Contra Costa County Grand Jury
2024-2025
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 (8)
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F1:
By the California Education Code, the Measure J CBOC is to be independent of MDUSD and represents and informs the taxpayers.
F2:
The CBOC does not prepare its own Bylaws which detail how the committee operates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2025, the MDUSD should permit the Measure J CBOC to independently prepare, modify and approve the committee’s Bylaws.
F3:
The MDUSD provides the CBOC Bylaws.
F4:
The CBOC cannot modify the Bylaws without MDUSD approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2025, the MDUSD should permit the Measure J CBOC to independently prepare, modify and approve the committee’s Bylaws.
F5:
The MDUSD reviews and appoints CBOC renewing and new members.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2025, the MDUSD should include the CBOC in activities associated with screening, selection and approval of CBOC candidates for continuing and new members' positions.
F6:
The MDUSD is required by the EDCODE to provide support to the CBOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2025, the MDUSD should provide assistance the CBOC has requested.
F7:
The CBOC does not have an independent legal consultant.
F8:
The CBOC is not independent as intended by Proposition 39.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2025, the MDUSD should recognize that California Education Code requires that the Measure J CBOC is an independent oversight committee reporting to the taxpayers and not controlled by the MDUSD.
F9:
The last annual report from CBOC presented negative findings.
F10:
The CBOC reports are not widely distributed to the taxpayers and are only posted on the MDUSD website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By December 31, 2025, the MDUSD should distribute CBOC annual reports electronically to taxpayers within the district via local governments, parent groups and civic organizations.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F1:
The Children and Family Services staff is dedicated to the important work they do.
F2:
The social worker job is challenging and stressful, contributing to the difficulty in recruiting and retaining of staff.
F3:
Children and Family Services faces challenges in both hiring and retaining social worker staff.
F4:
Social workers have resigned and taken positions with competing agencies offering higher pay.
F5:
As of January 2025, Children and Family Services has a current social worker vacancy rate of 19%, with 31 of 167 authorized positions unfilled.
F6:
Understaffing increases the workload for existing staff.
F7:
The absence of a full staff of social workers can result in a negative impact on services provided to children and families, including delays in service, requirements for re-interviews, and the related stress on children and families.
F8:
The hiring process is lengthy, with 27 steps and taking on average 113 days, which can potentially discourage applicants from completing the process and receiving an offer of employment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By July 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to streamline the hiring process to reduce the time it takes to hire a social worker.
F9:
Fewer college students in the western United States are enrolling in social work majors, reducing the pool of potential applicants.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By January 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to recruit for social workers at universities and colleges outside of Contra Costa County, participate at recruiting/hiring fairs nationally, and host virtual job fairs, potentially using Measure X funds as a source of funding.
F10:
Children and Family Services does not recruit for social workers at universities and colleges outside of the Bay Area or participate at recruiting/hiring fairs nationally.
F11:
Children and Family Services has reduced the educational requirements from Master of Social Work to Bachelor of Science plus relevant experience, to increase the pool of potential applicants.
F12:
Adding dedicated Human Resources staff to Employment and Human Services Department has aided hiring efforts.
F13:
Children and Family Services does not reimburse new employees for relocation expenses.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
By January 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to create other incentive programs for new and existing staff, such as student loan forgiveness programs and housing assistance, potentially using Measure X funds as a source of funding.
R7:
By January 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to develop and implement a program to pay for moving expenses for newly hired social workers, potentially using Measure X funds as a source of funding.
F14:
Children and Family Services does not reimburse interviewees for travel expenses.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4:
By January 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to create other incentive programs for new and existing staff, such as student loan forgiveness programs and housing assistance, potentially using Measure X funds as a source of funding.
R8:
By January 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to develop and implement a program to pay for travel expenses of employees when recruiting social workers, potentially using Measure X funds as a source of funding.
F15:
Children and Family Services provides limited motivational, recognition, and wellness programs for social workers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By July 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to provide additional motivational, recognition, and wellness programs for social workers as an incentive in recruitment and retention, potentially using Measure X funds as a source of funding.
F16:
Children and Family Services does not have an employee referral program for social workers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By January 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to develop an employee referral program, potentially using Measure X funds as a source of funding.
F17:
Children and Family Services does not have a hiring or retention bonus program for social workers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By July 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to implement a hiring and retention bonuses program, potentially using Measure X funds as a source of funding.
