Contra Costa County Grand Jury
2026-2027
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 (4)
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The present administrative policy for Electronic Home Detention (EHD) does not set out an individual’s right, or the procedure, to appeal the denial of participation in the EHD program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider revising the administrative policy for EHD to include an explanation of the right to appeal under California Penal Codes Sections 1203.018 and 1203.016.
F2:
The Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) “Notice of Disqualification” does not cite Penal Code Section 1203.018(g)(2) (pre-trial EHD).
F3:
The CAF “Notice of Disqualification” cites Penal Code Section 1203.016(d)(2) (post- sentencing EHD).
F4:
CAF does provide notice to attorneys of record of denials and disqualifications for pre-trial individuals.
F5:
If the participant is post-sentencing, the Notice of Disqualification is not sent to the last known attorney of record.
F6:
CAF sends the Notice of Disqualification to participants at their last known address.
F7:
Lack of notice of appeal rights to the last known attorney of record of a participant limits the participant’s opportunity for effective representation in the appeal of the CAF denial or removal.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider directing CAF to send a post- sentencing “Notice of Disqualification” to the address of the last known attorney of record in addition to the notice mailed to the denied participant.
F8:
CAF does not report demographic information on denials or disqualifications.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider collecting and publishing demographic information on denials or disqualifications for all three CAF programs.
F9:
CAF does not report who is denied participation in the three programs.
F10:
CAF does not report reasons for denial or disqualification.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider collecting and publishing reasons for denials or disqualifications for all three CAF programs.
F11:
CAF does not report rates of recidivism for those who are on EHD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider collecting and publishing rates of recidivism for EHD participants.
F12:
The costs of the three CAF programs are never disaggregated; therefore, there is insufficient information to identify the cost of each separate program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider collecting and publishing separate cost data for each of the CAF programs.
F13:
In 2025, the Board of Supervisors authorized the Sheriff’s Office to hire and designate staff to facilitate data collection.
F14:
Not all EHD forms used by the public are available in languages other than English.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By December 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider translating all documents used by individuals in the CAF process into Spanish and Mandarin.
Findings & Recommendations
6 findings
F1:
The Sheriff’s Quarterly Oversight Report to the Board of Supervisors regarding the cost of detention borne by the Sheriff’s Department does not include costs borne by other County departments, such as the costs of medical and mental health services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By January 1, 2027, the Board should consider requiring an audit to determine the full costs of adult detention facilities.
F2:
In 2025, the average daily cost to detain an adult in custody at the County’s three detention facilities, including mental and medical services, was $396.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
Upon completion of the audit and no later than June 30, 2027, the Board should consider directing the auditor to report on the review of the full costs of operating each of the adult detention facilities.
F3:
At $627 per day, Marsh Creek Detention Facility (MCDF) costs more to house inmates than Martinez Detention Facility ($511) or West County Detention Facility ($278).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By October 31, 2026, the Sheriff’s Office should consider clarifying in its Quarterly Oversight Report that the detention costs reflect only the Sheriff’s Office costs.
F4:
MCDF operates at 20% of its capacity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By January 1, 2027, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office and the County Administrator’s Office to identify a methodology for determining and reporting the full costs of the adult detention facilities operated by Contra Costa County.
F5:
The Custody Alternative Facility (CAF) does not separately report the costs of the programs it administers: Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program, Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring, and Electronic Home Detention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By July 1, 2027, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office to close MCDF.
F6:
The most recently available Sheriff’s Community Transparency Portal does not report the costs to manage the adult detention facilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider directing the Sheriff’s Office to collect and report operating cost data separately for each CAF program.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
21 findings
F1:
In 2018, Bay Area voters approved the creation of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART).
F2:
Public Utilities Code Section 28841 outlines the foundational structure and responsibilities of the OIG but does not establish details regarding the scope or exercise of the OIG’s authority.
F3:
The OIG does not presently have a charter.
F4:
In 2021, the OIG presented a draft charter to the BART Board of Directors (Board) and the Board’s Audit Committee.
F5:
Neither the Board nor the Audit Committee adopted or revised the draft charter received from the OIG in 2021.
F6:
Following its August 1, 2024, meeting that included on its agenda an “OIG Charter Discussion,” the Audit Committee has not placed on its agenda a discussion or review of an OIG charter.
F7:
The Board has not acted to adopt a charter for the OIG.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider directing the Audit Committee to begin the process of adopting a formal charter for the OIG.
