Alameda County Grand Jury
2015-2016
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (9)
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F16-22:
Alameda LAFCo constructs its MSRs in compliance with Government Code Section 56430, Develop a structure for dialogue among agencies that provide services and a support reports and LAFCo hearings. All LAFCo MSRs and meeting agenda items are available on service agreements, shared resource acquisition, joint funding requests or strategies, intervals which does not lend itself to the type of ongoing oversight that the Grand Jury has condition for the District to return to LAFCo to provide an update on its plans with the City of Dublin as well as implementation of the District's strategic plan. In November 2015, the also described above in response to Finding 16-22. At most, an MSR is prepared in 5-year service provision while planning for provision of high quality infrastructure needed Develop strategies to avoid unnecessary costs, eliminate waste, and improve public LAFCo works closely with the subject agency(ies) in the preparation of an MSR, and local District provided another update to the Commission. These repeated presentations enabled LAFCo, the Commission received information about the District's operational structure as sphere of influence (SOI) and adopted a provisional SOI. A provisional SOI indicates that
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R16-22:
Alameda LAFCo constructs its MSRs in compliance with Government Code Section 56430, Develop a structure for dialogue among agencies that provide services and a support reports and LAFCo hearings. All LAFCo MSRs and meeting agenda items are available on service agreements, shared resource acquisition, joint funding requests or strategies, intervals which does not lend itself to the type of ongoing oversight that the Grand Jury has condition for the District to return to LAFCo to provide an update on its plans with the City of Dublin as well as implementation of the District's strategic plan. In November 2015, the also described above in response to Finding 16-22. At most, an MSR is prepared in 5-year service provision while planning for provision of high quality infrastructure needed Develop strategies to avoid unnecessary costs, eliminate waste, and improve public LAFCo works closely with the subject agency(ies) in the preparation of an MSR, and local District provided another update to the Commission. These repeated presentations enabled LAFCo, the Commission received information about the District's operational structure as sphere of influence (SOI) and adopted a provisional SOI. A provisional SOI indicates that Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. and duties do not include the right or responsibility to provide administrative oversight of As mentioned above in the response to Finding 16-22, Alameda LAFCo's general powers well as its strategic plan. On November 14, 2013, the Commission updated the District's LAFCo to consider how the District's strategic planning efforts align with its operational Recommendation was implemented. As part of the 2013 MSR conducted by Alameda provisional SOI included a condition that the District return to LAFCo to report back on Provide ideas about opportunities to streamline service provision through use of shared facilities, approval of different or modified government structures, joint implementing its strategic plan. The District provided an update in November 2014 at Provide tools to support planning efforts that address regional, cross county or agencies and interested parties are provided notices regarding the availability of MSR which time LAFCo removed the provisional status of the SOL, but again included a LAFCo has identified a need for an agency to address organizational issues. The network for smaller or ill-funded districts that provide valuable services; local agencies. LAFCos are not structured nor funded for such purposes. or integrated land use planning and service delivery programs. Response the LAFCo website at: www.acgov.org/lafco/. statewide issues and processes; to support healthy growth; and identified, structure. advanced (strategic) planning practices and on- Commission must provide greater scrutiny and constructed to meet the district's adherence to stakeholders of successful mission outcomes oversight of the Eden Township Healthcare Municipal Service Reviews are effectively District to ensure that current and future Township Healthcare District's strategic Alameda LAFCo 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report Responses The Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission must ensure that the Eden The Alameda Local Agency Formation Finding/Recommendations going reporting to residents and other planning aligns with ETHD's current operational structure. Recommendation Recommendation #
R91-91:
16-17 District. The purpose of the special study is to review the services currently provided by the Recommendation 16-15 in the Grand Jury's report regarding the Eden Township Healthcare District, its financial position including any future obligations, as well as a fiscal analysis of Recommendation is being implemented. At the July 14, 2016 Alameda LAFCo meeting, District which directs the District's Board of Directors to place the question of whether the various governance options including dissolution. The study is expected to be completed by January 2017. The Commission notes that Recommendation 16-18 is in conflict with the Commission decided to initiate a special study of the Eden Township Healthcare District should continue to exist before the District's voters. Response value of the Eden Township Healthcare District (planning and regulatory) to decide the public Commission must employ its initiatory powers in light of the overall needs of the district and act accordingly by either recommending Alameda LAFCo 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report Responses Finding/Recommendations The Alameda Local Agency Formation dissolution or consolidation. Recommendation # 81-91
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F16-14:
The Eden Township Healthcare District lacks a clear vision of its future as a viable government agency. ETHD Response to Finding 16-14: Eden Township Healthcare District disagrees with the finding. Eden Township Healthcare District has established clearly that it seeks to improve the health of the community by increasing screening, early health care access and concentrating on underserved areas within the District (Ashland, Cherryland and South Hayward).