F18:
Children and Family Services has university and employee internship programs. Since 2019, CFS hired eight of 28 university interns and promoted five of 23 employee interns into permanent social worker positions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By January 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Human Resources Department and the Employment and Human Services Department to expand internship programs to generate increased interest in working with CFS in Contra Costa.
F19:
Several of the challenges identified by the Grand Jury in 2019 (including a number of vacancies among social workers, a lengthy hiring process, heavy workloads, and a stressful work environment) still exist today.
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
Since 2019, Clayton has had 12 City Managers, eight Finance Directors, and five Community Development Directors.
F2:
The level of turnover of City Managers in Clayton is greater than other cities in the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider directing the City Manager to conduct a study of the causes of senior staff turnover.
F3:
Prior to January 1, 2025, the City Council did not follow its established guidelines for inclusion of an agenda item despite requests over the course of 15 months by a council member to do so.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider adopting a new procedure for Council Members to request items be placed on future agendas.
R2:
By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider directing the City Manager to maintain a written, on-going list—available for public view—of all items that have been requested for inclusion in the Council’s agenda and either the date on which the item will be agendized or the reasons for denial of inclusion.
F4:
Prior to January 7, 2025, the public could learn of requests for agenda item inclusion in real time when proposed by council members in open session.
F5:
Subsequent to January 7, 2025, the public could learn of requests for agenda item inclusion only by an oral report of the City Manager made once per quarter.
F6:
Prior to January 9, 2025, there was a City Council agenda-setting committee meeting, held regularly with the Mayor and Vice-Mayor along with the City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney.
F7:
Committee meeting minutes are not consistently posted as a standalone document in the column provided on the City website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider directing all committees to post their minutes as a standalone document in the minutes column of the City website.
F8:
In 2024, 52% (13 of 25) of committee meetings were scheduled as special meetings. Consequently, opportunity for public comment on non-agenda items was eliminated.
F9:
Regular meetings of committees do not consistently place on the agenda an opportunity for public comment on non-agenda items, which violates the Brown Act requirements.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider directing all Brown Act committees to place on the agenda the opportunity for public comment on non-agenda items for all regular scheduled meetings.
F10:
The CBCA Negotiation Committee neither informed nor sought approval from the Council at a public meeting for actions taken, contrary to Council Guidelines.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider enforcing the Council Guidelines (City Council Guidelines and Procedures Section C.8.c) that committees come to the Council for approval of actions to be taken.
F11:
Revenue shortfall has been identified and confirmed as an issue by several City Managers since 2022. However, while the Council has discussed the issue, it has taken no action to increase revenue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By July 1, 2026, the City Council should consider ways to increase City revenue.
F12:
The City Council did not follow the established requirements in Resolution 76-2022 for selecting members of the Citizens Financial Sustainability Committee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider following Resolution 76-2022’s requirements for qualifications of members to serve on the Citizens Financial Sustainability Committee.
F13:
Committees formed by the City Council are not authorized to take action (other than advice and recommendations) without the Council’s approval.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider enforcing the Council Guidelines (City Council Guidelines and Procedures Section C.8.c) that committees come to the Council for approval of actions to be taken.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
The Mosquito and Vector Control District (MVCD) uses state-of-the-art Integrative Vector Management, which includes physical, biological and chemical control of vectors, in addition to vector surveillance and public education.
F2:
The MVCD had an excess of revenues over expenditures of more than two million dollars in each of the past three fiscal years.
F3:
Awareness by residents of how to identify and report Aedes mosquitos can assist in Aedes control.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to explore additional avenues to educate residents on how to recognize and report Aedes mosquitos.
F4:
Promotion of the MVCD’s residential inspection service will aide in detection of invasive Aedes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to explore additional avenues to educate residents on how to recognize and report Aedes mosquitos.
F5:
Public education in how residents can eliminate Aedes eggs in their yards will assist in stopping the spread of invasive Aedes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to explore additional avenues to educate residents on how to recognize and report Aedes mosquitos.
F6:
MVCD uniformed inspectors sometimes encounter a level of misunderstanding regarding their mission, resulting in denial or delay of entry to property.
F7:
When residents deny inspections, it delays mosquito identification and eradication efforts.
