supervisory board investigates to determine whether the center should be removed from district control. Said that you need to start. Prosecutor’s Office of the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.

The grand jury said the Judiciary Center “is not functioning as a (one-stop shop) for victims and is already stressing stressful situations.”

The report also noted that the judicial center needs to find a way to be financially stable.

The director of the Justice Center and the district attorney disagree with many of the grand jury reports.

In fact, of the nine findings released in a report released by the Solano County High Court on June 1, the District Attorneys Office and the Judiciary Center fully agreed on only two, and the other two. I partially agreed.

The Justice Center has always worked to ensure that essential services are provided, including advocacy for domestic violence, court attendance, detention orders, crisis intervention, safety planning, and support for basic needs. Was signed by District Attorney Krishna Abrams and Center Director Angel. Mr. Agial said.

The report also provided center staff with “additional training to understand legal requirements (of the Family Justice Center), discrimination issues, and trauma-based care,” and “Managers on county employees and field employees.” It suggests that a “role” is needed. A partner “needs to be defined more clearly.

The grand jury said the current environment “is inconsistent with trauma-based care and is affecting the quality of service provided to victims.”

The reaction condemned the idea.

“We are committed to providing the highest quality care to all the people we serve,” said the answer.

The report stems from a review of a previous grand jury report, is also critical of the center, and includes claims that the center needs more community partnerships. There is.

It was repeatedly recommended in the latest reports.

The report states, “We are actively seeking additional on-site partners to provide the comprehensive services needed by victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.”

Abrams and Agiar replied that “the recommendation was implemented.”

“But we continue to strengthen cooperation within the community to better serve those in need,” the answer said.

Another finding is probably more directed at the supervisory board and county administration than at the district attorney’s office or the center itself, and about the center’s facilities.

A grand jury said, “The building that currently houses the Solano County Family Justice Center is inadequate and its location is unknown to many residents.” Make a plan to procure a facility in a better location."

The answer is, “We want to increase capacity in the future, but at this point SFJC maximizes all available space to ensure that all important services are delivered.”

The grand jury also recommended more public outreach to inform how residents can access the service.

The answer suggests that some facility plan has been created or is under development, but it does not say it directly. However, reaching out to potential community partners and residents is a regular part of the Center’s efforts, he said.

The grand jury report is also critical of public transport to facilities for “victims outside the fairfield” and recommends the establishment of satellite offices in Vallejo.

The reaction was that the center was in the center of the fairfield and Vallejo had a presence.

“We have increased our services to be onsite in Vallejo for those who have problems traveling to Fairfield,” said the answer. “We continue to work with our onsite and offsite partners. We will work together to provide services to victims in the event of transportation problems. To date, no victim has been denied service due to transportation problems. “

The report also states that it will add center-specific training for law enforcement agencies.

The required responses from the Supervisory Board and the Ministry of Health and Social Services have not yet been submitted.

California News Times
June 7, 2021