[Santa Barbara] County Grand Jury Makes Cyber-Security Recommendations for Special Districts

The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury has prepared a report about cybersecurity for special districts and county service areas following the 2019-20 Grand Jury report “Cyber-Attacks Threaten Santa Barbara County,” which focused on the broader county issues.

The report urges the 53 special districts in Santa Barbara County to review their cyber-systems to identify cybersecurity threats. The jury urges the special districts and service areas to take all necessary measures to protect their operational data and computer systems.

The jury has proposed a list of best practices for Santa Barbara County special districts to consider identifying, protecting and, if necessary, upgrading their cybersecurity activities to advance the best interests of their consumers.

There are three types of special districts within the county: Independent Special District, Dependent Special District, and County Service Area.

An Independent Special District has its own board of directors, either elected directly or appointed; they make their decisions on activities and budgets independent of any city or county oversight.

A Dependent Special District is actually run by its respective city council or county board of supervisors.

County Service Areas (CSA) are different from Special Districts in that they are also governed by the County Service Area Law (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 25210 et seq) in addition to Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. There are currently 39 Independent Special Districts, eight Dependent Special Districts, and six Community Service Areas in the county.

Recent press accounts report cybersecurity breaches across the U.S.

» California Government Code Section 25210.3 (2016)

» www.sbcounty.gov/uploads/LAFCO/Publications/CKH_2018.pdf

» https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/576835-agencies-warn-of-cyber-threats-to-water-wastewater-systems

The two-day shutdown of a part of Colonial Pipeline’s oil distribution system on the East Coast in early 2021, which reportedly cost the company more than $2 million in ransom payments, is one example.

Costly or potentially even deadly cyber attacks also impacted, among many other business and government entities, police departments, water distribution systems, a major national meatpacking company, and hospital systems. Health care systems are particularly targeted. California had the highest percentage of attempted health-care system hacks, with 21 percent of the nationwide total.

These intrusions can be expensive to correct. Even when ransoms are paid, the breached or maliciously encrypted systems must be reconfigured or even rebuilt entirely. Moreover, there remain potential financial liabilities for critical infrastructure businesses like utilities, as well as financial institutions, to their customers.

For example, Ally Bank (formerly known as GMAC) presently is the defendant in a class-action lawsuit in federal court in New York for its alleged negligence in allowing hackers to breach several of its customer accounts and steal names and passwords.

Unfortunately, as the special district officials and consultants whom the jury interviewed candidly admitted, no system is foolproof and precautions may vary greatly from district to district. It, therefore, is incumbent upon the special districts to take whatever proactive steps possible to reduce the threats and thereby mitigate the damaging consequences of the intrusions which inevitably will occur despite diligent efforts to prevent them.

In an effort to assess the readiness of special districts in Santa Barbara County, the jury interviewed a representative sampling of Santa Barbara County special districts and municipal officials, as well as private industry internet technology and cybersecurity experts. The jury also reviewed informative articles, reports, and official publications dealing with the subject of cybersecurity.

There are at least three U.S. agencies that address cybersecurity crime. Special districts are encouraged to access these and strengthen their own websites:

» U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) https://www.cisa.gov/

» U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework

» U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) https://www.ic3.gov

While there appear to have been no known successful cyber attacks of special districts within Santa Barbara County, the jury learned that an extensive number of cyber incursions have been attempted in the U.S., often with success. These intrusions severely disrupted governmental and private company operations, costing billions of dollars in ransom payments, system repairs, and additional defensive measures.

Following a 2021 White House meeting on the problem and in an effort to meet the challenge, Microsoft said it is allocating $150 million for cybersecurity technical services to assist federal, state, and local government agencies. In addition, it has committed to invest $20 billion over five years to develop improved cybersecurity programs.

Google has committed to spending $10 billion for that same purpose, and major corporations like Amazon and IBM will be increasing their investment in employee training programs.

The jury has neither the staff nor the technical expertise to analyze the cyber-readiness of the special districts or to suggest specific defenses to cyber attacks. That work should be done by expert consultants and security firms devoted to such activities. The jury offers the following list of Best Practices based upon the sources consulted:

» Create strong passwords and change them often, or at least periodically.

» Install and regularly update "encryption" software.

» Install and regularly update "firewall" software (intrusion detection systems).