F8:
The Antioch vacancy on the MVCD Board of Trustees contributed to a delay in the MCVD presentation on Aedes to the Antioch City Council.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should recruit to ensure a complete Board of Trustees.
F9:
The MVCD website does not explain what activities should be reported to the Animal Services Department as opposed to the MVCD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to work with the Animal Control Services Agency to provide a link on their websites for reporting suspected Aedes mosquitos to the MVCD.
F10:
The MVCD website does not have a link to the Animal Services Department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to work with the Animal Control Services Agency to provide a link on their websites for reporting suspected Aedes mosquitos to the MVCD.
F11:
There are no prominent, direct links for reporting mosquitos on the home page of the MVCD website or the Animal Services Department website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to work with the Animal Control Services Agency to provide a link on their websites for reporting suspected Aedes mosquitos to the MVCD.
F12:
The MVCD does not currently leave their educational “Invasive Mosquito Species of California” identification brochure during home inspections for other vectors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to offer their existing brochure, “Invasive Mosquito Species of California” to residents during all requested home inspections for vectors.
F13:
There are no current marketing partnership agreements with other counties to explore cost- effective public education and awareness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to explore the costs of coordinating public information campaigns with neighboring counties during Aedes infestations.
F14:
The MVCD does not currently distribute their existing Aedes information through relevant retail establishments and other public agencies unless requested.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to offer their existing brochure, “Invasive Mosquito Species of California” or other informational material to other public agencies and relevant retail establishments (for example garden and pool stores).
F15:
As of May 2025, the MVCD social media presence is limited to Facebook (60 followers), Instagram (232 followers), Nextdoor, and 1,432 followers on X.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to provide an opt-in/opt-out email service to send alerts and news releases when Aedes infestations are discovered.
F16:
The MVCD does not cross-market educational or promotional YouTube videos on other social media platforms.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By February 1, 2026, the MVCD Board of Trustees should consider directing the MVCD to provide an opt-in/opt-out email service to send alerts and news releases when Aedes infestations are discovered.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
16 findings
F1:
Despite a decrease in absolute number of homicides from 18 to 11, violent crimes in Richmond, which include homicide, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault have increased from 2021-2024.
F2:
In 2021, the City of Richmond reallocated $3 million in Richmond Police Department (RPD) funding to community services and alternative policing proposals in Richmond.
F3:
The City received two expert reports that studied staffing levels in Richmond, the Matrix report (March 2023) and the Raftelis report (May 2024).
F4:
Both the Matrix and Raftelis reports found that there should be an increase in RPD sworn officers.
F5:
The City Council has not taken any action on police staffing as recommended in the Matrix and Raftelis reports.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1:
By January 1, 2026, the City Council should consider placing a review of the Matrix and Raftelis reports on a City Council agenda.
R2:
By January 1, 2026, after a City Council meeting review of the reports, the City Council should consider following the recommendations for police officer staffing and hiring made in the Matrix and Raftelis reports.
R7:
By January 1, 2026, the City Council should consider whether to allocate some of the Chevron Corporation settlement funds to the RPD to hire and retain more officers.
F6:
An improvement in recruiting measures has resulted in an increase of hiring of new RPD officers, although staffing remains below approved levels.
F7:
The RPD has the ability to train only 10 new officers at a time, using the available Field Training Officers, resulting in a limitation on the number of officers that could be hired.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By January 1, 2026, the City Council should consider directing the City Manager to work with the RPD to develop a plan to increase the number of Field Training Officers.
F8:
Reallocation of RPD funds resulted in the downsizing or elimination of specialized investigative units.
F9:
Since the reallocation of RPD funds, mandatory overtime for police officers has increased.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By January 1, 2026, the City Council should consider directing the City Manager to work with the RPD to establish a plan to reduce officer mandatory overtime.
F10:
Subsequent to the reallocation of RPD funds in 2021 the City Council approved the formation of the Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP).
F11:
The CCRP was formed to respond to calls involving mental health and quality of life incidents not requiring the RPD.
F12:
As of April 2025, the CCRP is staffed with three people, a program manager and two staffers.
F13:
As of April 2025, the CCRP is not receiving calls for service via police dispatch.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By January 1, 2026, the City Council should consider directing the City Manager to work with the RPD to establish a training program for dispatchers to enable dispatchers to properly send appropriate personnel to incidents for CCRP and RPD.
