Sacramento County Civil Grand Jury
Explore the jury’s recommendations, read matching agency responses, and join the discussion. Everything in this cycle is connected to its original source.
Every recommendation made by the jury, with matching agency responses alongside it.
Recommendations & responses
Showing 53 of 53 recommendations
Findings and Recommendations
9 recommendations
SCOE create and continuously update a database of all grant opportunities and assist districts in the preparation and submission of applications to all available grants. This database to be available to all districts by June 30, 2027.
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 21
Permanent linkSCOE plans a Grants section on its website in fall 2026 and continued application assistance.
Read official response · PDF page 5All districts aggressively pursue funding from all identifiable sources, including local and industry partners. This effort must be a fully integrated element of each district’s CTE administrative procedures to augment state and federal funding. A formal plan to identify and seek support should be in place by June 30, 2027.
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 21
Permanent linkSCOE says it will continue helping districts with industry partnerships and funding opportunities.
Read official response · PDF page 5The Grand Jury recommends SCOE, in collaboration with school districts, develop a comprehensive list of current and projected high-demand/high-growth job statistic sources for CTE program planning. This analysis is to be completed and published by June 30, 2027. (F5)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 21
Permanent linkThe respondents say another shared list is not warranted because labor-market resources already exist.
Read official response · PDF page 6The Grand Jury recommends districts, in collaboration with SCOE, develop formal plans, based on an analysis of Best Practices from within Sacramento County, other California counties and other states throughout the U.S. to enhance CTE program effectiveness. Areas of focus should include, but not be limited to: • Expansion of external partnerships • Instructor candidate identification, recruitment, and retention practices • Increased coordination with SCOE and other local CTE programs • Greater engagement with the California Strong Workforce Program • Collaboration in the construction of a countywide industry board • Emphasis on developing more dual enrollment programs with local community colleges • Identification of additional internships leading to apprenticeships This plan should be completed and in place by the beginning of 2027-2028 school year. (F6a, b, c)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 22
Permanent linkThe respondents describe ongoing partnerships, professional learning and shared support.
Read official response · PDF page 8The Grand Jury recommends districts review their CTE awareness efforts to ensure all tools for increased awareness are effectively used. Awareness efforts should encompass a full range of communication methods that engage student populations, parents, community colleges and business partners. This review should be completed by the beginning of the 2027-2028 school year. (F7)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 22
Permanent linkThe respondents describe existing outreach and continued improvements.
Read official response · PDF page 9The Grand Jury recommends each school district define and adopt a methodology for early and continuous assessment of students enrolled in CTE programs to identify students experiencing challenges. This methodology is to be developed and in place by the beginning of the 2027-2028 school year. (F8)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 23
Permanent linkThe respondents describe current counseling and ongoing data-visualization work.
Read official response · PDF page 10The Grand Jury recommends all districts that do not provide soft skills training develop and implement such training into CTE course curricula. This effort should be in place by the beginning of the 2027-2028 school year. (F9)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 23
Permanent linkSCOE will support review of soft-skills instruction within CTE.
Read official response · PDF page 10The Grand Jury recommends school districts and SCOE, in collaboration with Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT), develop intra-and inter-district student transportation services to CTE facilities within the County. An analysis of Regional Transit transportation services to be completed by the beginning of the 2027-2028 school year. (F10)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 23
Permanent linkThe respondents describe existing transport options and continued review.
Read official response · PDF page 11The Grand Jury recommends school district CTE administrators and SCOE collaborate on the development of a methodology for the evaluation of CTE pathway success. The California Department of Education Twelve Elements of High-Quality Pathways should be used as a baseline. Implementation should be completed by the beginning of the 2027-2028 school year. (F11)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 24
Permanent linkSCOE describes common tools, data-sharing support and local responsibility for evaluation.
Read official response · PDF page 12Findings and Recommendations
8 recommendations
The Grand Jury recommends the District bring the special education community together to address disproportionality by including its critics, students, parents, general education staff and community in the process for developing a plan to address disproportionality. The planning process and finished product should be completed by January 1, 2027.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 11
Permanent linkThe district rejects the absenteeism premise but says community-feedback processes will continue.
Read official response · PDF page 2The Grand Jury recommends the District ensure transparency and public participation through community meetings, newsletters, reports to the school board and press releases to the media. This should begin by Oct. 1, 2026.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 11
Permanent linkThe district reports implementation through advisory meetings, newsletters, public reports and family engagement.
Read official response · PDF page 3The Grand Jury recommends the Natomas SELPA administration address the African American/Black overidentification and suspension issues by holding listening sessions with African American/Black families and leaders by January 1, 2027. Information and feedback from this process should then be incorporated into the plan CDE has ordered resulting from the disproportionality citation.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district says it is implementing focus groups through its Compliance and Improvement Monitoring Plan.
