Response says
County disputes the implication of inadequate services at PDC, explaining that FIP serves HOH/P3 patients who are transferred to TTCF, whereas PDC lacks that housing and patient population.
What should residents consider about Finding F11.8: F11.8: Peer-assisted mental-health services at Pitchess, and the County’s response?
Audit context
Response says
County disputes the implication of inadequate services at PDC, explaining that FIP serves HOH/P3 patients who are transferred to TTCF, whereas PDC lacks that housing and patient population.
Audit analysis
Whole disagreement gives a finding-specific clinical and physical-plant explanation for the absence of FIP and alleged service deficit. Acuity and transfer-practice assertions are specific, but no policy or clinical record is identified. Report physical PDF page(s) 467; County response physical PDF page(s) 63–64. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
5/6
Public usefulness
Whole disagreement gives a finding-specific clinical and physical-plant explanation for the absence of FIP and alleged service deficit. Acuity and transfer-practice assertions are specific, but no policy or clinical record is identified.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Public participation
Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.