F8:
The Board has not itself attempted to negotiate with its unions a resolution to the unions’ objections to any of the OIG’s proposed charters.
F9:
The Board asked the OIG to negotiate directly with the unions the issue of requiring advance notification to the unions when the OIG wishes to interview a union member as part of an investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider requesting that the OIG develop written procedures that clarify employee obligations and rights to union representation during an investigation, at the employee’s discretion.
F10:
BART adopted a written Internal Audit Charter confirming that its internal audit (IA) function has full and unrestricted access to data, records and information, physical property, and personnel, including union members, pertinent to carrying out IA responsibilities.
F11:
The Board has not issued a written policy or established formal procedures stating that the OIG is to have unrestricted access to data, records, information, physical property, and personnel as necessary to carry out its responsibilities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
In the absence of an OIG charter, by December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy stating that the OIG is to have unrestricted access to data, records, information, physical property, and personnel as necessary to carry out its responsibilities.
F12:
A BART executive has taken the position that the OIG cannot interview them unless their supervisor approves.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6:
By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy affirming the authority of the OIG to interview any BART employee or officer, including executive leadership, without seeking prior approval.
F13:
A BART executive has questioned the OIG’s authority to conduct a retaliation investigation.
F14:
Questions raised by a BART executive regarding the scope of the OIG’s authority caused the OIG to halt a retaliation investigation for several months.
F15:
BART has adopted a written charter that states that IA has the authority to determine the adequacy of management’s actions taken in response to IA reports and recommendations.
F16:
The Board has not issued a written policy or established written procedures stating that the OIG has the authority to determine adequacy of BART management’s actions taken in response to OIG audit and investigative recommendations.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1:
In the absence of an OIG charter, by December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy stating that the OIG has the authority and responsibility to determine whether management’s planned actions will adequately address any issues identified in an audit or investigation.
R2:
In the absence of an OIG charter, by December 31, 2026, the Board should consider adopting a written policy stating that the OIG has the authority and responsibility to follow up on audit and investigation recommendations until the OIG is satisfied that management has either implemented the recommendations or otherwise adequately addressed the concerns brought forward by the OIG.
F17:
Assigning the Board the responsibility for determining whether management has adequately implemented OIG recommendations following an audit or investigation would bypass an independent evaluation by the OIG of management’s actions in response to OIG
F18:
The BART Employee Code of Conduct (ECOC) requires employees to act ethically, comply with District policies, and report misconduct.
F19:
The ECOC does not presently require cooperation with OIG investigations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By December 31, 2026, the Board should consider revising the ECOC to require all officers and employees to cooperate with OIG audits and investigations.
F20:
BART’s current Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) require employees to comply with BART’s rules but do not explicitly incorporate the ECOC.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
In the next negotiations of CBAs, the Board should consider seeking to have the ECOC explicitly incorporated by reference into new CBAs.
F21:
BART’s CBAs do not specifically require cooperation with OIG investigations.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
28 findings
F1:
California Government Code Section 1236 requires that employees conducting audits for public agencies follow standards of the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) or the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS).
F2:
The Internal Audit Division’s (IAD) Policies and Procedures Manual, Section 2.1, directs that it “follow applicable professional auditing standards in conducting our audits,” and defines which IIA or GAGAS standards are applicable to specific audit situations.
F3:
The IAD’s placement within the Auditor-Controller's organizational structure creates an organizational independence threat under GAGAS §§3.27–3.58 and IIA Standard 7.1.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider evaluating alternative organizational reporting structures for IAD that reduce organizational and self-review threats, including placement outside the Auditor-Controller’s span of control.
F4:
The Internal Operation Committee’s (IOC) failure to exercise charter approval, audit plan pre-approval, and direct report receipt as required by IIA Standards 6.1, 6.2, 8.1, 9.4, 11.3 and Principle 8 leaves this organizational independence threat unmitigated, constituting an independence impairment in fact and appearance under GAGAS §3.56.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider evaluating alternative organizational reporting structures for IAD that reduce organizational and self-review threats, including placement outside the Auditor-Controller’s span of control.
R6:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring an annual review by the IOC of IAD’s organizational independence, documented safeguards, and any identified independence impairments to ensure continued compliance with IIA Standard 7.1 and GAGAS §§3.40–3.58.
F5:
IAD personnel participate in preparation of the County’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), a management responsibility of the Auditor-Controller.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider prohibiting IAD personnel from participating in the preparation of the ACFR or performing other management functions to comply with IIA Standard 7.1 and GAGAS §§3.87-3.89.