Read official response · PDF page 5The Grand Jury recommends the Natomas Unified School District administration implement ethnic, racial, and disabled cultural awareness training to all district employees, classified and certificated, by January 1, 2027.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district reports implementation through named trainings offered during 2022–2026.
Read official response · PDF page 5The Grand Jury recommends the District modify the discipline matrix by October 1, 2026 to include the case manager earlier in the process to permit teaching of alternative behaviors directly and scheduling of IEP meetings to address behavior before it progresses, and notify all school administrators of the change.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district says changes are not warranted because early case-manager involvement is already implemented.
Read official response · PDF page 6The Grand Jury recommends the Natomas SELPA begin monthly, site-based IEP audits by November 1, 2026 to determine trends in IEP errors and implement training at the site level on a consistent basis to ensure transition plans are written and other IEP errors are corrected.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district will audit IEPs monthly and continue staff training.
Read official response · PDF page 6The Grand Jury recommends Natomas amend its SELPA plan by October 1, 2026 to include the transition services the District does provide including the WorkAbility I program and referrals to the State Department of Rehabilitation.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district reports implementation in the July 22, 2026 approved 2026–2027 plan and promises coding training.
Read official response · PDF page 7The Grand Jury recommends the District’s administration consider by January 1, 2027 creating an educational pathway that would train high school students to become classroom instructional aides upon graduation and, possibly, coordinate with the District’s existing teacher preparation program to become credentialed teachers.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe district says consideration was implemented through a 2023 pathway planning grant; enrollment projections led it not to launch the pathway.
Read official response · PDF page 8Findings and Recommendations
5 recommendations
The Grand Jury recommends the District immediately and continuously ensure compliance with their financial controls and procurement oversight. (F1)
1 response · Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkSacRT reports implemented payment-authorization and contract-administration improvements.
Read official response · PDF page 7The Grand Jury recommends the District establish a formal procedure by December 31, 2026, to incorporate input from the MAC when developing proposals to procure equipment or services that may impact riders with disabilities, and solicit input from the MAC during the RFP preparation, including the process of awarding the contract. (F2)
2 responses · Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors · William Charles Johnson, Mobility Advisory Council Chair (personal views)
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkSacRT says early engagement is implemented, citing MAC input before a supplemental-provider solicitation.
Read official response · PDF page 9The chair supports a brief District statement confirming MAC involvement and explanations when its input is rejected.
Read official response · PDF page 1The Grand Jury recommends the District implement a consistent communication plan by December 31, 2026, that includes all available communication channels and proactive outreach to callers. The District should make sure dispatchers are informed and are informing callers of upcoming changes. The MAC should also be informed of service changes, but it should not be considered a responsible platform for communicating changes to the entire SacRT GO ridership. (F3)
2 responses · Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors · William Charles Johnson, Mobility Advisory Council Chair (personal views)
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · PDF page 10
Permanent linkSacRT reports implemented multi-channel communications and future periodic updates.
Read official response · PDF page 11The chair describes existing channels and favors a formal website statement.
Read official response · PDF page 2The Grand Jury recommends the District use actual SacRT GO and UZURV riders as “mystery riders” at the beginning of the next Mystery Rider contract term. (F4)
2 responses · Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors · William Charles Johnson, Mobility Advisory Council Chair (personal views)
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · PDF page 10
Permanent linkSacRT will request disabled mystery riders and review its next procurement.
Read official response · PDF page 13The chair supports assigning disabled mystery riders and understands none have yet evaluated SacRT.
Read official response · PDF page 2The Grand Jury recommends, beginning the next Board meeting after September 30, 2026, the Board agenda packet include the actual minutes of the MAC meetings, rather than a summary of the meetings prepared by District staff. (F5)
2 responses · Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors · William Charles Johnson, Mobility Advisory Council Chair (personal views)
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · PDF page 10
Permanent linkSacRT says it will improve regular access and reports more detailed MAC minutes beginning with a July 24 Board packet.
Read official response · PDF page 14The chair favors including actual MAC minutes in Board packets.
Read official response · PDF page 3Findings and Recommendations
9 recommendations
The Grand Jury recommends Child Protective Services update processes to more expeditiously locate longer term and stable housing for sexually exploited and at-risk foster youth, rather than place them in the Sacramento Welcome Homes by December 31, 2026.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Board says new processes are not warranted, listing expanded specialized beds and immediate placement searches.
Read official response · PDF page 6Sacramento Welcome Home staff should apply the Reasonable and Prudent Parent Standard and best practices to monitor access to cell phones and other technology to protect foster youth from sex traffickers no later than October 1, 2026.
2 responses · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors · California Office of the Foster Care Ombudsperson
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Board reports implementation through trauma-informed limits consistent with youth rights.
Read official response · PDF page 8OFCO rejects the report’s application of RPPS and offers training on foster youth rights.