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. ETHD Response to Finding 16-15: Eden Township Healthcare District disagrees with the finding. The District regularly measures the health of the District's residents using the same data used by the Alameda County Health Care Services Agency and determines priorities and strategic planning based on this data.
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." ETHD Response to Finding 16-16: Eden Township Healthcare District disagrees with the finding. Eden Township Healthcare District's healthcare mission includes providing access to care, which we do by providing medical office space for physicians in locations to provide access to patients. Measured in this way, 85% of our resources are committed to serving the community's health needs. 20400 Lake Chabot Road, Suite 303, Castro Valley, California 94546 • (510) 538-2031 • Fx (510) 582-4670 • www.ethd.org Eden Township Healthcare District (dba Eden Health District) Responses to Civil Grand Jury Report August 25, 2016
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. ETHD Response to Finding 16-17: Eden Township Healthcare District agrees with the finding. However, the survey data was based on a 2012 survey conducted by the District. Since then, the District has spent resources and time communicating with more than 19,855 individuals in the District directly, and at health fairs. We have reached several hundred more through the District's community health educational programs.
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. ETHD Response to Finding 16-18: Eden Township Healthcare District disagrees with the finding. Eden Township Healthcare District does have current priorities (areas and focus of health concerns, are the health of the residents in the Ashland and Cherryland areas, diabetes education and prevention, and mental health education). Informing residents when health care results will be achieved is a goal that even the Federal Government has been seeking to achieve for decades, without success. Even our most respected institutions have struggles with this issue. This is an unrealistic statement, especially for a small agency dealing with 350,000 people. Alameda County, with its much larger budget cannot show results in this area.
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. ETHD Response to Finding 16-19: Eden Township Healthcare District disagrees with this finding. This is just a statement of an unsubstantiated opinion: we can set up a clinic and deliver health care services directly. Also, when the District educates 100 people about how to live a healthier, productive life with diabetes, we ARE providing direct health care (not medical care, but "health" care) to people, some of whom do not get ill enough to get medical care because they are more aware of how to maintain good health.
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. ETHD Response to Finding 16-20: Eden Township Healthcare District disagrees with this finding. Eden Township Healthcare District believes this finding is absolutely off the mark! The District has set a goal of funding as much of our stated priorities that a given budget can provide and then fund those programs that meet those goals and monitor them. The District believes this is a far better approach than setting lofty goals with no money to follow through and get anything done.
F16-21:
There is little or no evidence of collaboration between 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. Eden Township Healthcare District (dba Eden Health District) Responses to Civil Grand Jury Report August 25, 2016 ETHD Response to Finding 16-21: Eden Township Healthcare District disagrees with this finding. This is a matter of definition. Alex Briscoe, Director of the Alameda Health Care Services Agency came to the District and asked for help to keep St. Rose Hospital functioning. The District then made an emergency loan to St. Rose Hospital as a result. The District reviews the County's health assessment and works with them (sometimes funding County programs such as WIC), thereby disproving this statement. Responses to Recommendations:
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.
Quick View
Full Details →
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 →
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The respondent agrees with the finding.
R2:
The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. The person or entity responding to each grand jury recommendation shall report one of the following actions:
R3:
The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
R4:
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. SEND ALL RESPONSES TO: Presiding Judge Morris D. Jacobson Alameda County Superior Court 1225 Fallon Street, Department One Oakland, California 94612 A COPY MUST ALSO BE SENT TO: Cassie Barner c/o Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104 Oakland, California 94612 All responses for the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Final Report must be submitted no later than 90 days after the public release of the report. 125 2015-2016 Alameda County Grand Jury Final Report ___________________________________________________________________ [This page intentionally left blank] 126
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.