F6:
The participation of IAD personnel in ACFR preparation and their subsequent auditing of those same financial reporting processes and controls represents a self-review threat as defined in GAGAS §§3.30 and 3.39.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider prohibiting IAD personnel from participating in the preparation of the ACFR or performing other management functions to comply with IIA Standard 7.1 and GAGAS §§3.87-3.89.
F7:
The IAD has no documentation demonstrating that organizational and self-review independence threats have been formally identified, evaluated, or mitigated through safeguards, as required by GAGAS §§3.40–3.58 and IIA Standard 7.1.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the Auditor- Controller to develop, document, and implement a formal independence safeguards framework consistent with GAGAS §§3.40–3.58 and IIA Standards 7.1. Required safeguards shall include recusal protocols for audits involving Auditor-Controller functions, independent supervisory review of those audits, and documented segregation of duties between IAD personnel participating in ACFR preparation and those auditing associated financial reporting processes.
F8:
The IAD has no documentation that the impact of IAD staff participation in ACFR preparation (a non-audit management activity) on independence and objectivity has been formally assessed and disclosed to the oversight body, as required by GAGAS §3.59 and IIA Standards 7.1 and 8.1.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the Auditor- Controller to annually disclose to the IOC, or, if established, the Audit Committee, all identified independence threats and the safeguards implemented to mitigate them, consistent with GAGAS §3.59 and IIA Standard 7.1.
F9:
The IOC of the Board of Supervisors (Board), consisting of two supervisors, is responsible for functional oversight of the IAD.
F10:
The IOC holds one meeting per year at which the IAD presents its prior year activities and upcoming audit plan.
F11:
No documentation was found of additional meetings, interim audit reporting, or direct communication between the IAD and the IOC between annual plan presentations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the IAD to report to the IOC no less than quarterly on the status of audit engagements, demonstrating alignment with the approved audit plan and documented risk assessment, consistent with IIA Principle 8, Standards 8.1 and 11.3, and GAGAS Chapter 6.
F12:
A single annual meeting does not satisfy the ongoing communication, timely reporting, and report distribution obligations imposed by IIA Principle 8, IIA Standards 8.1 and 15.1, GAGAS §§6.06 and 9.56, each of which requires engagement throughout the year.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the IAD to report to the IOC no less than quarterly on the status of audit engagements, demonstrating alignment with the approved audit plan and documented risk assessment, consistent with IIA Principle 8, Standards 8.1 and 11.3, and GAGAS Chapter 6.
F13:
The Board’s Finance Committee, consisting of two supervisors, is responsible for functional oversight of external audit activity.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider consolidating the internal and external auditor oversight as currently performed by the IOC and Finance Committee into a single Audit Committee.
F14:
Neither the IOC nor the Finance Committee requires financial or audit expertise as a condition of membership, inconsistent with the Government Finance Officers Association's (GFOA’s) Audit Committees best practice and IIA guidance on audit committee effectiveness, both of which identify such expertise as a threshold condition for effective audit oversight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider adopting IOC, or Audit Committee, membership that conforms to GFOA's Audit Committees best practice guidance by including a minimum of three members, at least one with expertise in governmental accounting principles, internal controls, and audit committee functions, and at least one public member independent of County management.
F15:
Neither the IOC nor the Finance Committee includes public members independent of County management as a condition of membership. GFOA's Audit Committees best practice recommends that audit committees include public members independent of management to strengthen both the substance and credibility of financial oversight.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider adopting IOC, or Audit Committee, membership that conforms to GFOA's Audit Committees best practice guidance by including a minimum of three members, at least one with expertise in governmental accounting principles, internal controls, and audit committee functions, and at least one public member independent of County management.
F16:
The County’s IAD operates under Administrative Bulletin 212.1 (1975), which does not include all the elements of an Audit Charter required by IIA Standard 6.2.
Related Recommendations (2)
R10:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider developing an Audit Charter for the IAD aligned with IIA Standard 6.2.
R11:
By April 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider reviewing and approving the IAD's Audit Charter, consistent with IIA Standard 6.2, which requires that the governing body approve the internal audit charter and conduct periodic reviews to ensure it remains current.
F17:
The IAD presented its 2026 annual audit plan as “risk based.” However, the plan did not include a documented risk assessment as required by IIA Standards 9.3 and 9.4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to revise its Policies and Procedures Manual and any applicable administrative bulletins to incorporate requirements for a documented, risk-based audit planning process aligned with IIA Standards 9.3 and 9.4.