Read official response · PDF page 1The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct Child Protective Services to share information about at-risk status with law enforcement when filing missing person reports for youth who leave the Welcome Homes without authorization, by December 31, 2026.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 15
Permanent linkThe Board reports implementation through missing-person reports, exploitation status and identifying details shared with law enforcement.
Read official response · PDF page 9The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors instruct Department of Child, Adult and Family Services to share data regarding the exploitation and at-risk status of foster youth in their Quarterly Reports to the Board of Supervisors to keep them apprised of potential dangers to these youth no later than the October 20, 2026 Board of Supervisors Meeting.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 15
Permanent linkThe Board will include identified exploited-youth data starting with the FY 2026–2027 Quarter 2 report.
Read official response · PDF page 10The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors instruct the Community Advisory Board to file the 2024-2025 annual report no later than December 31, 2026.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 15
Permanent linkThe Board disagrees with the recommendation and says a calendar-year 2025 report is complete and scheduled for September 22.
Read official response · PDF page 11The Grand recommends Board of Supervisors instruct Child Protective Services to file a Strategic Plan with the Board of Supervisors, no later than December 31, 2026, that addresses: a. Continued operation of the Sacramento Welcome Homes. b. Current and future funding and budgetary issues.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 15
Permanent linkThe Board says a new strategic plan is not warranted because a November 2024 presentation and quarterly reports cover the topics.
Read official response · PDF page 11The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors instruct Child Protective Services to ensure that Welcome Home staff receive additional training no later than October 31, 2026, regarding: • Application of the Reasonable and Prudent Parent Standard, and • The identification and prevention of exploitation of foster youth.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 16
Permanent linkThe Board says additional training is not warranted because exploitation and prudent-parent training are required.
Read official response · PDF page 12The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors instruct Child Protective Services to ensure social workers in the Welcome Homes possess experience, skills, and knowledge of specialized training in the care and treatment of sexually exploited children.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 16
Permanent linkThe Board says additional action is not warranted, citing social-worker classifications and staff-training updates.
Read official response · PDF page 13The Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct Child Protective Services to review best practices for identification, prevention, placement, and data used by Alameda and Los Angeles counties as outlined in the California Child Welfare Council’s report, by December 31, 2026.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 16
Permanent linkThe Board requires further analysis of the referenced county practices, to be completed by December 31, 2026.
Read official response · PDF page 13Findings and Recommendations
4 recommendations
The SSO should continue coordination with the court and Jail staff to further reduce late-night releases, making necessary and appropriate adjustments due to the cessation of night court, by December 31, 2026.
1 response · Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Slowly Sunsetting Main Jail Late-Night Releases: Progress Made, but the Midnight Door Remains Open · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Sheriff agrees with the intent but describes afternoon court calendars and paperwork backlogs.
Read official response · PDF page 2The SSO should continue to regularly monitor and enforce the efficient and timely release of individuals at all times of the day to avoid late-night releases to the extent possible and report on their progress by December 31, 2026.
1 response · Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Slowly Sunsetting Main Jail Late-Night Releases: Progress Made, but the Midnight Door Remains Open · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Sheriff says data review and categorization of mandatory and discretionary releases are being implemented.
Read official response · PDF page 2The SSO should ensure that all released individuals receive the exit information resource handout automatically by December 31, 2026.
1 response · Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Slowly Sunsetting Main Jail Late-Night Releases: Progress Made, but the Midnight Door Remains Open · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Sheriff reports a modified implemented practice: staff announce that guides are available on request.
Read official response · PDF page 2The SSO should look to Alameda County and Los Angeles County’s release protocols and procedures to identify processes and strategies for more efficient and timely release, thereby further reducing SSO late-night releases, by June 30, 2027.
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Slowly Sunsetting Main Jail Late-Night Releases: Progress Made, but the Midnight Door Remains Open · PDF page 13
Permanent linkFindings and Recommendations
7 recommendations
The City Council and SPD should take steps to enhance community participation, including establishing a public-facing website and dedicated email address linked to the Commission, by December 31, 2026 (F1).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkThe City claims implementation through existing web pages and comment channels.
Read official response · PDF page 5The City Council should develop and implement procedures for considering Commission recommendations by December 31, 2026 (F2).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkThe City claims procedures were implemented before the report, citing Chapter 17.
Read official response · PDF page 6The City Council should require SPD to provide formal written responses to all Commission recommendations and a timeline for those responses by December 31, 2026 (F3, F5).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkThe City claims implementation through its voluntary SPD response form.
Read official response · PDF page 6The City Council should acknowledge receipt of and the outcome of each Commission recommendation by December 31, 2026 (F3, F4).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkThe City claims open Council votes receive and approve annual reports and workplans.
Read official response · PDF page 6The City Council should establish a formal, public tracking system for the recommendations by December 31, 2026 (F4, F6).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkThe City claims implementation through a publicly posted response-and-status form.