» Update computer systems as necessary.

» Install and regularly update virus protection software.

» Secure data by limiting access.

» Safely dispose of all unwanted documents.

» Limit remote internet access to the extent possible.

» Limit physical access to system equipment (access cards, ID cards, etc.).

» Wipe data from equipment to be disposed of.

» Monitor employee use of all systems.

» Periodically test security measures and immediately remediate weaknesses.

» Report to the appropriate internal security all malfunctions, anomalies or any other “out-of-ordinary" events no matter how insignificant they may appear to be.

» Conduct training for all employees periodically on security policies and procedures, certify attendance, and teach staff how to prevent, detect, contain, and eliminate breaches.

» Hire an outside security consulting firm to conduct a risk analysis at least annually and consider the possibility of pooling resources with other special districts to hire such expertise.

» Consider adequate cybersecurity insurance and the possibility of creating or joining an existing insurance pool to reduce premium cost.

» Create and securely maintain back-up data separate from the “live” system.

» Create a comprehensive Security Policy Manual to centralize information in one place and make it accessible to all staff.

» Classify and prioritize all district hardware, software, devices, data, etc. in accordance with their critical nature.

» Adopt easy to follow protocols for detecting and reporting known or suspected incursions and explain the exact duties and responsibilities of different staff levels in case an incident occurs. Create and maintain a current incident log designed to immediately document, analyze, and catalog incursions and explain how best to respond

» Immediately eliminate all access to data systems and emails upon an employee’s departure.

Santa Barbara County Grand Jury
By Pam Olsen
December 10, 2021

[Shasta County] GRAND JURY: OUTDATED FACILITY, UNDERTRAINED STAFF AT SHASTA COUNTY CORONER’S OFFICE

The Shasta County Grand Jury inspected the Shasta County Coroner’s facility in August, finding staff is undertrained and the facility is outdated.

SHASTA COUNTY, Calif. - After an inspection of the Shasta County Coroner’s facility, the Grand Jury found the building was outdated and the size was insufficient for the current and future needs of Shasta County, the report says.

The Shasta County Coroner’s Office Report comes after the Shasta County Grand Jury inspected the coroner's facility on Aug. 16.

The Grand Jury observed a bone saw with residue on it during its inspection of the autopsy suite.

The last entry of the checklist seen above was made on Aug. 9, 2019.

The report found the facility was not in compliance with several California code regulations, Occupational Health and Safety Administration regulations and a Center for Disease Control regulation.

According to the report, a checklist is posted for what needs to be done in preparation for the next autopsy. During the visit on Aug. 16, the jury noticed the checklist had no entries in over two years. The last entry was Aug. 9, 2019.

The facility, which was found to be inadequate, can accommodate up to 20 dead bodies on gurneys, according to the report. But the report indicates that the number has approached 30 at times.

When there are more than 20 bodies, the reports said the dead bodies, in body bags, share a gurney.

The report also says there is no staging area, so the bodies are kept in an air-conditioned coroner van until delivery can be made into a cold storage area.

The Grand Jury found the coroner’s office autopsy suite does not meet the minimum standards for California Code of Regulation Title 8: Sections 5141(a), 5143(a)(1),5193(d), 5193(d)(3)(H), 5199 and the Center for Disease Control “Guidelines for Safe Work Practices in Human and Animal Medical Diagnostic Laboratories.”

According to the report, the Grand Jury noticed a dirty bone saw with bone residue on it, “poor air flow, and low-quality facility maintenance.”

The report says the investigation revealed a lack of training for the supervising Chief Deputy Coroner, a lack of written training protocols, and an unclean and unsafe working environment. It also says the Chief Deputy Coroner retires or moves on after a brief time in the position.

The Grand Jury was given a 14-week training manual that the Coroner’s Office provided them. The report says many staff members come untrained and training provided by the office comes at the state’s minimum, an 80-hour death investigator course.

In the findings of the report, it says the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office does not encourage or provide training for staff at the Coroner’s Office, resulting in undertrained staff.

Also, there is no opportunity to advance within the Coroner’s Office with there being one DCI level and no caption position available, according to the Grand Jury report.

There is also no biohazard plan, the autopsy viewing area has no audio and it limits viewing from the autopsy suite, according to the report.