F18:
IAD has no documented risk-assessment methodology as required by IIA Standard 9.3.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider requiring the IAD to adopt and implement a documented risk assessment methodology that includes defined risk factors, risk- ranking or scoring criteria, and a systematic process for identifying and prioritizing risks as required by IIA Standards 9.3 and 9.4.
F19:
IAD’s risk assessments do not include input from the Board or senior County executives, as required by IIA Standards 8.1 and 9.4.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14:
By January 1, 2027, the Auditor-Controller should consider requiring that the annual risk assessment process include documented input from the Board of Supervisors, its designated oversight committee, and senior county leadership, consistent with IIA Standards 8.1 and 9.4.
F20:
The IOC is not provided with information to determine whether proposed annual audit plans address the County’s highest-risk areas, as required by IIA Principle 8, IIA Standards 8.1 and 9.4.
Related Recommendations (2)
R15:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring that all audit plans presented for its approval include a summary of the risk assessment methodology, key risks identified, and the rationale used to prioritize audit engagements, consistent with IIA Standards 9.3 and 9.4 and GAGAS §§8.03–8.07.
R16:
By January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors should consider requiring the IAD to document the linkage between identified risks and the audit engagements included in the annual audit plan, including justification for inclusion or exclusion of high-risk areas.
F21:
IAD implements its annual audit plan without prior Board input or approval, eliminating the Board's opportunity to influence audit priorities before audit work has begun, inconsistent with IIA Principle 8 and IIA Standards 8.1 and 9.4, which collectively require that the board review and approve the risk-based audit plan before implementation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R18:
By December 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should consider directing the Auditor- Controller to submit the IAD's annual risk-based audit plan for Board approval before the fiscal year to which the plan applies begins.
F22:
Findings F4, F10, F11, F12, F18, F19, F20, F21, and F26 collectively establish that the IOC and Board do not fulfill the audit oversight responsibilities required by IIA Principle 8 and Standards 8.1 and 15.1, and GAGAS §§3.46 and 6.06 — including charter approval, prospective audit plan approval, ongoing engagement, risk-based planning oversight, and direct receipt of audit reports.
F23:
The IAD’s schedule is based on a calendar year, inconsistent with the fiscal year that governs the County’s overall planning, budgeting, and operational processes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R17:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to shift the Internal Audit Division’s audit planning from a calendar to a fiscal year schedule beginning with the 2027-28 fiscal year.
F24:
The IAD does not maintain an ongoing quality assurance and improvement program, as required by IIA Standard 8.3 and GAGAS Chapter 5, which require audit organizations to establish and maintain internal quality assessment processes to evaluate conformance with professional standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R19:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to adopt and maintain an ongoing quality assurance and improvement program, as required by IIA Standard 8.3 and GAGAS Chapter 5.
F25:
The IAD has not undergone an external quality assessment review in more than 25 years. IIA Standard 8.4 requires an external assessment at least once every five years and GAGAS §5.179 requires an external peer review at least once every three years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R20:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to undergo an external quality assessment review as required by IIA Standard 8.4 and GAGAS §5.179.
F26:
The IAD does not distribute its reports to the IOC, as required by IIA standards 11.3 and 15.1 and GAGAS Chapter 9.
Related Recommendations (1)
R21:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to distribute all completed audit reports, including management responses, directly to the IOC (or, if established, the Audit Committee) consistent with the direct communication requirements of IIA Standards 11.3 and 15.1 and the report distribution requirements of GAGAS Chapter 9.
F27:
The IAD does not post its completed audit reports or annual audit plan on its public webpage, inconsistent with GAGAS Chapter 9, which requires public availability of completed audit reports, and the recommendations of the Association of Local Government Auditors and the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers.
Related Recommendations (1)
R22:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to post the audit charter, annual audit plan, and all completed audit reports to the County's public website, consistent with GAGAS Chapter 9, which requires that audit organizations make completed audit reports publicly available, and the transparency recommendations of the Association of Local Government Auditors and the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers.
F28:
The deficiencies documented in Findings F3 through F8, F16 through F21, F24, F25, F26, and F27 collectively establish that the IAD does not operate in conformance with the IIA and GAGAS standards required by California Government Code Section 1236 and directed by its own Policies and Procedures Manual.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1:
By December 1, 2026, the Auditor-Controller should consider directing the IAD to comply with the IIA and GAGAS auditing standards as adopted in IAD’s Policies and Procedures Manual and as required by California Government Code Section 1236.