Read official response · PDF page 6The City Council should require initial and ongoing relevant training for commissioners to assist them in their duties by December 31, 2026 (F7).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkThe City says the Commission and staff will implement training, not Council, with no timeline yet.
Read official response · PDF page 7The City Council should formally respond to all recommendations in the 2021 audit by the Sacramento City Office of the City Auditor by December 31, 2026 (F8).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkThe City gives individual dispositions for all sixteen older auditor recommendations across pages 7–10.
Read official response · PDF page 7Findings and Recommendations
11 recommendations
The Grand Jury recommends the Board require staff to complete updated accounting procedure manuals reflecting current software systems and processes, with General Manager approval, no later than December 31, 2026. (F1)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury recommends the District finalize the FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24 financial statements and submit them to the Board for review of the audited findings from those statements by September 30, 2026. The Grand Jury further recommends the District finalize the FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26 financial statements and the Board consider the audited findings from those statements by December 31, 2026. (F2)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury recommends the Board direct staff to deliver a written remediation status report by September 30, 2026 identifying which prior audit findings and material weaknesses the District resolved and which remain open. (F3)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury recommends the Board adhere to the schedule outlined by its recruitment agency for the hiring of a new General Manager who possesses the qualifications and experience to run this special district, and ensure the position is filled no later than September 30, 2026. (F6)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury recommends the District Board update the District’s Conflict of Interest Code by September 30, 2026 to accurately reflect those positions for which a Form 700 is required. (F7)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury recommends that by September 30, 2026 the Board implement procedures to verify that all required filers of Statements of Economic Interest timely file their Form 700’s. (F8)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury recommends the Board establish a process to ensure Board members and staff are adequately trained on their ethical obligations so they can determine whether recusal from participating in any discussion in which the Board member or staff may have an appearance of possible impropriety or actual conflict of interest in the agenda matter being discussed is appropriate. (F8)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury recommends the Board provide easy public access to the filed Form 700’s by September 30, 2026, including through the Rancho Murieta website to facilitate public access. (F9)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury recommends the Board establish a formal procedure to comply with statutorily-required ethics and fiscal training, such as for elected officials and personnel by December 31, 2026. (F10)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury recommends the Board direct staff to determine the cost of delivering reclaimed water to the Country Club and report to the Board in a Discussion item by September 30, 2026 the lost revenue from not charging that cost to the private club. (F11)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury recommends the Board direct staff report to the Board by September 30, 2026 the total interest owed by the Country Club under the loan agreement. (F12)
No response recorded
View recommendation and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 15
Permanent linkThe jury’s formal findings, with source citations and any recorded responses.
Findings & responses
Showing 63 of 63 findings
Findings and Recommendations
15 findings
The Grand Jury finds Sacramento County School Districts’ CTE programs offer a significant alternative to four-year college pathways and provide potentially substantial benefits to as many as half of the student population in Sacramento County.
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 20
Permanent linkThe respondents agree that CTE offers substantial benefits, but dispute a college-versus-CTE framing.
Read official response · PDF page 3The Grand Jury finds CTE programs are actively supported by the highest levels of administration within Sacramento County school districts.
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 20
Permanent linkThe respondents agree that CTE is supported by district leadership.
Read official response · PDF page 3The Grand Jury finds Sacramento County school districts accomplish a great deal with limited local and state revenue for CTE programs.
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 20
Permanent linkThe respondents partially agree regarding accomplishments and limited resources.
Read official response · PDF page 4The Grand Jury finds the total revenue from all sources for CTE is disproportionally low in school budgets, generally less than 2% which severely restricts school districts’ ability to implement CTE programs to their maximum potential. (R4)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 20
Permanent linkThe respondents partially agree but say the two-percent calculation omits district matching funds.
Read official response · PDF page 4The Grand Jury finds a significant amount of revenue for CTE programs, at both State and Federal levels, is derived from competitive grants. This requires school districts to develop a resource-intensive and time-consuming grant writing program. (R4)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 20
Permanent linkThe respondents partially agree with the grouped findings and acknowledge burdens of competitive grants.
Read official response · PDF page 4The Grand Jury finds there are varying levels of financial and in-kind support for CTE programs from local industries and trade groups. These programs are critical to providing the trained workforce needed by local businesses. Without extensive efforts to secure non-governmental resources CTE programs miss support and critical external relationship opportunities. (R4)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 20
Permanent linkThe respondents partially agree and describe industry partnerships, including SMUD support.
Read official response · PDF page 5The Grand Jury finds each school district develops its own locally relevant database of critical “high demand, high wage” job availability, both current and anticipated. Failure to adopt a County-wide, systematic approach to data collection leads to inefficiency, duplication of effort, and encumbers rapid assessment of future program direction. (R5)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 21
Permanent linkThe respondents disagree and identify existing Valley Vision and Centers of Excellence labor-market resources.