Action News Now – Chico, Redding
Brandon Downs
December 6, 2021 12:40 PM

Grand Jury says public agencies in Santa Barbara County improve ability to meet employee pension fund financial obligations

 But, report says there is still room for improvement.

A new Grand Jury report shows that Santa Barbara County, and its eight cities have improved their ability to meet the financial obligations tied to employee pensions.

In 2018, a Grand Jury found that some of the county’s governmental agencies had pension plans which were on shaky financial ground.

The new report says while there are continued risks, the funds appear to be in much better shape, with no immediate concerns..

It notes that some agencies are in better shape than others. The report says Santa Barbara County, as well as the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, and Solvang are on the most solid ground.

It says Lompoc, Santa Barbara, and Santa Maria are at higher risk levels.

The Grand Jury is recommending that all of the agencies develop and publish plans to show employees their efforts to meet pension obligations, as well as to show the public how they will balance that with the costs of providing public services.

KCLU
By Lance Orozco
December 6, 2021

 

Clarifying Monterey County short-term rental pilot program

Blog note: This article refers to a response to a Monterey County grand jury report.

MONTEREY COUNTY, Calif.

In Monterey County, leaders are clearing up some confusion on short-term rentals. On Wednesday, a group protested outside of Supervisor Mary Adams' office because they are against a new pilot program involving short-term rentals.

"This is not a ban on short-term rentals in Monterey County," said Mary Adams, Monterey County supervisor.

"I would tell her to stop this pilot program in its tracks and work with the association towards a reasonable process whereby we could become permitted and operate legally," said Craig Langkemp, who is on the board of the Monterey County Vacation Rental Alliance.

Adams said, "It's troublesome to me. I think it's most unfortunate that the very, very well-funded professionals in the short-term rental management business have come after me personally and have determined to frighten the community."

Adams continued by saying "I've met with the short-term rental people for over several years now, and the word 'ban' has never been on the table, ever. But that's what they're choosing to do. And unfortunately, it's not correct."

The Pilot program is in response to a grand jury report which investigated short-term rentals in the county. Among the findings, the report found the county's software for applying to be a rental operator is outdated and error-prone.

Another finding is the database systems, "do not allow Vacation Rental Transportation Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues to be easily broken out from other TOT classifications such as hotels and B&Bs, thereby reducing transparency and limiting data available for management and decision making."

Langkemp said, "The county's claim that all we need to do is get a permit to operate is disingenuous. The process to get a permit is six to seven thousand dollars, can take up to two years."

Adams responded, "Of course, it's going to cost. There's no question about it. I understand and I share the frustration of taking so much time to get a permit. That's what we should be able to discern by having a pilot program where the chokeholds. Why is this taking so long? Let's get that fixed."

he county estimates there are more than 600 home rentals, but only 20 have permits to operate.

The program wants to get all rentals into compliance, including homeowners without permits, those advertising their homes for parties and those not paying the county transient occupancy tax.

"Of course, it's hard. But the truth is, if we don't have something that is rigorous, why even bother doing it?" Adams explained.

KCBW
Alani Letang
December 4, 2021

[Kern County] Bakersfield erroneously files taxes, impacting employees and retirees

 Blog note: The article refers to a Kern County grand jury report.

Mistaken IRS filings by the city of Bakersfield could have cost current and former employees thousands of dollars in unnecessary taxes.

According to a Kern County grand jury report issued Thursday, the city mistakenly reported pension and retirement income to the IRS in April 2020, resulting in the federal agency seeking payments on supposedly unreported income to potentially more than 1,000 current and former employees.

In one letter included in the report, the IRS told one Bakersfield employee they owed $16,910 in unpaid taxes.

The mistake was not made known to the city until March 2021, when several current and former employees informed the city’s Finance Department. The city quickly told all current employees of the erroneous filing via email, but impacted retirees were not informed until July, according to the grand jury, putting them at risk of unnecessarily paying taxes.

The grand jury called this delay unsettling.

“It is further troubling that the infrastructure of a city as large and prosperous as Bakersfield did not discover the internal source of the error for eight months,” the grand jury said in its report. “It is inconceivable that in this age of cybercrime, the City does not have written Policies and Procedures for dealing with data breaches and possible ransomware.”