F14:
The need for agreement between the City and RPOA on duties to be performed and union representation of the CCRP is contributing to CCRP’s slow rollout.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By January 1, 2026, the City Council should consider directing the City Manager to establish a timeline to implement the operations and functions of the CCRP.
F15:
As a result of a legal settlement between the City and Chevron Corporation, $550 million will be coming to the City of Richmond over the next 10 years, starting in June 2025, resulting in increased revenue for the City.
F16:
As of April 2025, The City Council has not determined how any of the Chevron settlement funds will be used.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
9 findings
F1:
The current County triennial review process for County BCCs provides an effective way to measure and thereby manage their operation and oversight because it establishes a predictable, thorough examination.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
The Board of Supervisors should consider requiring each County board, commission, and committee to create a basic internet presence by June 1, 2026, that includes, at minimum, links to their charter (if available), by-laws (if available), membership information, agendas, and minutes.
F2:
As of January 19, 2025, eight percent (nine of 111) of County BCCs have no website or other online presence making it difficult for the public to obtain information about the existence, purpose, membership and progress of these BCCs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
The Board of Supervisors should consider directing the appropriate staff to create, by January 1, 2026, an online master list of all County BCCs where each listing contains a link to the associated BCC website and a link to the master list is made available on the home page of the main County website and on the home page of Legistar.
F3:
The 111 existing BCC websites are spread across multiple department web pages on the County’s main website, making online BCC information difficult to find.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should consider directing each County BCC to post all meeting agendas and minutes in the appropriate section of Legistar on the central County website by January 1, 2026.
F4:
There is no master list of all County BCCs contained on the County main website.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
Does the body have a sufficient composition of members/types of seats to achieve its mission? ☐ Yes ☐ No If “No”, please indicate which seats you would modify and why.
F5:
As of January 19, 2025, 42 percent (47 of 111) of County BCCs do not have agendas posted in Legistar, the County’s BCC data repository, which results in a lack of transparency to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
Has the body experienced any membership challenges (i.e. high vacancy rates, trouble filling seats, high member turnover, difficulty meeting quorum, or issues with recruitment and retention)? ☐ Yes ☐ No If “Yes”, please describe the membership challenges experienced.
F6:
As of January 19, 2025, 56 percent (62 of 111) of County BCCs do not have their meeting minutes posted in Legistar on the central County website, resulting in a lack of transparency to the public.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
Are there special qualifications, requirements, or prerequisites for members to serve on the body? ☐ Yes ☐ No If “Yes”, please explain whether the requirements are important and necessary, or describe any issues where these requirements have limited recruitment of potential candidates. MEETINGS
F7:
As of January 19, 2025, of the 49 County BCCs that post their minutes in Legistar, 27 (55 percent) incorporate them into the agenda packets rather than in the Minutes column of Legistar, making it difficult to locate meeting minutes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
List activities, services, programs, and/or special projects the body delivers to achieve its current mission. BUDGET
F8:
Historic County agenda and minutes data are stored and accessed in two different applications, Legistar and AgendaCenter, which can make the information difficult to find.
F9:
Even though it is preferred to use only one system, Legistar, to access meeting agendas and minutes, those presently contained in AgendaCenter cannot easily be moved or copied to Legistar due to technological constraints too costly to overcome.
Findings & Recommendations
13 findings
F1:
The hiring process is a complex, multi-step process involving 27 steps.
F2:
The hiring process is lengthy, with an average of 113 days to hire.
F3:
The Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) has implemented dedicated resources that allocate funds for three individuals in the County Human Resources (HR) Department who are exclusively focused on recruitment and improving EHSD’s hiring capabilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By July 1, 2026, the BOS should consider directing HR to work with County departments to assess whether they could benefit from delegated authority or dedicated resources to enhance the hiring process.
F4:
Contra Costa Health and Public Works departments utilize delegated authority for recruiting and hiring, under which they assume full responsibility for the hiring process for those classifications unique to their respective departments.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By July 1, 2026, the BOS should consider directing HR to work with County departments to assess whether they could benefit from delegated authority or dedicated resources to enhance the hiring process.
F5:
Public Works has one in-house person managing HR recruiting and hiring without any backup.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By January 1, 2026, the BOS should consider directing the Public Works department to ensure there is a backup for the internal HR staff member responsible for performing delegated- authority tasks.