Read official response · PDF page 5The Grand Jury finds school districts, in collaboration with SCOE, meet periodically to discuss ways to advance CTE goals and improve local programs but there is little evidence of systematic investigation into Best Practices across the State and little or no research into Best Practices in other states. Failure to explore these CTE centers of excellence around the country denies Sacramento County of potentially significant improvement ideas. (R6)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 21
Permanent linkThe respondents partially agree but describe statewide and national professional learning.
Read official response · PDF page 7The Grand Jury finds partnerships with local businesses, community colleges, and other organizations are one of the most critical factors contributing to the success of CTE programs. Varying levels of success in developing such collaborations is reflected in the effectiveness of different CTE programs. (R6)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 21
Permanent linkThe respondents partially agree, describe partnerships and discuss work-based-learning constraints.
Read official response · PDF page 7The Grand Jury finds a diverse approach to CTE instructor identification, hiring, and retention practices among the school districts in the County with limited involvement with SCOE. The absence of collaborative information sharing and active mutual support in this critical aspect leads to inefficiency and elongated efforts to fill vacant instructor positions. (R6)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 22
Permanent linkThe respondents partially agree and distinguish district hiring authority from SCOE support.
Read official response · PDF page 8The Grand Jury finds, in some districts, there is inadequate awareness among students and parents of CTE programs and the potential benefits of completing a CTE course of study. Diminished appreciation of CTE contributes to lower enrollment in some CTE pathways and courses. (R7)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 22
Permanent linkThe respondents disagree and identify CTE videos, counselor resources and a Los Rios flipbook.
Read official response · PDF page 8The Grand Jury finds there is inconsistent effort in identification of, and intervention with, students who are experiencing educational difficulties in CTE pathways. Effective and timely counseling by CTE staff of students exhibiting signs of disengagement lowers drop-out rate, increases funding received from the State and increases graduation rates. (R8)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 23
Permanent linkThe respondents disagree, citing schoolwide student-support systems and counseling.
Read official response · PDF page 9The Grand Jury finds soft skills training benefits students at interviews and/or other non-school interactions but integration into CTE courses is inconsistent. Lack of these skills is highly detrimental to students as they interact in new and challenging people-related circumstances outside the school setting. (R9)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 23
Permanent linkThe respondents partially agree and cite Model Curriculum Standards and work-based learning.
Read official response · PDF page 10The Grand Jury finds a lack of organized inter/intra-school district transportation services. This presents a significant barrier to greater participation in CTE course enrollment and efficient utilization of limited resources. (R11)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 23
Permanent linkThe respondents disagree and describe geography, transport capacity and existing options.
Read official response · PDF page 11The Grand Jury finds limited examples of formalized continuous improvement processes in district CTE programs. The absence of a systematic mechanism for identification and implementation of improvement opportunities makes such efforts less effective and more difficult to explain to decision makers and others interested in the CTE programs. (R11)
1 response · Sacramento County Office of Education and participating district boards and superintendents
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · PDF page 23
Permanent linkThe respondents partially agree and cite the Twelve Elements rubric and data-quality meetings.
Read official response · PDF page 12Findings and Recommendations
7 findings
Natomas District has received a citation from CDE for significant disproportionality in chronic absenteeism, which adversely affects students because students who are chronically absent miss critical instruction time.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 11
Permanent linkThe district disagrees that CDE cited significant disproportionality in chronic absenteeism.
Read official response · PDF page 2The CDE has identified Natomas SELPA as a special education program that overidentifies African American/Black students as emotionally disturbed and that has an excessive number of African American/Black special education students missing school.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 11
Permanent linkThe district partially disagrees: it accepts racial overidentification but disputes the state absenteeism classification.
Read official response · PDF page 3The Grand Jury has found, though interviews and data, that African American/Black students tend to receive more severe punishments by suspensions at some Natomas schools. This is problematic as it indicates African American/Black students are missing school at a higher rate than their peers.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district acknowledges higher suspension rates but disputes harsher punishment for the same violations.
Read official response · PDF page 4The Grand Jury finds that the suspensions and chronic absenteeism issues result in African American/Black students’ exclusion from a rigorous public school education.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district acknowledges disproportionate lengthy suspensions but cites graduation, CTE and IB participation.
Read official response · PDF page 4The Grand Jury finds the District’s discipline matrix may delay notification to case managers of a student’s behavioral issue until the student is facing possible suspension, resulting in some special education students unnecessarily missing school.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district disagrees, stating that case managers appear at every level of its discipline matrix.
Read official response · PDF page 6Natomas case managers do not consistently write transition plans as required by federal law, which deprives special education students of opportunities to prepare for life after high school.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district disagrees and asserts that all students who require transition plans have them.
Read official response · PDF page 6The 2025-26 SELPA plan does not accurately reflect the provision of transition services to students, which could give the impression the SELPA is doing nothing.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district disagrees and describes the SELPA plan as a snapshot of services at drafting.
