Alameda County Grand Jury
2015-2016
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F16-6:
Financial analysis of numerous contract provisions providing for economic benefits to the city was insufficient. Little or no analysis of the ultimate financial impact to ratepayers was performed.
F16-7:
The city of Oakland’s contracting process failed to achieve a competitive bidding environment.
F16-8:
The city drafted RFP provisions that favored the incumbents and suppressed competition.
F16-9:
The city’s official contracting process was abandoned and replaced by the contractors’ closed-door negotiations.
F16-10:
Public transparency was undermined by the contractors’ closed-door negotiations.
F16-11:
There was little to no public debate before the city council concerning disproportionately high franchise fees.
F16-12:
Collection rates paid by Oakland businesses and multi-family residences were markedly higher than those in surrounding communities.
F16-13:
Franchise fees paid by the city’s garbage collection contractor, passed on to Oakland ratepayers, are disproportionately higher than franchise fees paid to other Bay Area municipalities and special districts. 40 2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ___________________________________________________________________
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F16-32:
The Measure A Oversight Committee is reactive, not proactive. It is limited by legislation that restricts it from making recommendations regarding the efficiency of programs funded, or how the funds should be expended.
F16-33:
The Grand Jury finds that both the Health Care Services Agency and the Measure A Oversight Committee are underfunded for administrative staff needed to oversee the effective use of public funds distributed to the widespread range of community based organizations.
F16-34:
The Measure A ordinance so limits the Measure A Oversight Committee that its current role is insufficient to assure taxpayers that the funds are providing the services that are needed.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F16-39:
City management’s failure to effectively communicate process and organizational changes from the period of 2012 through August 2015 caused turmoil in the Oakland Revenue Division and adversely impacted employee morale.
F16-40:
Management turnover and undocumented policies for fee and penalty waivers left the Oakland Revenue Division without clear direction.
F16-41:
The lack of a current tax collection software license put the city at risk. 100 2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ___________________________________________________________________
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F16-23:
Some CBOs responding to an RFP have little or no outcome/output data. Others are renewed with no evaluation report and without a re-issued RFP. Decision makers are left without sufficient information to make sound judgments.
F16-24:
There are insufficient requirements in the RFP process to assess a CBO as to its staff training, development, and how people within the CBO are encouraged to innovate to accomplish the mission. This would ensure more confidence that the contracted CBO could efficiently and effectively fulfill its long-term goals and to adequately do the job. 69 2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ___________________________________________________________________
F16-25:
The RFP process often limits the ability for CBOs to have innovative solutions for the provision of services.
F16-26:
The amount of funding and personnel devoted to the results-based accountability effort is insufficient for the scale of the task. The PERU group (Planning, Evaluation and Research Unit) reports on too few CBOs each year among all the CBOs under contract. When fully staffed, the group is only five people (out of the 2400 employees within SSA). A comparable group within HCSA is not yet fully operational. There are too few resources in both departments to effectively evaluate CBO performance.
F16-27:
Too few CBO contracts with Alameda County include results-based accountability requirements to measure effectiveness and to inform decision makers during the renewal process.
F16-28:
Output data (number of people serviced) provided by some CBOs can be unreliable.
F16-29:
Many smaller CBOs lack infrastructure to innovate and adopt new reporting systems that could lead to both incomplete and inaccurate data being provided to the county.
F16-30:
There are an insufficient number of on-site visits to CBOs during the term of the contracts limiting the ability of county officials to identify, evaluate, and address problems early on.
F16-31:
There is political pressure from the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to retain some under-performing CBOs. This undermines confidence in the contracting process.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F16-1:
The councilmember had a conflict of interest with the townhouse project and interfered with the project’s approval process.
F16-2:
The councilmember’s use of her city staff on the townhouse project was a misuse of city resources for her personal benefit.
F16-3:
The councilmember privately contacted senior city staff, attempting to improperly influence decisions, which subverted the public process.
F16-4:
The planning director’s attempt to pacify the councilmember gave the appearance that she was collaborating with the councilmember to obstruct the property owner.
F16-5:
The planning director’s failure to report to the city administrator’s office or stop the councilmember’s ethical violations undermined city staff and the fair treatment of those doing business with the city.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F16-14:
The Eden Township Healthcare District lacks a clear vision of its future as a viable governmental agency. 53 2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ___________________________________________________________________
F16-15:
The execution of the Eden Township Healthcare District’s mission is ineffective because it does not engage in advanced strategic planning practices. The district lacks information concerning the needs of its residents and fails to take steps to assess those needs.
F16-16:
The amount of resources devoted to the Eden Township Healthcare District’s primary mission is only 12% of its total expenses. Although an improvement over the historical 5%, this ratio is an indication that the district’s attention has been diverted away from its primary mission, which is to “improve the health of the people in our community.”
F16-17:
Survey data showing that district residents have little or no knowledge or opinion of ETHD’s existence demonstrates ETHD’s failure to deliver on its stated mission.
F16-18:
Eden Township Healthcare District’s current priorities lack concrete action plans, timelines, funding sources, or a rationale that would inform residents how and when plan priorities will be achieved.
F16-19:
ETHD’s stated priority to provide direct healthcare services to the community is unachievable under its current operating structure. This problem highlights the fact that the district has not aligned its strategic priorities with the reality of its operating structure.
F16-20:
The Eden Township Healthcare District’s passive approach to planning has resulted in a lack of short- and long-term objectives. It reduces the organization to haphazardly funding its priorities on a reactionary or politically driven basis.
F16-21:
There is little or no evidence of collaboration between the Eden Township Healthcare District and the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency. Lack of collaboration is wasteful and detrimental to the community the district serves. 54 2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ___________________________________________________________________
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.