The city declined a request for an interview about the erroneous filings and the claims presented in the report, but provided a statement to The Californian.

“Informational security, including personal identifying information of current and former employees, is a paramount priority for the City,” spokesman Joe Conroy said in the statement. “We have remained proactive in protecting that information by implementing security measures, hiring appropriate staff, and contracting with outside resources. Those efforts are ongoing.”

The report does not specifically name the number of impacted employees and retirees, but states that around 1,800 current and former employees needed to be sent corrected 1099-R forms, which the city files for each person who has been designated as receiving retirement and pension income.

According to the report, the city told the grand jury its staff erroneously created a file that reported pension-distribution information for which no data existed. That file was then sent to the IRS.

Traditionally, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System issues 1099 forms for city employees. In statements to the grand jury, the city said design deficiencies in its enterprise resource planning system contributed to the error.

After investigating the causes of the error, the city determined its financial reporting system could generate 1099-R forms using year-to-date wage information, reporting it as pension income, according to the grand jury’s findings.

The IRS was then sent the erroneous data, which it interpreted to mean city retirees and employees had earned unreported income. The grand jury’s report states employees and retirees were receiving IRS notices as late as Sept. 30.

In addition, slow responses from the IRS and misinformation from our software provider have exacerbated the problem,” the city told the grand jury. “That does not take away the fact that employees made a string of errors that ultimately lead to erroneous information to be reported to the IRS.”

The report also states the city’s Technology Services department has a staff of 58, when an ideal number would be around 100. An overhaul of the financial reporting system has already begun, with $6 million devoted to the project. However, the city projects more than $20 million may be needed to completely modernize the system.

The city retained an attorney to sort through the issues created by the error, ultimately costing an undisclosed sum. The report states only that the cost was less than $40,000.

“All affected personnel — both currently employed and retired — have been notified of the discrepancy and its resolution,” Conroy said in the statement. “In addition to the issue being resolved, revised protocols have been put into place to protect against future issues.”

Among other recommendations, the grand jury urged the city to create a policy that mandates action to deal with data breaches, malware, and ransomware issues. In addition, the grand jury recommended the city hire more Technology Services staff and provide training to employees of the Finance Department.

The city has 90 days to respond to the grand jury’s report.

Bakersfield Californian
By SAM MORGEN
December 2, 2021

[Santa Barbara] Grand Jury sees Homekey and Roomkey hurdles

Santa Barbara County attempts second year of homeless housing grants

The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury concluded that the county faces obstacles to housing the homeless population through California’s Project Roomkey and Homekey funding.

The jury’s recently released report provided recommendations to the county and cities to help tap into these grants.

Santa Barbara County 2nd District Supervisor Gregg Hart said many of the guidelines have already been executed.

“I am pleased the county has already implemented most of the Grand Jury’s recommendations through the Homelessness Strategic Plan, encampment response protocol and county budget process,” he told the News-Press. “The Grand Jury properly identified we need to continue to find additional sites for supportive housing throughout the county, and wraparound services are essential for ensuring the long-term success of people transitioning out of homelessness.”

ROOMKEY

County officials struggled to find hotels that would open rooms to a high-risk population as part of Project Roomkey, the report says. Roomkey provides temporary housing with wraparound services whereas Homekey focuses on permanent housing, usually in converted motels.

Generally, hotel owners were not welcoming to the idea of housing homeless people, the report says. The county established its Roomkey program with one South County hotel that rented one wing for a limited amount of time; it could not find a North County location.

At the beginning of 2021, the hotel returned to its tourism clientele, and officials found a location with room for 80 people in South County and rented 10 rooms in Santa Maria.

More than 90 individuals have been sheltered in the Roomkey program, as of October.

The city of Santa Barbara and the county are operating Roomkey sites currently with 80 at the hotels. CityNet will re-house participants from these sites, per a recent agreement with the County utilizing State funds.

HOMEKEY

Local governments were given five weeks from the Homekey funding announcement to submit a proposal with properties, remodeling plans and partners.

Applications were due Aug. 13. The buildings had to be occupied by the end of the year.

Santa Barbara County worked with officials to speed up the construction process of the property, an office building in Lompoc previously used by the County’s Behavioral Wellness Department. (The building was an apartment complex before being used as an office, so crews converted it back.)

“The success story in Lompoc has been seen by housing leaders in Sacramento as a model for California,” Supervisor Hart said.

The current application process gives recipients a year to finish construction.

Officials told the Grand Jury they “scoured the universe” for hotels willing to sell to the County for the project and found one option.

The county is drafting plans for the current funding cycle and has identified two properties in South County and one in North County, Community Services Department Director George Chapjian told the News-Press. It has submitted one application so far for the ongoing cycle.

The Grand Jury recommends the county and cities to list all the possible building or renovation sites. Mr. Chapijan said officials hired a consultant in 2019 to evaluate properties.

“This has helped move the effort to identify feasible and available sites forward,” he said.

The state could help by identifying state-owned properties that could be acquired for Homekey, but it was otherwise involved in the application process, he said.

County staff hold two working groups with an intent to identify and progress Homekey applications. Santa Barbara City staff are engaged in both groups.

OTHER INITIATIVES

Roomkey and Homekey are tools the county can use to help the homeless population, but there are other funding sources to utilize.

In October, Santa Barbara County Supervisors approved an allocation of more than half of 2022-2023 American Rescue Plan Act funds, or $12.6 million, to address homelessness and housing.

They also earmarked $1.2 million of restricted funds in the current fiscal year for bridge housing, like hotel housing initiatives.

Homeless Services has requested $26.6 million in ARPA funds to be expended over three years, and the Supervisors have provided $22.2 million.

The county hopes to add 100 beds, including a new shelter, tiny homes and pallet homes, according to the Grand Jury report.

“The Grand Jury is doing good work, and we appreciate their interest as it relates to our County’s houseless population,” Mr. Chapjian said. “Their work has been helpful.”

To view the full report, go to sbcgj.org/2021/keystohousing.pdf.

Santa Barbara News-Press
by Annelise Hanshaw
November 30, 2021

Dick Spotswood: How to reform Marin’s duplicative governments

Blog note: This column by Dick Spotswood, a long-time supporter of the Marin County Grand Jury, calls attention to the value of the grand jury to solve local government problems.

Marin has too many elected positions. The list of 285 posts starts with eight countywide elected officers, including five members of the Board of Supervisors, 59 city and town officials in 11 municipalities, 83 school trustees and 135 special purpose district directors.

The reality behind those 285 elected officials is a plethora of agencies accompanied by duplicative administrators and front office staff.

For most voters in these below-the-radar bailiwicks, it’s almost impossible to know anything about the candidates or the incumbents’ performance when elections are held.

Most of those serving are public-spirited citizens, but it’s a mixed bag with a few eager for the perks. This multiplicity of agencies is a wasteful, duplicative, non-transparent anachronism that only made sense 100 years ago when Marin was a cow county.

If change was easy it would have been accomplished decades ago. Incumbents love their posts, senior staffers enjoy a comfortable berth and voters rarely pay attention to the nuances of local government.

Marin needs a two-pronged approach to change: Identify the way forward and enable voters to approve those changes. The goal is to determine a practical reorganization that merges duplicative agencies and lowers costs while providing better public services.

A well-thought-out plan is an essential foundation to gain the public’s confidence and to precisely learn the financial savings that results from merging agencies.

An ideal forum is Marin’s highly-respected civil grand jury. Make consolidation the prime topic for the 2022-23 jury once it’s empaneled next summer. The grand jury should step out of its routine and schedule public meetings for citizen input. Conduct a professional opinion survey to understand the views of regular folks who don‘t attend meetings and to hear opinions other than from those with an ax to grind or special interest to protect.

Here’s an example of what could be done regarding Marin’s 16 school districts.

Option one: Combine all school districts into one countywide district-elected board of education. Counties with far larger populations have a single unified school district. Option two: Outside of Novato and San Rafael, create school districts each centered on one high school joined with their “feeder” grade schools.

The next step toward change is to make Marin a charter county. “Home rule authority” is provided in California’s Constitution Article 11 Section 3c. A charter enables a county or city greater flexibility to organize its governmental structure. Conceivably, it could create a county mayor with a four-member Board of Supervisors or merge the office of, say, treasurer with the existing office of finance.

Put the charter concept on the ballot via an initiative or Board of Supervisors resolution. Voters then decide if they should elect a board of freeholders to serve for one year to craft a charter based on the grand jury’s report that’s then submitted to voters. Thirteen California counties have charters, including San Mateo, Santa Clara and San Francisco.

Charters are a first step toward providing operational flexibility for counties, including Marin, now operating under rigid general state law. Legislation might be needed to authorize Marin’s charter to consolidate state-created special purpose and school districts, the most blatant examples of wasteful duplication.

San Rafael’s Bill Bagley, past Marin-Sonoma Republican assemblymember, started his public service career in 1957 when elected to a once-in-a-generation Marin Board of Freeholders. Promoted by the reform-minded League of Women Voters, a revolutionary plan to streamline county government with a strong county manager was submitted to Marin’s electorate.

The 15 elected freeholders were divided and the changes were opposed by the old guard, the so-called Courthouse Crowd. The good government reform went down to defeat 2-to-1 in a county which was then essentially rural and suspicious of change.

After 65 years, it’s time to try again.

Marin Independent
Dick Spotswood
November 27, 2021

THE KEYS TO HOUSING THE [SANTA BARBARA COUNTY] HOMELESS

 Source: Santa Barbara County Grand Jury

In 2020, the State of California proposed two programs with one-time funding to help communities manage their homeless populations: Project Roomkey and Project Homekey. Both programs were also an urgent response to the COVID-19 pandemic and to prevent disastrous effects on the homeless. Roomkey secured short-term hotel rooms for elderly homeless who were at risk of catching and spreading the virus. Homekey was intended to house some of that same population through conversion of available buildings to permanent housing. The initial Roomkey funding ended September 30, 2021; the first Homekey funding allocation ended December 31, 2020. Santa Barbara County made promising steps to address homelessness with the one-time State funding. The time constraints motivated county agencies to work together quickly to accomplish the housing goals within months. The collaboration was unprecedented.

However, the County has found it difficult to duplicate their initial successes with Projects Roomkey and Homekey. There is a discouraging lack of available property in the County, and property owners are reluctant to turn over what they have for the purpose of housing the homeless. Nor are there identified local funds to sustain the two programs without state and federal grant allocations. The 2021 Santa Barbara County Grand Jury looked into these barriers that could limit the success of the two homeless programs.

For 2021-22, there is again $150 million in state funding available for Roomkey and $1.45 billion for Homekey. Future funding after 2022 is uncertain. The2021 Santa BarbaraCounty Grand Jury concluded that the County, its cities and the two Housing Authorities should make every effort to push past barriers in order to secure more housing for the homeless.

The complete report is posted on the Grand Jury’s website: www.sbcgj.org.

Edhat
November24, 2021

How is Cambria combating fire risks? [San Luis Obispo] County grand jury seeks progress report

 In early 2017, the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury published a report about fire risks in Cambria. That report, titled “Is it five minutes to midnight in Cambria? An update on the risk of catastrophic fire,” was updated in 2018.

Now, having received updates on fire, emergency and evacuation services, the current jury now “strongly recommends” that their 2022-23 successors launch a new investigation to verify that corrective actions have been taken or are significantly underway.

In its original 2017 report, the grand jury called for the Cambria Community Services District to conduct maintenance and flow testing for all fire hydrants, as well as change its fire code to require the removal of dead trees from private properties. Jurors also advised adding signs to facilitate evacuation in emergencies, updating streets that are too narrow for emergency vehicle access and parking, and expanding Reverse 911 notifications.

San Luis Obispo Tribune
BY KATHE TANNER
NOVEMBER 20, 2021

 

[Santa Barbara] Grand Jury: Remote learning due to pandemic left some students behind academically, emotionally

 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, Calif. - The Santa Barbara County Grand Jury has released its findings on remote learning and its impacts on young students.

The report reveals all districts did a "noteworthy job" making remote learning as effective as possible for K-8th grade students.

However, math and English language arts study were not as effective in a remote setting. The grand jury said that left many students lacking both academically and with social-emotional deficits.

The grand jury findings also reveal the most affected students were those already under-performing before the pandemic began.

The overall all impact on the learning loss will take several years to be fully evaluated. The overall social-emotional effects of remote schooling on children is still being investigated.

In the meantime, the grand jury said the immediate goal for all districts should be focusing on the emotional state of their students.

KEYT
November 15, 2021