Read official response · PDF page 7Special-education staffing shortage
1 finding
The Grand Jury finds a lack of highly trained special education staff, due to high turnover and low retention, resulting in a shortage of experienced, fully credentialed special education teachers. This is problematic as research clearly shows schools staffed with experienced, fully credentialed teachers tend to produce students with higher academic achievement.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe district agrees with the staffing-shortage finding and describes the wider shortage.
Read official response · PDF page 7Teacher incentive commendation
1 finding
The Grand Jury finds the District has created an incentive program for people who want to become credentialed teachers with a focus on people who already live in the community, in response to its immediate need to find and retain highly qualified teachers in several subject areas, including moderate-to severe-disability special education classes. The District is commended for this program.
1 response · Natomas Unified School District Board of Education
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe district agrees with the commendation and reports teacher-program completions and workforce diversity figures.
Read official response · PDF page 9Findings and Recommendations
5 findings
The Grand Jury finds the District paid HBSS prematurely, which demonstrates a failure to properly manage the contract. (R1)
1 response · Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkSacRT disagrees with a broad contract-management failure while acknowledging one premature payment.
Read official response · PDF page 6The Grand Jury finds the District fails to obtain valuable insight from riders with disabilities on a timely basis, despite the District’s assertion that “established public procurement practices allow staff to gather input from stakeholders,” resulting in wasteful expenditures and damaged relationships with members of the disability community. (R2)
1 response · Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkSacRT disagrees, distinguishing internal software procurement and emergency barriers from customer-facing consultation.
Read official response · PDF page 8The Grand Jury finds SacRT GO riders lost access to the Ecolane tracking app for an extended period of time, without clear and effective communication from the District, including the use of all available communication channels, resulting in a frustrating experience for ridership, significant impairment of daily activities and increased expenditures by the District. (R3)
2 responses · Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors · William Charles Johnson, Mobility Advisory Council Chair (personal views)
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkSacRT disputes loss of ADA transport access, acknowledges app frustration and describes uninterrupted telephone reservations.
Read official response · PDF page 10The chair acknowledges app frustration but says its broader impact was overstated and other reservation channels remained available.
Read official response · PDF page 2The Grand Jury finds “mystery riders” assessing the District’s paratransit service are not required to be riders with a disability, reducing the accuracy of reporting on the paratransit experience for riders with disabilities. (R4)
1 response · Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · PDF page 10
Permanent linkSacRT partially agrees and acknowledges that disabled mystery riders have not yet been assigned to its evaluations.
Read official response · PDF page 12The Grand Jury finds the District Board receives filtered information from the MAC, leaving the Board with incomplete information about issues affecting the disabled ridership. (R5)
1 response · Sacramento Regional Transit District Board of Directors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · PDF page 10
Permanent linkSacRT disagrees that information is intentionally filtered or withheld and describes several Board channels.
Read official response · PDF page 13Findings and Recommendations
9 findings
Child Protective Services has done a commendable job improving conditions in the Sacramento Welcome Homes and ensured they became licensed Temporary Shelter Care Facilities.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Board agrees with the commendation and corrects facility capacities and licensing dates.
Read official response · PDF page 5The Sheriff’s Office Unit assigned to the Welcome Homes has done a commendable job providing protection and relationship building with youth housed in the Welcome Homes.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Board agrees that the Sheriff’s unit has provided valuable protection and relationships.
Read official response · PDF page 5The Sacramento Welcome Homes are an inappropriate placement for sexually exploited youth and youth who are at risk of sexual exploitation, because Temporary Shelter Care Facilities are not a therapeutic setting. As such, the Welcome Homes do not restrict movement leaving youth unsafe and vulnerable. (R3a, R3b)
2 responses · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors · California Office of the Foster Care Ombudsperson
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Board partially disagrees, describing Welcome Homes as a safe bridge when specialized placements are unavailable.
Read official response · PDF page 5OFCO says Welcome Homes are not placements and are not an appropriate placement for any youth.
Read official response · PDF page 1CPS fails to apply the Reasonable and Prudent Parent Standard to limit a foster youth’s access to cellular phones and other technology, leaving youth vulnerable to exploitation.
2 responses · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors · California Office of the Foster Care Ombudsperson
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Board wholly disagrees, citing youth rights and individualized supervision rather than broad device confiscation.
Read official response · PDF page 7OFCO disagrees that the prudent-parent standard permits the report’s proposed restrictions on technology and movement.
Read official response · PDF page 1The gaps in data sharing of youths’ at-risk status of exploitation: • leave youth unidentified and vulnerable to further abuse, • lead to delays in providing supportive services in longer term placements, and • make it difficult to locate the youth once they leave the Welcome Homes without authorization.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Board wholly disagrees and says Welcome Home staff share exploitation concerns with law enforcement.
Read official response · PDF page 9Department of Child, Family and Adult Services has failed to include information regarding the sexual exploitation of youth in their Quarterly Reports to the Board of Supervisors, leaving the Supervisors and the public at large, uninformed of potential dangers to vulnerable youth.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 15
Permanent linkThe Board partially disagrees: qualitative updates existed, but exploitation-specific quantitative data was not supplied.
Read official response · PDF page 10The Sacramento Children’s Coalition, in its capacity as the Community Advisory Board, has not filed an annual report for 2023-2024, thereby, failing to provide the Board of Supervisors with independent and timely information on the operation of the Welcome Homes and the well-being of foster youth residing within them.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 15
Permanent linkThe Board disagrees that a 2023–2024 annual CAB report was legally required.
Read official response · PDF page 10Child Protective Services has failed to provide a Strategic Plan to the Board of Supervisors as directed by the Board of Supervisors in its response to the 2023-2024 Grand Jury Report.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 15
Permanent linkThe Board disagrees and cites a November 5, 2024 presentation and continuing reports as fulfillment.
Read official response · PDF page 11Child Protective Services has provided additional mandated training to Welcome Home staff. However, additional training in identifying and preventing sexual exploitation of youth is needed to ensure appropriate placement of sexually exploited and at-risk youth.
1 response · Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · PDF page 16
Permanent linkThe Board disagrees and lists required UC Davis CSEC, trauma-informed and harm-reduction training.
Read official response · PDF page 12Findings and Recommendations
5 findings
The SSO has reduced late-night releases as a percentage of overall releases since 2023 and the cessation of night court should further reduce late-night releases.
1 response · Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Slowly Sunsetting Main Jail Late-Night Releases: Progress Made, but the Midnight Door Remains Open · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Sheriff reports 2026 release totals and continued efforts to reduce discretionary late-night releases.
Read official response · PDF page 1The SSO has directed Jail staff to limit late-night releases through inter-departmental correspondence, but mandatory late-night releases continue to occur to avoid “over-detention.”
1 response · Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Slowly Sunsetting Main Jail Late-Night Releases: Progress Made, but the Midnight Door Remains Open · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Sheriff describes a 1–5 a.m. discretionary-release practice and an updated internal reminder.
Read official response · PDF page 1The SSO established a limited exit information resource handout that is available upon request, but should be provided automatically with exit paperwork.
1 response · Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Slowly Sunsetting Main Jail Late-Night Releases: Progress Made, but the Midnight Door Remains Open · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Sheriff says guides are provided on request and release staff announce availability.
Read official response · PDF page 2BSCC comparative data reveals other comparable California counties release individuals at a lower rate during late-night hours than does the County of Sacramento.
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Slowly Sunsetting Main Jail Late-Night Releases: Progress Made, but the Midnight Door Remains Open · PDF page 13
Permanent linkAs recently as November 25, 2025, the Sheriff Community Review Commission placed a Jail Release Procedures discussion item on its agenda to highlight its continued importance to the community.
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Slowly Sunsetting Main Jail Late-Night Releases: Progress Made, but the Midnight Door Remains Open · PDF page 13
Permanent linkFindings and Recommendations
8 findings
The City Council and the SPD have not provided the Commission with the ability to have effective community participation, including a public-facing website, dedicated email or other digital presence that links to the Commission, thereby limiting public access to the Commission’s work and reducing transparency (R1).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 8
Permanent linkThe City disagrees and identifies meeting access, websites and online comment channels, while acknowledging no commissioner email accounts.
Read official response · PDF page 1The City Council’s failure to provide the Commission with an effective process for considering its recommendations limits the ability of SPD, the Council, and the community to evaluate the Commission's recommendations (R2).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 8
Permanent linkThe City disagrees and cites Chapter 17 procedures through the Personnel and Public Employees Committee.
Read official response · PDF page 3The City Code does not require SPD to respond, formally or informally, to Commission recommendations, leaving a void regarding the status of the recommendation (R3).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 8
Permanent linkThe City partly agrees that the Code lacks an SPD response mandate but says the Commission recommends to Council.
Read official response · PDF page 3The City Council has no consistent process for documenting or publicly communicating the status of Commission recommendations once they are received, which effectively prevents the Council from participating in the process promised by the Commission’s creation (R4, R5).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 8
Permanent linkThe City disagrees and points to open staff reports under Chapter 17.
Read official response · PDF page 4With few exceptions, the City Council simply places Commission recommendations on its consent calendar, which diminishes the recommendations that reflect the community’s involvement (R3).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 8
Permanent linkThe City partially agrees about consent-calendar placement but disputes reduced participation.
Read official response · PDF page 4Neither the Commission nor SPD has a procedure to track the implementation of Commission recommendations, thereby preventing knowledge of their status (R5).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 8
Permanent linkThe City disagrees, citing its Recommendation Submission and Response form and transparency webpage.
Read official response · PDF page 5The City’s Code does not require Commissioners to receive training on oversight procedures, applicable law, and policing issues, undermining their ability to serve as an effective advisory body (R6). WINDOW DRESSING OR PROGRESSING?
1 response · City of Sacramento
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 8
Permanent linkThe City agrees that its Code does not require commissioner training.
Read official response · PDF page 5The City Council failed to act on the 2021 audit recommendations from the Sacramento City Office of the City Auditor to improve the Commission's effectiveness, thereby limiting the Commission’s ability to carry out its mission (R7).
1 response · City of Sacramento
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · PDF page 9
Permanent linkThe City disagrees that it failed to act, claiming seven of sixteen auditor recommendations implemented.
Read official response · PDF page 5Findings and Recommendations
12 findings
The Grand Jury finds the District operated an accounting system without standardized procedures that did not meet California’s legal requirements for public financial reporting, which as a result, allowed multiple legally required financial audits to become overdue. (R1)
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury finds as of May 2026, the District has deferred the FY 2022-23, FY 2023-24 and FY 2024–25 audits, and will be deferring the FY 2025–26 audits, extending a pattern of delinquent financial reporting that began in FY 2020–21, which is a violation of state law. (R2)
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury finds there is no evidence the District fully remediated the material weaknesses and significant deficiencies identified in the FY 2019–20 audit following its transition to the current accounting software, thereby risking the continuance of a pattern of unqualified audits. (R3)
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 12
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury acknowledges the hiring of a qualified Director of Finance and Administration enabled the District to make great strides towards closing the books on a series of long overdue audits as well as to establish effective accounting processes.
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury finds the District continues to suffer from the impact of high upper management staff turnover to the detriment of its effective operation. The Grand Jury further finds, however, the recent retention of HRtoGO Outsourcing and Consulting Service to assist in establishing and implementing proper human resources procedures, may improve the handling of personnel matters and potentially reduce future employment litigation as well as prevention of high staff turnover.
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury finds the Board did not initiate the process of hiring a General Manager for ten months, and instead appointed an interim general manager who lacked the qualifications and experience to run a public utility district, impeding the District’s ability to operate effectively. (R6)
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury finds the District’s ordinance regarding conflicts of interest is not updated, resulting in confusion over who must complete the Form 700s. (R7)
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury finds a Board member did not recuse, but in fact voted on the water moratorium issue despite a possible financial interest in the outcome of the vote, thereby creating at least the perception of a financial conflict of interest which could lead to mistrust by the residents. (R8)
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 13
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury finds required Form 700s have not all been filed and are not readily accessible to the public, making it difficult to determine actual or potential financial conflicts of interest. (R9)
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury finds there is no apparent procedure to ensure Board members and relevant District staff receive statutorily-required ethics and fiscal training in a timely manner, which has resulted in weakness in its governance. (R10)
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury finds that although the District is permitted to charge the Rancho Murieta Country Club, a private club, for the cost of delivering reclaimed water, the District has not done so for over 37 years, thereby depriving the District of a source of revenue. (R11)
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 14
Permanent linkThe Grand Jury finds the schedule for repayment of the District’s loan to the Rancho Murieta Country Club does not fully disclose the amount of interest the Country Club is obligated to pay under the loan agreement due to changes in the interest rate during the repayment period. (R12)
No response recorded
View finding and responsesHide detailsJury report: Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · PDF page 14
Permanent linkEditorial discussion prompts inspired by the reports. These are separate from the jury’s formal findings and recommendations.
Civic question
Supporting report
Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · Findings and Recommendations — R4a and R4b
Civic question
Supporting report
Career & Technical Education: An Underutilized Pathway to Success for High School Students · Findings and Recommendations — F10 and R10
Civic question
Supporting report
The Natomas Unified School District Special Education Program Struggles to Meet Student Needs · Findings and Recommendations — R2–R4a
Civic question
Supporting report
Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · Findings and Recommendations — F2 and R2
Civic question
Supporting report
Is Sacramento Regional Transit Ignoring Riders with Disabilities? · Findings and Recommendations — F5 and R5
Civic question
Supporting report
No Longer Invisible: Foster Youth Still in the Shadows · Findings and Recommendations — F4 and R4
Civic question
Supporting report
Slowly Sunsetting Main Jail Late-Night Releases: Progress Made, but the Midnight Door Remains Open · Recommendations — R3
Civic question
Supporting report
2025–26 Confinement Review · 2025–26 Confinement Review — Overview
Civic question
Supporting report
Sacramento Community Police Review Commission: Window Dressing or Progressing? · Recommendations — R4 and R5
Civic question
Supporting report
Rancho Murieta Community Services District: Still a Work in Progress · Findings and Recommendations — F1, F2 and R2
Sacramento County Grand Jury
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Supplied original PDF
Original reports and response documents provide the evidence behind this cycle’s findings, recommendations, and discussions.
Response available
Response available
Response available
Response available
Response available
Response available
Official report
Official report