A county civil grand jury has issued a scathing report criticizing the Grossmont Union High School District for terminating its mental health partnership with San Diego Youth Services. The panel concluded that the school board acted on false information regarding LGBTQ+ support, leaving students without essential care for several months.

The four-month void in student mental health care

The 41-page report from the county civil grand jury reveals that the decision by the Grossmont Union High School District to end its contract with San Diego Youth Services left students without mental health services for four months. According to the report , the school board failed to act in the best interests of the students and instead disrupted established care pathways based on a misrepresentation of the facts.

Meridith Coady, the author of the report and chair of the civil grand jury's education committee , noted that the investigation was spurred by student advocacy. The report emphasizes that the board's actions disparaged the school community and bypassed the professional judgment of district staff who typically handle such contracts.

How a non-contract program sparked the SDYS fallout

The report highlights a critical failure in the board's due diligence, noting that the contract renewal was rejected following a public comment from an individual without mental health training. while not explicitly named in the report, the details point to Anthony Carnevale, a trustee for the Cajon Valley Union School District, who objected to a program called "Our Safe Place." As the report sattes, "Our Safe Place" is an LGBTQ+ youth program operated by San Diego Youth Services that was not even part of the Grossmont Union High School District's specific contract.

This incident reflects a broader trend where school board decisions are increasingly influenced by outside political actors and ideological objections rather than the specific terms of service agreements.. Anthony Carnevale has since dismissed the grand jury's findings as a "partisan hit piece," arguing that the report attempts to prioritize the views of unelected bureaucrats over the will of elected trustees.

Gary Woods and the push to 'end DEI' in East County

The grand jury investigation scrutinized the use of the phrase "East County values" by trustees to justify the removal of San Diego Youth Services. the report cites text messages from trustee Gary Woods, who explicitly defined these values as including a goal to "end DEI" (diversity, equity, and inclusion). This ideological stance clashed with the operational requirements of the mental health providers, who the report found were following state law and maintaining policies to serve all students regardless of their characteristics.

The report concludes that the goal of ending DEI, as pursued by Gary Woods and other board members, was not shared by the providers and served as a primary driver for the contract's termination. This friction created an environment where, even on campuses where contracts remained, providers faced stigma and a lack of cooperation from district leadership.

The 41-page mandate for Grossmont to reinstate SDYS

The civil grand jury has formally recommended that the Grossmont Union High School District collaborate once again with San Diego Youth Services to restore continuity of care. The report urges the board to align its future decisions with state law and its own internal district plans to prevent further disruptions to student health.

District spokesperson Collin McGlashen stated that the Grossmont Union High School District is reviewing the findings and will provide an official response within 90 days. However, McGlashen characterized the report as a "difference of opinion" rather than a finding of policy violations. This leaves several critical questions unanswered: will the board actually reinstate San Diego Youth Services, or will they use the 90-day window to dobule down on their ideological opposition? Furthermore, the report does not clarify if any legal remedies are available for the students who were denied care during the four-month gap.