F6:
Lean HR staffing compels departments to prioritize job postings, which can lead to delays in posting job openings.
F7:
Employees in Contra Costa County responsible for hiring often lack knowledge on how to fully utilize the capabilities of PeopleSoft.
F8:
The County does not track the reasons candidates decline county jobs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By January 1, 2026, the BOS should consider directing HR to implement a procedure to identify and track why candidates decline job offers.
F9:
The time needed to maintain County job classifications grows as similar job specifications become more specialized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By July 1, 2026, the BOS should consider directing HR to initiate the process of consolidating existing job classifications across departments.
F10:
The County’s specialized job classifications narrow the pool of potential applicants.
F11:
EHSD contracted with an external consultant from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, to evaluate its hiring process and make recommendations for improvements.
F12:
The County HR department does not currently contract with an external consultant to review its hiring processes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By January 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) should consider using Measure X funds to hire an external consultant to assess hiring processes across the County.
F13:
The HR staff-to-employee ratio in Contra Costa County suggests that the HR department is understaffed compared to those in neighboring counties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By January 1, 2026, the BOS should consider hiring additional HR analysts.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R60-90:
Days 7 90-180 Days 6 180-365 Days 7 365+ Days 8 Grand Total 46 Contra Costa County HR has 55 authorized positions, supporting a current employee base of 9,932. This represents a ratio of one HR staff member for every 181 County employees. In contrast, surrounding counties operate with one HR staff member per 122 employees on average, as highlighted in the table below. Contra Costa’s HR supports 50 percent more employees per HR staff member than the five-county average. To address this issue, in 2024, HR requested the Board of Supervisors (BOS) approve funding for five additional full-time employees; however, that request was denied. HR will petition the BOS again in 2025. Comparison of HR Staffing Levels County County Employees HR Staff Ratio HR Staff: Employees Alameda 9,900 78 1:127 Marin 2,534 42 1:60 San Francisco 34,373 209 1:164 San Joaquin 8,046 51 1:158 Solano 3,279 33 1:99 Average ratio 1:122 Contra Costa 9,932 55 1:181 Notes: • San Francisco employee and HR staff count includes county and city employees • Ratio of HR Staff to Employees measures how many county employees there are for each HR staff member Software Tools: A Need for Knowledge PeopleSoft is a suite of enterprise applications that help businesses manage various operations, including human resources, finance, supply chain, and customer relationships. The County uses PeopleSoft to help manage its HR operations. Specifically, it is used to create reports on the following HR functions: • recruitment, onboarding, and termination • standard employee data • compensation analysis • workforce demographics • performance management • training and development • turnover analysis • benefits HR utilizes PeopleSoft reports; however, not all County departments have knowledge of, access to, or training to run them. Additionally, departments can request custom reports from HR. Department staff are not always aware of these custom reports and/or how to request them. In addition, PeopleSoft can track why candidates decline job offers; however, the county does not utilize this feature. Not fully utilizing the capabilities of its PeopleSoft tools contributes to inefficiencies in the County’s hiring process. Job Classification Challenge The County supports approximately 1,300 job classifications, totaling around 11,000 authorized positions. As departments specify individual job requirements, the number of job classifications increases, leading to more time required for their review and maintenance. For example, the County has 27 job classifications for accountants. More generic job classifications allow multiple departments to utilize them for similar roles. Conversely, highly specialized job specifications often cannot be shared among departments, which limits the pool of qualified applicants. Broader specifications attract a larger number of candidates. The Grand Jury acknowledges that changes in job specifications require consultation with labor groups. Employment Human Services Department (EHSD) Dedicated HR Staff To expedite the hiring process, EHSD funds three full-time HR staff members. These professionals, who report to HR, focus solely on recruitment for specific roles within EHSD, thereby enhancing the department’s recruitment and hiring capabilities. In January 2024, with one full-time HR staff member, EHSD had 335 vacancies. By July 2024, the first month EHSD added the second and third full-time HR staff members, the number of vacancies decreased to 326. As of February 2025, overall vacancies had been reduced to 270, a 17 percent reduction. The chart below shows vacancy rates of Contra Costa County departments. Those with higher vacancy rates may benefit from dedicated resources as EHSD did. External Consultant EHSD collaborated with an external consultant from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, to examine EHSD operations, including the hiring processes. The following are positive impacts from the consultant’s recommendations related to hiring: • Conducted assessments with the EHSD Personnel staff to identify issues and develop solutions for their hiring processes. • Established a hiring strategy that currently guides hiring activities. • Oversaw hiring interviews for key positions. Collaborated with HR to post vacancies, screen applicants, organize hiring panels, supply materials to hiring panels, proctor interviews, and facilitate the onboarding and development of 30-60-90 Day Onboarding Plans for new employees. • Identified several necessary personnel procedures and documented them for EHSD’s review and approval. EHSD is currently implementing the consultant’s recommendations. Given EHSD’s success in improving its hiring process (as evidenced by the meaningful reduction in the number of vacancies), external consultants working with HR could provide an impartial perspective on the County’s overall hiring practices. Measure X funds, as discussed below, could be used for such consulting services. Delegated Authority Another approach to HR hiring is known as delegated authority. In this model, the department takes full responsibility for all recruiting and hiring steps necessary to fill its positions. This involves the power granted to specific departments to oversee all 27 steps in the hiring process, eliminating the need for back-and-forth communication between HR and the department. This delegation promotes more localized decision-making and enables hiring processes tailored to the specific needs of each department. Contra Costa Health Services and Public Works employ delegated authority. Public Works implemented delegated authority in December 2024. However, a notable weakness of the Public Works Department’s implementation of delegated authority is its dependency on a single in-house employee without any backup. This individual is responsible for performing the HR tasks assigned as shown (highlighted in green) in the Recruitment and Hiring Process chart above. This singular reliance puts the hiring process at risk if that individual becomes unavailable. Measure X Funding The BOS placed a sales tax proposal on the November 2020 ballot with the goal of providing local funds for local priorities. The tax was passed on November 3, 2020, and generates approximately $120 million each year to support a variety of county services. Measure X funds are for general purposes, and the BOS directs how the funds should be used. The BOS seeks input from the Measure X Community Advisory Board and the community about priorities and community needs. The ballot language for Measure X stated that the intent is “To keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers; provide timely fire and emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services.” As recruiting and retaining sufficient staff is necessary to maintain essential County services, use of Measure X funds to support HR is an approved use of these resources. FINDINGS F1. The hiring process is a complex, multi-step process involving 27 steps. F2. The hiring process is lengthy, with an average of 113 days to hire. F3. The Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) has implemented dedicated resources that allocate funds for three individuals in the County Human Resources (HR) Department who are exclusively focused on recruitment and improving EHSD’s hiring capabilities. F4. Contra Costa Health and Public Works departments utilize delegated authority for recruiting and hiring, under which they assume full responsibility for the hiring process for those classifications unique to their respective departments. F5. Public Works has one in-house person managing HR recruiting and hiring without any backup. F6. Lean HR staffing compels departments to prioritize job postings, which can lead to delays in posting job openings. F7. Employees in Contra Costa County responsible for hiring often lack knowledge on how to fully utilize the capabilities of PeopleSoft. F8. The County does not track the reasons candidates decline county jobs. F9. The time needed to maintain County job classifications grows as similar job specifications become more specialized. F10. The County’s specialized job classifications narrow the pool of potential applicants. F11. EHSD contracted with an external consultant from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025, to evaluate its hiring process and make recommendations for improvements. F12. The County HR department does not currently contract with an external consultant to review its hiring processes. F13. The HR staff-to-employee ratio in Contra Costa County suggests that the HR department is understaffed compared to those in neighboring counties. RECOMMENDATIONS R1. By January 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) should consider using Measure X funds to hire an external consultant to assess hiring processes across the County. R2. By July 1, 2026, the BOS should consider directing HR to work with County departments to assess whether they could benefit from delegated authority or dedicated resources to enhance the hiring process. R3. By July 1, 2026, the BOS should consider directing HR to initiate the process of consolidating existing job classifications across departments. R4. By January 1, 2026, the BOS should consider directing the Public Works department to ensure there is a backup for the internal HR staff member responsible for performing delegated- authority tasks. R5. By January 1, 2026, the BOS should consider directing HR to implement a procedure to identify and track why candidates decline job offers. R6. By January 1, 2026, the BOS should consider hiring additional HR analysts. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code § 933.05, the 2024-2025 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies: