El Dorado County 2001-2002 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Year-End Report

View the full annual report (PDF)

The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.

Individual reports (18)

September 26, 2002 — Board of Supervisors Response to the

363 pages 102 findings 32 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 102 findings

F1: Chapter 3.12 of the El Dorado County Charter documents Purchasing Procedures and is known as the County Purchasing Ordinance. This section of the County Charter provides in part: “3.12.020: The purpose of this chapter is to secure for the county taxpayers the advantages and economies which will result from centralized control over the purchase of supplies, materials, equipment and contractual services resulting from the application of modern, businesslike methods relative to government expenditures for such purchases. Further, this 3 chapter is to adopt policies and procedures governing the purchase of supplies, equipment and contractual services by the county in accordance with the Government Code, section 54201 et seq. 3.12.060: The purchasing agent may, and where legally required to do so, shall, authorize in writing any county department to purchase renewable types of office supplies and materials in total amounts of four hundred ninety-nine and 99/100 dollars ($499.99) or less, utilizing the ‘direct’ purchase order form, independently of the county purchasing agent’s office; but such purchases shall be made in conformity with the applicable procedures. The purchasing agent may also rescind the authorization to purchase independently, by written notice to the county department unless otherwise prohibited by law. 3.12.070 A. Only department heads or their designated representatives may approve and sign direct purchase orders in total amounts of four hundred ninety-nine and 99/100 dollars ($499.99) or less. Department heads may delegate such authority by filing a written authorization therefor with the purchasing agent and the auditor-controller. … C. All departments shall strictly adhere to written purchasing procedures as they may be issued or amended from time to time by the purchasing agent or the board of supervisors.” Response to F1: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F2: The General Services Department in conjunction with the Information Services Department developed a tracking system to report the number and percentage of confirming purchase orders. Confirming or “after the fact” purchase orders are not acceptable and are a violation of County Purchasing Ordinance requirements. The data reflects purchase orders issued between $0 - $10,000.00. Data was not extracted for purchases exceeding $10,000.00 since the competitive bidding threshold is established at $10,000.00 by ordinance. The data does not include the issuance of blanket purchase order purchasing activity, but rather independent purchase orders that were requisitioned by departments as confirming. Following are the results of this tracking system: Reporting Period Total Purchase Total Confirming Percentage Ending Fiscal Year 2000-2001 $14,716 $10,955 74% September 30, 2001 2,544 1,901 75% December 31, 2001 4,043 2,997 74% March 31, 2002 4,552 3,070 67% 4 Response to F2: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F3: Purchase orders are sometimes “split” in order to circumvent required signature authority. For example, while a $15,000 purchase requires competitive bidding, two $7,500 purchases would not. This is an unacceptable practice. Response to F3: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F4: There is no system in place to hold department heads accountable for failing to adhere to County Purchasing Ordinance Requirements. Response to F4: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. When this Grand Jury was convened in July 2001 the General Services Department had already begun to hold Departments accountable for non-compliance with the Purchasing Ordinance. Several Departments were directed to get Board approval before the General Services Department would sign non-compliant purchasing documents. Compliance with the Purchasing Ordinance is insured through the efforts of the General Services Department, County Counsel, the Auditor’s office and the Board of Supervisors.

F5: Purchasing practices that do not adhere to the County Purchasing Ordinance subject the County to risks of overspending and poor budget management. Response to F5: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F6: Departments audited by the Grand Jury do not have independent computer systems for tracking fixed assets or inventory within their individual departments. Response to F6: The respondent agrees with the finding. The Auditor controls this report. Departments have no “real time” access.

F7: The instruction form for Schedule E of Form 700 informs that it is the acceptance of a gift, not the ultimate use to which it is put, that imposes a reporting obligation. Such gifts must be disclosed even if they are never used and even if they are given away to another person, unless, within thirty (30) days after receipt, they are returned to the donor or delivered to a charitable organization without being claimed as a charitable contribution for tax purposes. Response to F7: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F8: When the Sheriff filed his various Annual Statements of Economic Interest, he did not declare the receipt of or the value of the rifle or the shotgun, as he should have if they were personal gifts. Response to F8: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Related Recommendations (2)

R5: The Board of Supervisors should review the list of "designated employees," the limitations on personal gifts from reportable sources, the County's Conflict of Interest Code, the Ethics in Government Act and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission thereunder, and disseminate all necessary information to ensure that all county employees are fully aware of gift acceptance and gift reporting requirements. Response to R5: This recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. By December 31, 2002, County Counsel is directed to review the specified materials and prepare and disseminate a memorandum to all County employees advising them of gift acceptance and gift reporting requirements.

R6: The El Dorado County District Attorney should investigate the conduct of the Sheriff described above. Response to R6: The recommendation has been implemented. The District Attorney reports that he has referred the matter to the appropriate authorities for investigation (see attached letter). Responses Required for Findings

F9: The Sheriff sold the Weatherby rifle, through a consignment arrangement with a gun store for $500.00. The $500 was credited to the Sheriff’s personal account at the store. The shotgun is still in the Sheriff’s personal possession. Response to F9: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Sheriff reports that the sale prices was $450 not $500. The respondent is unable either to agree with the finding or the Sheriff’s response, or to disagree wholly with it, because of the factual disputes in the matter, which the Board cannot resolve. However, the El Dorado County District Attorney was requested to conduct an investigation of this matter (see R6 of this Complaint). Due to an appearance of a conflict of interest, as stated in the attached letter to the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Lacy requested that the State Attorney General conduct the investigation. The August 20, 2002 letter from the State Attorney General’s Office concludes the following: “Based on our review it has been determined that 61 insufficient evidence of criminal intent exists to warrant prosecution of this matter.”

Related Recommendations (2)

F10: The Sheriff decided to turn over the sale proceeds and the shotgun to the complainant to resolve the matter. Response to F10: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F1.1: The County does not have a long range strategic plan with goals and objectives set by the Board of Supervisors to guide the allocation of County funds and resources. Without this, budget and program priorities are set primarily by County staff without the benefit of structured input from elected officials and the public. This has been particularly true in past years when the budget was adopted with very little discussion at the Board of Supervisors public hearings. Response to F1.1: The Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Board of Supervisors does adopt goals and objectives, and did so most recently in May 7, 2002. Additionally, various actions by the Board incorporate goals and objectives as part of policy decisions. For example, goals and objectives are incorporated in the River Management Plan and the County’s Economic Development Program. Some departments have developed, and follow, plans that are specific to their particular programs. These goals and objectives do serve the purpose, where applicable, of guiding the allocation of County funds and resources. It is also true that in their planning and operations, many County Departments continually receive structured input from citizens through a variety of advisory boards and committees, legal mandates and regulations, and direction by the Board of Supervisors, and those Departments respond to this input through their planned allocation of funds and resources. The recent process leading to the development of the rural Public Health Clinic illustrates just one example of strategic planning that occurs within El Dorado County government. However, in the comparative sense of a business plan as conventionally developed or used by many private corporations, the County does not have an official strategic plan.

F11: As of April 20, 2002, the complainant has received neither the money nor the gun. Response to F11: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F1.2: for the current fiscal year, FY2001-02, the Board of Supervisors chose to hold more extensive public hearings as part of the budget addendum process and received detailed presentations from all departments. While these hearings allowed for more interaction between the Board and the Departments than has taken place in the recent past, this process would be even more valuable if the budgets submitted by the departments were prepared under policy direction already provided in a long range strategic plan. Another benefit of a strategic plan is providing a common set of goals and objectives for all County employees. Response to F1.2: The Respondent agrees with the finding. The public hearings process conducted by the Board of Supervisors prior to final adoption of the 2001-02 County budget did provide for greater interaction between the Board and the departments than has taken place in the recent past. The budget public hearings are the culmination of a process that begins months earlier with the Board of Supervisors issuing budgeting directions and instructions. These directives are themselves policy statements indicating management direction and fiscal expectations for guiding departmental Budget preparation. The Respondent does agree that, in principle, a long range strategic plan can provide policy direction for managerial and financial decisions, but so can a number of other 17 valid, rational planning methodologies. The decision to utilize any form of strategic planning is itself a management choice, and there is no exclusively singular methodology of strategic planning. Neither is the county completely without such direction by not having a particular form of strategic planning in place.

F12: On May 8, 2002, the Sheriff filed an amended Schedule E to Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests (Income – Gifts), with the County Elections Department. That amended Form 700 was "certif[ied] under penalty of perjury," with a representation that the Sheriff had "used all reasonable diligence in preparing this statement," and that "to the best of [his] knowledge the information contained [in it] and in any attached schedules is true and correct." Although the Form 700 indicated that "[t]he period covered [was] 12/31/99 through December 31, 2001," and not a "leaving office" type of statement, the amended Schedule E indicated that it was both a "2001/2002 Annual" and a "Leaving" type of statement. Response to F12: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F1.3: As part of a multi-year strategic planning effort, a process for measuring individual department performance and plan outcomes is needed. This would also enhance the budget process by providing the Board of Supervisors with meaningful performance measures for each department and a method for measuring the effectiveness of allocated funds. Response to F1.3: The Respondent agrees with the finding. In his 2002-2003 Budget cover letter to the Board of Supervisors the Interim CAO states on page XXXVII. “It has been over a decade since the Board of Supervisors and County managers have engaged in a strategic planning process for El Dorado County government as an organization. Through strategic planning, County government decision makers from department front-line operations up through department management, County Administration and the Board of Supervisors, develop a common understanding of overall ultimate goals and objectives, and the relationship or importance of incremental decisions made each year at all organizational levels. Incremental decisions may help to advance the organization toward Board adopted goals or could inadvertently delay or otherwise interfere with achievement of those goals. It is recommended that we proceed with development of a County Strategic Plan. As a precursor to the development of a strategic plan, the Chief Administrative Office will be undertaking an update of the Analysis of Financial Trends last updated in 1994.” Many organizations, public and private, engage in a strategic planning process to accomplish the following: 1) confirm and refine the mission statement of the organization with which all employees and stakeholders agree; 2) establish a vision for the future of the organization; 3) develop goals, objectives and action plans to ensure accomplishment of the mission and vision; and 4) establish a mechanism for measuring and reporting on actual organization performance relative to the goals, objectives and action plans. Generally, strategic plans are multi-year in nature with a five year horizon being fairly typical. A strategic planning process for El Dorado County should include the following steps: 18 Assessing the current state of County operations including resources available and (cid:137) strengths and weaknesses of the organization Identifying likely future trends that will affect the County (e.g., population growth (cid:137) in El Dorado and neighboring counties, changes in State funding formulas, likely incorporation of cities, impacts of new technology, etc.) Identifying likely future service needs and resources available to meet those (cid:137) demands (i.e., likely revenue streams) Establishing service goals and objectives consistent with the mission and vision (cid:137) for the future Establishing a system for measuring the County’s success in meeting the stated (cid:137) goals and objectives Currently El Dorado County does not have a long term strategic plan. Some departments such as the Information Services Department have developed plans specific to their departments and programs but there is no overarching plan for the County as a whole. A countywide plan would be valuable for budget purposes as it would help guide the allocation of resources consistent with established goals and objectives. Under the present system, department heads can set goals and objectives for their departments and Board members may provide direction on a case by case basis through budget hearings or other forums where department heads and Board members interact. But there is no formalized process by which the public and the Board as a group reach consensus and establish priorities that provide clear direction to all departments. A multi-year approach helps get around the limitations of the single year budget process that often doesn’t address projects and initiatives that span more than one year. Typical multi-year projects in the county include capital projects, service delivery improvements, improvements in administrative activities, computer installations and upgrades, and other initiatives. While final appropriations still have to be made in the annual budget to fund multi-year projects and initiatives, providing directives in a strategic plan will help guide funding decisions in the budget process and will provide direction to department managers about their priorities. The County needs a system to measure department performance Measuring accomplishment of the goals, objectives and action plans in a strategic plan is probably one of the greatest benefits of embarking on such an effort and it is directly linked to the budget process. First, it makes the strategic plan a much more meaningful, results-oriented process. While establishing mission and vision statements, goals and objectives and action plans are all worthwhile activities, they can become meaningless if there isn’t a method of measuring and reporting results. Setting an overall goal for the County such as making the County safe from crime is fine, but adding a method for measuring whether or not this occurs gives the process much greater impact. This could be measured in crime rate trends, arrest rates, successful prosecution and sentencing, community perception of safety, and other measures. These types of measures can be tied 19 to the budget process through, for example, reviewing law enforcement officers per capita, arrests resulting in successful prosecutions, response times, and other measures. The budget can be adjusted accordingly to improve these measures to meet the service goals of the strategic plan. For each department, the proposed El Dorado County budget includes a mission statement, workload indicators, written summaries of all major programs, and staffing information. This is useful information but what is missing are goals and objectives for the department and outcome measures to provide meaning to the workload indicators. The workload indicators, shown for the proposed, current and previous two fiscal years, generally measure caseload but not program outcomes. For example, the Probation Department budget for FY 2001-02 shows 33 workload indicators for eleven program areas. The program areas include Juvenile Hall, Juvenile placement, Group Homes/Foster homes, Adult Court, Adult Supervision and others. Workload indicators include measures such as number of court disposition reports, number of intake hearings, average daily population at Juvenile Hall, number of Adult Court reports, number of adult probationers supervised, number of number of felony sentencing reports prepared and others. The problem with the workload indicators in the Probation Department’s budget is that none of them allow for an assessment of department outcomes. For example, a common objective for probation departments is to rehabilitate the probationer so they don’t commit the same crime again and have subsequent encounters with the criminal justice system. To measure this objective, recidivism rates should be presented in the budget document rather than just the number of probationers supervised by the department. A high recidivism rate might indicate that Probation Department efforts are not succeeding and would lead to discussion about the level of funding for this effort and whether or not it is adequate and if the Department needs to operate its programs differently to achieve greater success. The Probation Department’s number of court reports workload indicator also measures work but not outcomes. It is not possible to tell from the numbers alone if the department is doing a good job of producing its reports for court. Two of the most important factors for court reports generally are whether they are delivered to the court timely and whether they contain the information needed by the judiciary to facilitate decision-making. Useful performance measures for this work might include number of reports delivered to the court on time and the results of a survey of the court’s satisfaction with the content of the reports. As with the previous example, this type of information would enable a more informed discussion of the appropriateness of funding levels and program management. Having broad countywide goals and objectives in a strategic plan would also help guide departments such as the Probation Department in that their goals, objectives and funding allocations and requests would need to be linked to the countywide goals and objectives. For example, countywide goals and objectives related to the Probation Department might be to improve coordination between all of the County criminal justice agencies and expansion of alternative programs to keep nonviolent offenders out of jail. The Probation Department would need to respond to these goals and objectives by presenting its 20 coordination efforts with other departments, and development or expansion of alternatives to incarceration programs. Another link between the strategic plan and the budget is that the strategic plan should include financial goals and objectives for the County. These could include target reserve levels, target user fee recovery rates, a countywide approach to one-time revenues, approaches to funding levels for internal service funds, policies regarding deficit spending and others. Departmental strategic planning in El Dorado County As mentioned above, El Dorado County’s Information Services Department produced a strategic plan in 2000. The plan was prepared in response to a request from the Board of Supervisors and it states that it will be regularly updated. The purposes of the plan are to: anticipate future information processing needs and provide a strategy for meeting those goals; define an optimum sequence of events to achieve the strategy; facilitate common understanding and support for the department’s future direction and goals by all key stakeholders (customers, staff, County management); provide a framework to manage and control the working environment; and, achieve optimum effectiveness and efficiency of resources. Its goals for the future include: expanding basic intranet/internet services; sharing and integrating data; providing business support data in multiple formats; providing multi-level integrated computing services; re-engineering business processes; guaranteeing the integrity and availability of County data; and, maintaining adequate and appropriate resources. The Information Services plan and any other department strategic plan in the County should be used as underpinnings to a countywide strategic plan. The countywide plan would provide higher level goals and objectives and individual department plans would be more specific and detailed regarding their particular services. The various individual department plans should be consistent with the countywide plan prepared by the Board of Supervisors. As suggested for the countywide strategic plan, individual department success in meeting the goals and objectives in their plans should be measured on an annual basis. Strategic planning in other jurisdictions As mentioned above, many private and public organizations have prepared and are implementing strategic plans. The public organizations include counties and cities throughout the country. In California, one of the more extensive county strategic plans was prepared in Riverside County. The plan, entitled Strategic Vision 2020, addresses the County’s mission and business, vision for the next twenty years and guiding principles, service delivery priorities, service goals and strategies, inter-governmental relations, environmental issues, financial management fundamentals, land use planning principles, and related matters. Since many departments in the county have also prepared strategic 21 plans, the Countywide plan incorporates all of those plans. The Riverside plan addresses limits to County service and highlights what the County cannot do as well as areas where it should excel. Maricopa County, Arizona initiated a strategic planning process in 2000 that integrated planning, budgeting and performance measures. For this effort, each department was required to prepare a strategic plan that included the following: The County mission and vision statement (cid:137) A department mission and vision statement1 (cid:137) Department goals (cid:137) Identification of department issues (cid:137) Identification of all key programs in each department including: (cid:137) (cid:190) Program name (cid:190) Program purpose (cid:190) Key results for the program (usually a quantifiable measure) (cid:190) Activities and services within each program (cid:190) Outputs for each activity (cid:190) Actual results for each activity compared to key result expectations (cid:190) Cost per output Quarterly reports are produced for each department in Maricopa County. A sample report for the Maricopa County Information Systems department is shown as Attachment 1. As can be seen, performance data is not available yet for each key activity in this program. But efforts are now underway to regularly collect this data and to tie it to a cost efficiency factor shown at the end of the attachment. There is a range of approaches for El Dorado County to consider in establishing a strategic planning process but the key elements should include: statement of purpose or mission; (cid:137) vision for the future; (cid:137) goals, objectives and action plans for accomplishing the mission and vision (cid:137) statements; and, a system for measuring results linked to the budget process. (cid:137) The plan’s goals and objectives will also drive the budget process as each department will be expected to show how they are contributing to the strategic plan’s goals and objectives through their activities. The department vision statement was optional in the Maricopa County plan. 22

F13: The amended Schedule E filed by the Sheriff on May 8, 2002, contained the following statements: • The Sheriff had received a Weatherby rifle and a single-barrel shotgun from a named individual • The rifle was attributed a value of $275 to $375 as of 1999. • The shotgun was attributed a value of $25, with the explanation "used gun, hard to estimate." Response to F13: The respondent agrees with the finding. The Sheriff reports that the sales price was $450, not $500, which would make the discrepancy $75- $175. The respondent is unable either to agree with the finding or the Sheriff’s response, or to disagree wholly with it, because of the factual disputes in the matter, which the Board cannot resolve. However, the El Dorado County District Attorney was requested to conduct an investigation of this matter (see R6 of this Complaint). Due to an appearance of a conflict of interest, as stated in the attached letter to the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Lacy requested that the State Attorney General conduct the investigation. The August 20, 2002 letter from the State Attorney General’s Office concludes the following: “Based on our review it has been determined that insufficient evidence of criminal intent exists to warrant prosecution of this matter.” 62

F14: There is a $125 - $225 discrepancy between the $500 actual credit received by the Sheriff and the valuation amount reported by him. Response to F14: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Sheriff “guesstimated” the combined value of the two weapons at between $300 and $400. The actual value of the rifle was $450 and the estimated value of the shotgun is $25. Therefore, the discrepancy is between $75 and $175, not $125 - $225.

F15: In the "Comments" section of Schedule E, the Sheriff made the following statements: "This man gave me a rifle and shotgun in 1999, I think. At the time I saw it as he wanted to get [sic] rid of them and so he gave them to me. At the time I did not think them a reportable gift. As I am finishing my term and leaving elected office I was advised that maybe I should file to set the record straight." Response to F15: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F16: County managers, such as Sheriff’s Department Captains and Lieutenants are allowed to utilize their respective 96 or 80 hours of management leave for personal purposes, including electioneering. These hours are sometimes used during regular eight-hour shifts, creating the impression that the Captains or Lieutenants may be campaigning on county time. Response to F16: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Management employees, such as Sheriff’s Captains and Lieutenants are able to utilize their allotted management leave for personal use, including electioneering. Similarly, non-management employees are able to utilize their accrued leave time (vacation, compensatory time off) for personal use, including electioneering. As employees who are utilizing leave time should not be in uniform, the respondent disagrees that these employees create the impression that they may be campaigning on county time.

F17: Internal election battles waged within the Sheriff’s Department and the resulting bad feelings affected relations among Sheriff’s personnel and between Sheriff’s personnel and the public. Response to F17: Respondent disagrees partially with finding. While some employees may have allowed the election to affect their relations with other Sheriff’s employees, all employees of the Sheriff’s Office are professionals and “internal election battles” did not affect their relations with the public they serve. To suggest otherwise does a disservice to the fine men and women who protect the citizens of El Dorado County.

F18: There are residual bad feelings among some of the Sheriff’s personnel. Many believe it will take years for healing to take place. Response to F18: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F19: There are seven elected county department heads. Elections for Sheriff are frequently contentious because: • Opposing candidates are generally long time employees of the Department. • The Sheriff’ Department has a greater number of employees. • Departmental employees are highly visible in uniform. • The type of work, such as responding to emergencies, is stressful. • Persons attracted to law enforcement are usually assertive, tough minded and confrontational. • The culture and traditions of law enforcement encourage such contentiousness. Response to F19: The respondent disagrees with the finding. Any election that involves two or more internal candidates has the potential to be contentious; this is not unique to Sheriff’s races.

F20: The Sheriff’s Team of Active Retirees (STAR) is uniformed volunteers who assist the Sheriff’s Department with a variety of functions. There are more than 200 STAR volunteers. They are viewed by the public as being departmental employees. Response to F20: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F2.1: Using County budget documents it is not possible to determine the status of capital projects or whether the projects are over or under budget. Capital project status reporting in the budget would be improved by including comparisons of originally proposed and actual costs and project timing. Response to F2.1: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F21: The 2002 election is over. The unsuccessful candidate has already announced that he will be a candidate in 2006. That announcement may result in continued contentiousness for the next four years. Response to F21: The respondent agrees with the finding. 70

F2.2: Funding and priority setting for El Dorado County’s facility and transportation capital projects takes place without benefit of a multi-year capital improvement or facility master plan. As a result, department managers can set project priorities without formalized direction from the Board of Supervisors and the public. These priorities may or may not reflect the highest and best use of limited resources in the opinion of Board members and the public but a method doesn’t exist to reach consensus, formalize and update those priorities. Response to F2.2: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Transportation: The Respondent agrees with the first statement in the finding, namely that priority setting and funding has not been driven over the last few years by a multi-year capital improvement program. The Respondent disagrees with the second statement in the finding, namely that as a result management can set priorities without formal direction from the Board and public. First, as is described more fully in our response to the related

F22: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and a variety of religious programs are provided by volunteers from the community. Response to F22: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F23: The booking area appeared cluttered. Response to F23: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F2.4: As a result of these problems, Department management does not have documented assurance that decisions made by social workers in the intake and investigative processes are consistent and properly supported. This problem is reinforced for the After Hours Intake function by the limited availability of supervisors for consultation. Response to F2.4: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Management has assurance that decisions made by intake Social Workers are consistent and supported by the supervisor. Currently DSS has consistency in response because one supervisor in Placerville, and one supervisor in Tahoe, reviews all referrals, including those that come in after hours. They determine if the response was appropriate, and sign off on each decision. They provide supervision and training to staff who answer the phones, as well as those who respond. Most of the after hours coverage is provided by CPS and APS workers who work in similar positions during the day. The CPS supervisors now rotate after-hours coverage.

F24: The loading dock was not clean. Response to F24: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F2.5: Structured Decision-Making is a system used by some counties to minimize individual variation in determining the level of response to initial reports of child abuse and neglect and in determining whether or not a child should be removed from their homes. By implementing at least some components of this system in El Dorado County, the Department will have greater assurance of consistency in its treatment of abuse and neglect allegations. In addition, the Department should require supervisors to be available on call by telephone to social workers assigned to After Hours for consultation and direction as needed. Response F2.5: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Approximately three years ago, CDSS instituted a Structured Decision Making tool as a pilot program in 13 counties. At this point CDSS is not endorsing the tool or allocating the funds to have more counties implement it. The supervisors are now available after-hours for consultation. State law mandates that all counties provide initial intake and evaluation of risk services to all children reported to the County as being endangered by abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Every county is to maintain and operate a 24-hour response system and provide immediate in-person responses by a county social worker in emergency situations in accordance with regulations of the department.9 In response to this requirement, the El Dorado County Department of Social Services has developed its Child Protective Services Protocol, Criteria and Process for Accepting CPS Cases for Assessment, and Emergency Response Protocol included in the Department’s policies and procedures manual. This protocol includes a form called the Emergency Response Protocol (Form EL 212) that is to be filled out by social workers for all initial calls alleging child abuse or neglect. When an initial call reporting suspected child abuse or neglect is received by the Department, the intake social worker has three response choices: • Conduct an investigation immediately; • Conduct an investigation within 10 days; or • Do not conduct an investigation or “Evaluate Out” the case. The Department uses a 3 day response to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect. However, a 3 day response time is not formal policy in the Department. To assist intake social workers in determining which of these responses is the most appropriate, the Department’s emergency response protocols include a series of response guidelines to guide the initial intake social worker’s decision. The form includes the following questions to assist social workers in determining what the initial departmental response should be. 1. Is there sufficient information to locate the family? 2. Is this an open service case with DSS and is the current intervention adequately addressing the problem described in this allegation? 3. Does the allegation meet one or more of the legal definitions of abuse? 4. Is the perpetrator a caretaker of the child or is there reason to believe that the caretaker was negligent in allowing or unable or unwilling to prevent the perpetrator having access to the child? 5. Are specific acts and/or behavioral indicators of abuse, neglect, or exploitation included in the allegations? • 9 California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 16054 300 6. Does additional information obtained from collateral contacts or record material invalidate the report? 7. Does this report represent one in a series of previously investigated, unsubstantiated, or unfounded reports from the same party in which no new allegations or risk factors are revealed? The answers to these questions are intended to guide CPS social workers in determining which referrals justify an in-person investigation. If an in-person investigation is not necessary, Department policies and procedures state the intake social worker should provide a more detailed rationale regarding their decision why an in-person investigation should not be conducted. This Emergency Response Protocol form is included in the Department’s CWS/CMS computer system so that social workers receiving an initial call reporting child abuse or neglect can start a case file and enter all information required into the computer system as the call is received. According to Department procedures, this electronic form is supposed to be transferred to the emergency response supervisor for approval for all cases that are evaluated out. While the questions asked in the Emergency Response Protocol form seem appropriate for conducting an initial investigation, the problem with the protocol is that it is fairly open-ended and allows for significant individual interpretation of facts and circumstances. It relies primarily on interpretation of the facts and situation by the social worker. Social workers are trained to assess such situations and professional judgement is always required in children’s welfare cases. However, trained social workers are still subject to personal biases and preferences and two social workers can interpret the same situation very differently. While the nature of the work is such that some judgement will always be required, Department management should make every attempt to minimize personal biases and variations in staff decision-making. The room for individual interpretation becomes more pronounced in cases where the situation is not obviously dire but may be on the border between a 10 day investigation or “evaluating out” the case. For such cases, the Department’s policy is as follows: “Criteria are to be liberally interpreted, which means where circumstances are marginal, we should open a case for investigation. It is preferable to err in favor of ensuring the child(ren)’s safety and the appropriate response time should be considered.” Thus, the explicit goal of the procedure, for safety purposes, is to conduct more investigations than potentially necessary. Emergency response protocols used by some counties provide more structured guides that link certain responses with certain outcomes. For example, a history of two or more 301 previous referrals may lead to a guideline to conduct an immediate investigation unless the intake social worker can provide information that proves this would not be necessary. The tools available to assist social workers in making decisions of whether to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect or the evaluation of risk vary across the state. A study by the University of California at Berkeley found: “Departments of Social Services are increasingly being challenged to determine which cases are reported to them are at the highest risk and most in need of services. One response to this challenge involves the development of screening procedures that distinguish levels of risk and need among cases that come to the attention of Child Welfare Services…The employment of effective screening procedures …can help not only to reduce disruptive legal intervention into families in situations when it is unwarranted, but also to insure procedural fairness – one-element of which involves consistency in the treatment received by similar cases. The systematic use of screening guidelines would help to promote consistency among decisions made by individual workers and among counties; it would also aid new workers in the field and offer workers and the state some degree of protection in an era of increased litigation.”10 Some counties have chosen more structured guidelines such as the Structure Decision- Making (SDM) model, developed by the Children’s Research Center of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, a non-profit organization. One of the components of SDM, the Response Priority Assessment, is a series of decision trees that guides the intake social worker on what the response should be for the various types of allegations ranging from physical abuse to general neglect. A system such as this would provide for a more consistent approach to determining the appropriate responses to initial reports of abuse and neglect in El Dorado County and would provide better documentation justifying the decision reached by the intake social worker. Emergency Response Protocol not being used in many cases To determine the Department’s compliance with its Emergency Response protocol, 58 randomly selected cases were examined in CWS/CMS to verify that proper documentation existed in each case. Even though this protocol has limitations, it does provide some documentation of the decisions made and is required for every case by Department policy. Cases were selected largely from 2001 and included referrals which resulted in immediate investigations, investigations within 10 days, and cases that were evaluated out. It should be noted that the sample was randomly selected but was not designed to be statistically significant. A more authoritative examination would require significantly more time than was authorized for this project. • 10 Gilbert, Neil, Karski, Ruth, and Frame, Laura. The Emergency Response System: Screening and Assessment of Child Abuse Reports. School of Social Work, University of California Berkeley, 1997, pp.1-2. As shown in Exhibit 2.1, out of the sample of 58 cases, Emergency Response protocol forms were only fully completed 50 percent of the time. Thus, although the policy manual clearly states that the form should be used as a guide to making initial intake decisions, half the time the information needed to do so was missing. Exhibit 2.1 Number of Completed Emergency Response Protocol Forms in Case Files Number of Forms Percent Complete 29 50% Incomplete 29 50% Total 58 100% Source: CWS/CMS As stated above, Department policies and procedures call for the Emergency Response Protocol form to be reviewed on CWS/CMS and approved by the Emergency Response supervisor for all cases which are evaluated out. The Emergency Response unit does an excellent job of reviewing the referrals that are evaluated out. Based on our review, supervisor approval was documented in every case where the decision was to evaluate out. As shown above, the response protocol forms are not complete 50 percent of the time. However, examination of the 25 cases where the decision was to evaluate out show that only two of those 25 referrals, or 8 percent, had incomplete Emergency Response protocol forms and were approved by the supervisor. Thus, in instances where supervisor approval is not required, social workers are more likely to not properly complete the Emergency Response protocol in CWS/CMS. In 47 of the 58 cases reviewed, the response proposed by the intake social worker was approved by the supervisor, even when a completed Emergency Response Protocol form was not entered in to CWS/CMS. Thus, our review suggests that the required Emergency Response Protocol form is not used to guide all intake decisions, in contradiction of Department policies and procedures. Additionally, it appears that this form is viewed by some social workers as a form that has to be filled out as an after thought and not as integral part of the decision-making process. Management controls are needed to ensure that all workers are making appropriate decisions and documenting them consistent with Department policies. A regular process of reporting social worker compliance with department policies is needed as is periodic review of randomly selected case files by Department management to ensure that decisions are appropriate, properly justified and documented and in compliance with Department policies and procedures. Supervisors are reviewing a majority but not all decisions by the intake social worker. Based on the analysis above, we recommend the Department implement the Response Priority Assessment component of the Structured Decision-Making system. This assessment should be completed on every referral placed with CPS. Use of this tool 303 would ensure greater consistency in social worker decisions about which cases to investigate and when. The Response Priority Assessment component of the Structured Decision-Making system provides social workers with a series of decision trees on which to base the initial response decision. This system will ensure that social workers systematically apply similar criteria to every case and provide consistency across social workers at the two DSS offices in El Dorado County. The SDM system provides a process to support, guide, and fully document assessments. One significant advantage of this system is that it brings accountability to decision-making and, based on the decision tree system, decisions require an explanation. Moreover, because the decisions are based on the decision tree system to guide the worker, consistency should increase. The Emergency Response Guidelines lacks guidance to guarantee consistency. Lack of a Formal Safety and Risk Assessment If the result of the intake worker’s assessment is that an investigation should be conducted, the case is transferred to an investigative social worker. Under Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 309 and 16504, social workers must determine whether the children that are the subject of the allegations are in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse, and whether the children should be removed or can remain safely in their homes. The social worker also determines whether there are any services that can be provided that would allow the children to safely remain in their homes. To document the basis for this decision, investigation social workers are required to complete an Investigative Narrative, a one-page form with ten fields, to document any risk factors contributing to the social worker’s decision whether or not the child should be taken into protective custody. Currently, the Department does not have precise procedures requiring the use of the Investigative Narrative. CPS management reports that the Investigative Narrative serves as the Department’s risk assessment tool. While the State of California requires only a written narrative, the Department has added ten fields to further explain the investigation. The ten fields in the Investigative Narrative that should be complete are: • Brief Narrative of the Investigation (includes details of who, what, when and where) • Child’s age, vulnerability, physical and/or mental abilities (includes perpetrator’s access to child) • Child’s behavior • Caretaker’s Parenting skills/Knowledge (includes capacity for childcare; interaction with children, other caretakers; skill, knowledge; criminal behavior, mental health) 304 • Strength / Weaknesses of Family support system (includes relationships, presence of parent substitute) • Caretaker’s Substance / Alcohol Misuse • Environmental Condition of Home • Any services offered and result (includes directives/referrals given and family’s response) • Need for Emergency Services, if any One problem with the Investigative Narrative risk assessment tool used by the Department to document investigations is that it does not offer a structured approach to guide the investigation social worker’s assessment of risk into a decision. Instead, the form is primarily used by the Department’s social workers to provide a description of their investigations. As such the documentation of why a child should be taken into protective custody is not as thorough or objective as it would be if a standardized risk assessment were in place. Without a formal safety and risk assessment the criteria social workers use to make removal decisions can vary significantly. Based on a questionnaire provided to social workers in CPS as part of this audit, 58 percent of social worker respondents disagreed with the statement that all social workers use the same criteria in deciding to remove children from their homes. Compounding the inadequacy of the Investigative Narrative as a risk assessment tool is that social workers are not properly using it. As shown in Exhibit 2.3, in 19 of the 27 cases reviewed where an in-person investigation took place, or 70.4 percent of all cases, the form is not properly completed. The definition of not properly completed is that the Investigative Narrative only contains a paragraph or two providing a description of the investigation rather than completion of all ten fields of information required on the form. Often, the paragraph narrative was only a few sentences in the cases reviewed. The Investigative Narrative was missing entirely in eight of the referrals examined. In these cases, it is impossible to retrace the steps of the social worker to determine the basis for the decision. For the eight cases where the Investigative Narrative was incomplete, a list of individuals contacted for the investigation by the social worker was provided in CWS/CMS, but this failed to provide beneficial information to determine how the social worker reached a decision. Exhibit 2.3 Use of Investigative Narrative by CPS Social Workers Number of Percent Narratives Each field complete 8 29.6% Fields Incomplete 11 40.7% Narrative not found 8 29.6% Total 2711 100% As shown in Exhibit 2.3, 11 of the 27 Investigative Narratives in CWS/CMS were improperly completed, by not having each of the ten fields documented. The quality of the narratives ranged from one sentence to a very detailed account of the investigation to one that simply referred to a list in CWS/CMS of individuals contacted for the investigation. As with cases that are evaluated out after initial intake, prior to the Investigative Narrative being completed by the investigative social worker, the Emergency Response Supervisor must review and approve the document. Of the cases reviewed, only eleven of the Investigative Narratives, or 40.7 percent, were not properly filled out yet they were apparently approved by the supervisors anyway. However descriptive the narrative form may be, it is still an inadequate assessment of the safety and risk of the child. According to Department management, the Investigative Narrative is designed more to close an investigation, especially in cases where no petition will be filed, and is geared to move the case along. This creates the impression from management to line staff that the Investigative Narrative is a form required to be completed more as an after thought to move the case along, rather than a tool which assists social workers and is an integral part of the decision-making process. In one case reviewed, the Investigative Narrative included only a brief one paragraph review of the investigation. The decision was to open the case and offer Family Maintenance services. However, three days later the case was closed, and the case file indicates that the case was opened in error. While mistakes can occur in any system, the lack of precision in the Investigative Narrative means that mistakes like this will be more likely to occur. Use of a risk assessment tool with a structured assessment mechanism would significantly reduce the potential for opening a case in error or failing to open a case when the child should be removed from the home. • 11 The sample number is 27 here because this is the next step in the child removal process. If the intake social worker determines that the referral does not meet the criteria of an in-person investigation that case is “evaluated out” and no further action is required by the Department of Social Services. Need For a More Structured and Consistent Approach to Case Decisions Based on the case file review conducted for this audit, it is clear that formalized Safety and Risk assessments tools would assist the investigative social workers in their decision- making and ensure greater consistency in case decision-making. The Department should implement the Structured Decision-Making (SDM) Safety and Risk assessment components as a complement to CWS/CMS as a means to increase consistency of investigations. This system, or components of it, is currently in use in at least 15 other California counties. The Safety Assessment component of SDM is designed to be used by investigative social workers during the initial in-person investigation of abuse and neglect referrals to determine when a child should be taken into protective custody. The Safety Assessment form contains a simple checklist and a narrative to formalize the decision-making process in CPS. These assessments will ensure that CPS staff assesses all cases based on a standardized set of criteria. In some counties, full integration of the Structured Decision-Making tools and the CWS/CMS system are not fully realized. Until full integration, many counties have implemented a paper version of assessment tools to complement CWS/CMS. Santa Clara County uses a paper version of the Structured Decision-Making system. The risk assessment tool in Los Angeles County is a paper version to complement CWS/CMS. In both Counties, social workers manually complete the forms and keep the document in the hard case file. The Department of Social Services could implement a paper version of the Structured Decision Making tool and manually track the results of these assessment tools and maintain records in the hard case file, similar to Santa Clara County. Inconsistency in After Hours Intake Section 16504 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) states the County must provide a 24-Hour intake hotline, where referrals can be made. CPS maintains After Hours hotlines and staff at both the Placerville and South Lake Tahoe offices. Currently the Department does not have dedicated staff to operate the After Hours intake at either office. Staffing for After Hours is made up of workers who either volunteer or are assigned on a non-voluntary rotating basis. According to the Memorandum of Understanding with the union, social workers who work After Hours are guaranteed a minimum of two hours pay, plus an additional $1.20 per hour on-call. Additionally, the Memorandum of Understanding states “On-Call duty” means that an employee is assigned to work outside their normal work week and must remain available to be contacted by telephone and be ready for immediate call-back. Thus, the social worker is not in the office, but is accessible by telephone and ready to respond should a situation arise. The After Hours process is as follows: 307 • The Department has a contract answering service that receives calls to the After Hours unit. At the beginning of the month CPS will send the answering services a monthly schedule of the social workers scheduled to work the After Hours shifts; and • When a referral is received by the answering service, the service will put the caller on hold and will either page or call the on-call After Hours social worker. At that point the social worker is connected to the reporter to begin the initial intake process. The After Hours intake process varies significantly from the intake process during normal business hours when CPS is fully staffed. For instance, in Placerville during normal business hours, the intake social worker will make the determination whether an in- person investigation is required, but they will not generally conduct the investigation. However, the After Hours intake social worker will not only make the decision whether to conduct an in-person investigation, but will actually perform the in-person investigation if an immediate response is required. Thus, when a social worker is conducting an immediate in-person investigation, the After Hours intake center does not have a social worker available to handle a second referral. According to the Emergency Response supervisor, those instances are rare, but they do happen. When these instances do occur, the answering service will take a message and the social worker will then call the reporter to begin the intake process on the second referral. According to the Department policies and procedures manual, when a child is removed from the home and placed in protective custody by After Hours staff, the written documentation of the incident should go to the Emergency Response Supervisor by 8:00 a.m. the next workday. The potential problem with this is that, without a supervisor checking the social worker’s decision, a child could potentially be placed in protective custody or left in the home for as long as several days erroneously. Additionally, unlike daytime hours, After Hours intake social workers have no direct supervision. During normal business hours, the intake social workers are positioned near the ER supervisor and can have consultation with their supervisor and fellow employees. However, social workers on After Hours duty work alone and do not have consultation with their supervisor. The social workers can call the supervisor if needed for informal consultation, but there is no guarantee that the supervisor will be available. When the supervisor is on vacation or unable to answer the phone the social worker is left to make these decisions on their own. Furthermore, during After Hours duty, social workers have no immediate access to CWS/CMS since the call is received at home. Although social workers have access to the Department building and CWS/CMS during After Hours, there is a delay to obtaining all relevant information regarding the case. This poses potential significant problems and 308 violation of the Department’s policy regarding factors to consider in determining if an in- person response is needed: “The decision whether or not to make an in-person response for all other referrals shall be based on an assessment which shall include collateral contacts, a review of previous referrals and other relevant information to the extent such information or measures are necessary to conduct an assessment.”12 Furthermore, the Department’s “Child Protective Services Protocol” states that in-person investigation decisions by the intake social worker shall include a review of the child’s “history and disposition of prior referrals.” However, since the After Hours social worker does not have immediate access to previous referrals on CWS/CMS, the decision is made on only a partial picture. Additionally, the use of the Emergency Response Guidelines form in CWS/CMS is impossible for social workers to consistently answer correctly, since they do not have access to the past history of the child. Without access to CWS/CMS or paper files at the office, social workers cannot answer two of the eight questions that require further analysis. These questions are as follows: • Is this an open service case with DSS and is the current intervention adequately addressing the problem described in this allegation? • Does this report represent one in a series of previously investigated, unsubstantiated, or unfounded reports from the same party in which no new allegations or risk factors are revealed? Thus, when an After Hours social worker is making the decision to initiate an in-person investigation or not, the decision is made lacking historical information and without the ability to answer two of the key questions included in the Response Guidelines. In the sample of cases reviewed for this audit, instances were found where After Hours social workers received calls in which access to CWS/CMS might have changed the decision regarding if and how soon an in-person investigation should be conducted. We found instances where an After Hours referral had 10 previous referrals throughout the State of California. Based on the current system these referrals would not have been known immediately by the intake social worker. Additionally, we found several After Hours cases where children had three referrals each. In particular, the child had three referrals and the response guideline protocol was incomplete. Information such as this could be critical to the decision made by the intake social worker. During normal business hours, the worker would have immediate full access to this information on CWS/CMS. To address the lack of historical and other information available to intake social workers for After Hours cases, CPS should implement a new category of a three-day response to • 12 Child Protective Services Policy Manual. El Dorado County Department of Social Services. 1992. pg. 9. 309 give social workers more flexibility in making the in-person investigation decision. Unless it is obvious that an immediate investigation is needed, After Hours cases could be placed in this category rather than being evaluated out, pending access to CWS/CMS the next business day. This increased flexibility will come at no additional cost to the County. Additionally, CPS supervisors should be required to be on-call After Hours to provide consultation as needed to social workers. Taking these steps will ensure that After Hours decisions are consistent with the approach used during normal business days. Conclusion The initial screening and investigation risk assessment tools required by the Department for social workers to use are not sufficiently structured to ensure consistency of decision- making by different workers and at both Department offices. Nor do the tools provide adequate documentation justifying decisions reached. Unfortunately, they are not used at all in some cases and are only partially completed in others. Even with their limitations, these required forms provide some documentation justifying the decisions reached by the social workers. Cases are being approved by supervisors without these required forms completed in apparent contradiction of Department policy. The Department of Social Services needs more management oversight of worker compliance with required procedures and spot checking of case files to ensure that case decisions are adequately documented and supported. To further improve the level of documentation and justification of decisions reached, the Department should implement use of Structured Decision-Making tools to determine what referrals receive further investigation, how soon a response is needed, and to help social workers conducting investigations to determine if there is further risk posed to the child and whether to remove the child or not. In only 50 percent of the cases reviewed were the current initial intake response forms complete. In a review of a sample of Investigative Narratives, over 70 percent were either incomplete or missing. Since social workers are not accurately completing the Department’s existing screening and investigation tools, consistency of intake responses and the decisions by investigators within the Department cannot be tracked. There are substantial problems with the process, ranging from lack of CWS/CMS immediate access to check previous referrals to a lack of consultation from supervisors. 310

F25: Overall, the management of the Jail appeared to be considerably above average. Response to F25: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F26: Understanding ROP JPA policies, agreements, financial reports, and complex financing issues involving asset transfers, program delivery costs, and enrollment caps are difficult at best. Making decisions based on independent research and investigation is impossible without extensive study and personal experience. Few ROP JPA board members are willing or equipped to do this. There is no JPA staff separate from EDCOE and school district administrative personnel. Response to F26:

F27: It is extremely difficult for the ROP JPA Board to make independent decisions on ROP governance issues because of the lack of frequent interaction among the board members and because of the structure of the ROP JPA. Attendance at board meetings is inconsistent. Seven ROP JPA Board meetings were held between September 13, 2000, and March 7, 2002. The same three appointed board members were present at only two of the seven meetings. An alternate board member for one participating school district was present at another meeting. Only two board members, the bare minimum necessary to establish a quorum, were present at four of the seven meetings. Response to F27:

F28: One of the objectives of the ROP JPA Board and administration is to preserve the base enrollment and maintain the revenues for the ROP program, currently in excess of $1.8M, in order to supplement other revenues for general education purposes. The additional ROP allowance is $3,100 per student over and above the standard average daily attendance (ADA) per pupil allowance. This $3,100 allowance is a significant inducement to maintain and increase ROP enrollment, even though ROP enrollment is capped or limited by the amount of student eligibility established by funding formulas when the Central Sierra ROP was established. Response to F28:

F29: The EDUHSD is serving more adults in ROP classes than in previous years by coordinating with the CalWORKs program to provide vocational training classes for welfare recipients. BOMUSD and LTUSD are just beginning to serve adults in ROP classes. Response to F29: 109

F30: Enrollments in ROP classes generate more revenue for school districts than enrollments in Adult Education classes. Adult Education classes are also capped, but unlike ROP classes, they receive substantially less than $3,100 per ADA. Accordingly, school district administrators and the ROP JPA Board have a dilemma. They can choose to provide instruction to enhance personal skills or hobbies, such as “Computer Applications for Adults Age 55 and Over,” in Adult Education classes where it properly belongs, or they can attempt to generate greater revenue by designating the same course as an ROP class. The latter choice results in students taking ROP classes when they have no job-related purposes. This creates a credibility problem for ROP, which is regarded as a serious vocational training effort by some and a "cash cow" for school districts and a waste of taxpayer-generated state funding by others. Response to F30:

F3.1: The Board of Supervisors receives very comprehensive, well organized reports on the status of the budget at mid-year but no further formal reports until they receive the proposed budget for the next fiscal year in June. As stewards of the County’s financial resources, more regularly produced status reports and updates should be provided with less detail than the mid-year reports but with enough information to allow the Board to monitor performance and receive early warnings of potential fiscal problems. Response to F3.1: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The respondent agrees that the budget mid-year reports provide the Board with a comprehensive, well organized assessment of the county’s budget status. However, the monitoring of county budget and financial conditions is continuously occurring through the employment of qualified staff analysts serving in the Chief Administrative Office, Auditor-Controller’s office, and in every department. Established Board procedures also require that information about the budget and financial consequences of proposed Board actions be identified and included in departments’ agenda presentation of recommendations and requests. The respondent disagrees with the assumption that more regularly produced reports as described by the Grand Jury in Finding 3.1 are necessary or required by the Board to fulfill its duty as the steward of the County’s financial resources. At all times, the Board already has the ability to obtain full reports or assessments of any financial or budget matter affecting the County, and does call for and obtain such information when it determines the need to do so.

F31: In-service training for school district teachers and support personnel also can be conducted under the auspices of ROP. This opportunity creates a potential conflict between the desire of school boards to generate revenue through ROP and their responsibility to protect the interests of taxpayers by spending tax-generated dollars only for bona fide vocational students. Response to F31:

F3.2: The County’s financial information system allows for production of a wide variety of ad-hoc reports and analysis of expenditures and revenues accessible to all department managers. A monthly report to the Board showing actual expenditures and revenues by department, with a projection of the County’s financial position at year end, could easily be produced and would facilitate more Board and public involvement in monitoring the County’s fiscal status. It would eliminate surprise developments such as the increase from $12.5 to $21.5 million in fund balance available reported between the proposed and budget addenda for FY 2001-02. Information of this sort would also provide a basis for other questions and analyses of situations when revenues or expenditures are not at the level originally projected. Response to F3.2: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Respondent agrees that the County’s financial system is capable of producing a variety of ad-hoc reports useful to department managers and others interested in county finances. The Respondent also agrees that such reports, by communicating financial information at any point in time, may be facilitative to Board and public involvement or understanding of the County’s fiscal status. The 38 respondent disagrees with the assumption that unexpected developments in the County’s fiscal status are due to the absence of such reports. Financial conditions may vary from expectations at any time and for any number of reasons, and such changes may manifest themselves as the result of many factors that are outside the range of information contained in a financial report.

F32: Although no official reorganization plan had been adopted to transfer radio and telephone operations out of DGS, Communications was informed in midyear that the Information Services Department would assist it in budget preparation for FY 2002-2003. Likewise, Radio was informed in midyear that the Sheriff's Department would assist it in budget preparation for FY 2002-2003. This unofficial midyear plan has created a problem for the employees in these units because the lines of authority are no longer clearly defined. There is uncertainty about how these units will operate in different departments in the coming fiscal year. Response to F32: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The DGS developed the budget for the Communications Division without assistance from the other two Departments.

F3.3: The analysis of the proposed budget each year consumes many months of staff time but largely focuses on incremental appropriations requested by the departments or recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer but not the baseline budget. Oftentimes, savings can be realized in the baseline budget by improving the efficiency of operations, reorganizing or consolidating programs or increasing revenues. One of the most effective means of identifying opportunities for savings in the baseline budget is through departmental performance audits. Response to F3.3: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The term “performance audit” is taken to mean a process which analyzes and evaluates the observed relationship between a set of defined inputs into an activity, and their results. The respondent agrees that the technique of performance auditing is useful as a tool to identify and evaluate opportunities for improving operational efficiency, including fiscal efficiency for budgeting purposes. The respondent disagrees with the assumption in the Finding that the current budget process ignores the application of performance auditing principles and criteria or disregards consideration of baseline budgets. In preparing budget proposals, all department managers are continually called upon to justify and substantiate the results of their use of fiscal resources. Many times, baseline budgeting is defined by legal mandates. Department managers are frequently expected to meet baseline performance requirements with reduced revenues, requiring them to reorganize and consolidate operations, or generate new sources of income. The major points of public presentation and discussion about the County’s budget are: 1) the mid-year budget report to the Board of Supervisors; 2) presentation of the proposed annual budget in June; 3) presentation of the addenda budget in August; and, 4) budget hearings in September. At all four points, a great deal of useful information is provided to the Board covering all departments, revenue sources and operational issues. The information is prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer and, in the past, discussion about the contents were largely between the Board and the Chief Administrative Officer and the Auditor-Controller. For the FY 2001-02 budget, the process was expanded when the Board of Supervisors requested that each department make a presentation about their budget and operations. The mid-year budget report provided in February 2002 contained discussion of projected fund balance, expenditures and revenues by department, a discussion of expected increases in health benefits costs, detailed revenue projections (summarizing projections prepared by the Auditor-Controller), capital project highlights, a discussion of the State budget, a regional economic forecast, salary projections for FY 2002-03, and departmental savings. It provides a good deal of information of interest to the Board of Supervisors, department managers and the public. The proposed budget document for the subsequent fiscal year is provided in June of each year and includes detailed revenue projections and proposed expenditures for each department. Information for each department is also presented including staffing detail, descriptions of all major programs operated by the department, workload indicators, actual revenues and expenditures for the previous two fiscal years and proposed revenues and expenditures by major programs or costs centers for all departments. An overview of the County’s financial situation is presented including detailed revenue estimates for the budget year, changes in State and other funding sources, and roll ups of expenditure data by fund and functional areas. The third and final budget report prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer is provided in August. This report provides final revenue and expenditure estimates for the year after the State budget has been adopted and actual fund balances are known based on better and more complete prior year actual data. While all three reports provided to the Board of Supervisors include a substantial amount of useful information, there are no routinely produced reports between these three to keep the Board abreast of the overall fiscal situation of the County and to have early warnings of potential problems. Budget related items do come up at Board meetings if an individual department is requesting mid-year supplemental funding or if the supervisors request information on a particular department or a budget related topic. However, fiscal information is not otherwise routinely reported in a standardized report to the Board to allow for comparisons and trend analyses throughout the year. Timing of County Budget Review and Approval Department budget staff spends many months of the year going through their internal budget review and preparation processes and then explaining and defending their proposals to the Chief Administrative Office before they are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Then, for many departments, there are additional analyses and expenditure plans to be prepared between June and September as actual fund balance amounts become known, the State budget is adopted and other adjustments are made. The net result is a lengthy process consuming more than half the year and a budget mostly prepared six months earlier being reviewed by the Board of Supervisors in September. While the County is subject to State timing requirements governing the preparation and adoption of the budget, attempts should be made to complete more of the budget process 40 in June so that fewer staff hours are consumed in duplicative efforts between June and September and so the budget reviewed and discussed by the Board of Supervisors is more current. A review of changes between the proposed and addenda budget for FY 2001-02 shows that budget appropriations increased by $23 million between June and September. Most of the change, or 77.3 percent, was in the General Fund and Roads Fund. Exhibit 3.1 presents the changes for all funds. Exhibit 3.1 Changes between Proposed and Addenda Budget By Fund, FY 2001-02 Proposed Addenda % Total Fund Budget Budget Difference Difference Roads Fund $31,856,908 $41,367,148 $9,510,240 41.2% General Fund 147,900,815 156,236,963 8,336,148 36.1% Health Department 17,128,851 19,719,350 2,590,499 11.2% Accumulated Capital Outlay 3,673,718 5,403,519 1,729,801 7.5% Mental Health Services 9,749,849 10,463,260 713,411 3.1% Tobacco Settlement - 487,860 487,860 2.1% Road District 2,460,871 2,617,875 157,004 0.7% Community Services 7,986,053 8,026,027 39,974 0.2% Special Aviation 20,000 20,000 - 0.0% Fish & Game 5,000 5,000 - 0.0% EIR Development Fees 300,000 300,000 - 0.0% Erosion Control 4,918,455 4,413,840 (504,615) -2.2% TOTAL $226,000,520 $249,060,842 $23,060,322 100.0% Source: Proposed and Addenda Budgets, FY 2002-03 The $9.5 million in Roads Fund monies was mostly from capital project carryovers and increases in estimated fund balance. For the General Fund, the increase was primarily generated from carryover fund balance, mostly due to a combination of capital project carryover, actual expenditures being less than budgeted, and actual revenues being more than budgeted the previous year. The fourth largest contributor to the increase, Accumulated Capital Outlay, was also the result of an increase in fund balance available compared to what was estimated in the proposed budget due to more projects being carried over from the previous year than anticipated in June. By producing more detailed projections of revenues and expenditures throughout the year, particularly in the second half, and projecting year-end fund balance monthly, the County’s estimates of carryover fund balance in June should become more accurate and closer to the amounts now not identified until September. With better tracking and reporting of capital project expenditures and timing, as recommended in Section 2 of this report, and monthly projections of year-end fund balance for the Roads and Accumulated Capital Outlay funds, the discrepancy between the June and September budget for capital project carryover funds should also be decreased. The net result of more accurate forecasting would be fewer changes between June and September and less work for all County staff in creating and analyzing a second budget document with numerous revisions for the September hearings. Though the State budget could be and probably will be changed to some extent between June and September, most of it should be known and in place by June based on the Governor’s budget. County estimates of the budget in June should be reasonably accurate for most of the State funding received. The County should endeavor to reduce discrepancies between the two budgets and complete most of the budget process in June, with only some minor changes to be approved in September. While production of the three budget reports that the Board now receives involves a substantial amount of work for the Chief Administrative Officer and department fiscal staffs, other regularly provided information between these three reports is needed. Current budget information is readily available on the County’s Financial Management Information System (FAMIS) and could be produced without extensive staff work. Of key importance for a monthly report is: 1. Budgeted vs. actual expenditures and revenues by department and major revenue source 2. Explanations of major variances between budgeted and actual expenditures and revenues 3. Projected expenditures, revenues and fund balances, by fund, for year end 4. Key performance indicators This information would provide ongoing assessments of the County’s fiscal situation and individual department performance and would serve as a supplement to the annual budget review and approval process by making the Board aware of issues affecting certain revenues or individual departments during the year. The Interim Chief Administrative Officer directed all department heads in April 2002 to undertake detailed re-computations of their estimated year-end Net County Costs to improve the forecast for FY 2002-03. Even though monthly reports at the early part of the year would generally not be too revealing with so little time passed since budget adoption, the Board should still receive these reports as they will serve as the foundation for subsequent reports during the year. As the year progresses, the Board may want to request other special reports with more detail on a certain department or revenue or an issue such as turnover or workers compensation claims if a particular department is experiencing a high rate of claims. The County needs to analyze its baseline programs and budgets Another type of information that would be useful to inform the annual budget process is evaluations or performance audits of individual departments and programs conducted throughout the year. This would provide the Board with more detail that could be used at budget time regarding all aspects of individual department operations and provide a stronger basis for decisions about baseline department funding levels. The budget review process assumes that a baseline level of funding will be provided for all departments. The discussion in the proposed budget regarding funding changes almost entirely deals with incremental funding levels or additions to the base level of funding. As in most counties, the Chief Administrative Office’s analysis of budget requests submitted by the departments is focused primarily on any increases to the baseline budget but generally does not question the existing level of funding. Comments in the proposed budget document focus on increases or changes in the budget and recommendations on what new positions or programs should be funded, if any. For the most part there is no discussion or recommendations to decrease funding of the baseline budget through improved efficiency and/or increased revenue. There is an implicit assumption in the budget review that existing allocation levels should not be changed. In fact in many instances changes could be made to department operations or business processes and costs reduced through efficiency improvements or revenues increased through improved collections or establishing fee levels that capture more of the costs actually being incurred. One way of identifying such changes is through detailed review of department operations through performance auditing. Performance auditing can briefly be described as a review of all aspects of a department’s operations to determine if the department is operating in compliance with all applicable laws and as efficiently, effectively and economically as possible. Performance audits can be conducted by outside consultants or in-house staff. While regular conduct of performance audits might represent a new cost to the County, if new staff is hired or consultants are used,2 over time audits should more than pay for themselves with cost savings and/or revenue increases for the departments reviewed. Another benefit would be improved service levels for the public by identifying improvements in business processes and methods of streamlining operations. El Dorado County engaged a consultant to conduct a performance audit of the Department of Transportation and is planning one soon for the Department of Social Services. Efforts such as these should be continued and expanded to include all other departments on a multi-year cycle. Performance audits should take place throughout the year but their recommendations could be used in the budget process by identifying areas where departments could operate more efficiently particularly in the base budget. For example, a recently conducted analysis of Sheriff’s Department staffing conducted independent of their budget preparation process recommended adding more permanent positions to reduce overtime. An analysis of a department’s management structure might reveal an opportunity to consolidate and reduce management positions based on an analysis of duties performed. An audit of user fees charged by the County might show that they are not fully recovering costs and should be adjusted accordingly. • 2 The County should explore the possibility of conducting performance audits with existing audit staff through re-prioritization of their current duties. If this is possible, new costs would not be incurred. In some jurisdictions performance audits are conducted on an ongoing basis so that all departments are audited over a certain number of years. Other counties select audit topics annually based on an assessment of the risk or exposure of each department and the potential impact of realizing improvements in that department. Other jurisdictions conduct performance audits as the need arises. An ongoing performance audit program in El Dorado County would have multiple benefits including improved service levels, reduced costs of operations and making resources available for other purposes.

F33: There are no apparent policies and guidelines in existence that deal with the preparation of budgets for Radio by the Sheriff's Department or for Telephones by the Information Services Department. Response to F33: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F3.4: By implementing an employee performance evaluation system that explicitly explains job expectations for the first year of employment, includes in-person documented performance evaluations every three months during the first year of employment, uses a standardized appraisal instrument, includes outcome based performance measures in the appraisal 314 instrument, and provides timely annual post probationary evaluations, the Department will have greater assurance of consistency and accuracy in its performance evaluations. Response to F3.4 The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. Probationary employees do not have the same rights as employees who have passed probation and achieved civil service status. To implement a system which is consistent with that provided to civil service employees may result in newly hired employees achieving full property rights and civil services status from date of hire. The respondent does concur that it is important to provide expectations and ongoing feedback to probationary employees. The manner in which the feedback is provided will be consistent with merit system standards and locally negotiated requirements. Organizations, whether public or private, need to establish a set of goals and create an ongoing system of measuring organizational and employee outcomes. Increased staff accountability, improved problem solving ability, and, ultimately, better results for children are goals that all child welfare agencies should strive for. Without an accurate measurement of outcomes, it is difficult to determine the impact of the resources allocated on services and whether or not the agency is effectively carrying out the goals and objectives of management. To achieve an accurate measurement of performance, the Department must set measurement goals, employee outcomes must be measured related to these goals, and data must be utilized to measure performance. Employee evaluations are the source to quantify the performance of employees. Both processes of setting goals and establishing outcome measures can be beneficial because they require management to establish priorities and to allocate resources and to establish systems and processes that will lead to the intended results. The Department of Social Services, according to its web site, cites its mission goal as “to help people in social or economic crisis increase their ability to become as self-sufficient as possible.” However, the Child Protective Services division does not have its own mission statement, but generally the goal of the division is to provide assistance to children who are victims of abuse, neglect or exploitation. Based on research and interviews, the Department does not have a consistent system in place for measuring the effectiveness across units within CPS. However, the CPS does a good job of collecting and reporting a variety of statistics about caseload activity levels, but not always outcomes and Department goals. The statistical management reports produced concern the type of referrals and their dispositions, current caseload levels, type of out-of-home placements, closed and active, number of adoptions, and number of children freed for adoption. The information provides management a tool to review and assess caseload and staff productivity, but they do not measure outcomes or the achievement of Department goals, such as the number of families reunified, number of children in stable placements and others. Inconsistencies exist in the performance measures used in the Child Protective Services division. The variances not only exist between the two Department offices, but also 315 within CPS units in the Placerville location. While there are many similarities, such as caseload numbers, between the units there was not a consistent guide for tracking outcomes throughout the division. The Emergency Response unit in Placerville, we found there are more formalized performance measurements in place. The supervisor in that unit has created a series of reports and systems that can track performance within the ER unit. The performance measurements in that unit are as follows: • Referral Count by Start Date • Referral Count by End Date • Voluntary Status Report • Case Plan Start Date for Cases Opened Between two Dates • Open Referrals with First Investigation Date • Referral Performance Statistics • Number of All Evaluate Outs • Number of All Referrals upon Closing • Number of All Voluntary Family Maintenance Cases upon closing • Monthly Caseload Activity Report • Caseload Summary • After Hours Intake Log Examinations of the Ongoing and Adoptions units show each unit within CPS has different standards which are examined to determine performance measurement. According to the Ongoing Unit supervisor, that unit reports social worker caseload numbers on a monthly basis. In addition, the supervisor scans cases and a determination is based on the case plan, as some case types require more staff time than others do. In the Adoptions unit some performance outcomes are measured, such as the number of adoptions, but the outcomes are not linked to the case approach that preceded it in the other units. Caseload Tracking Another critical role of the supervisor is to monitor achievement of key casework activities and outcomes on a case-by-case basis. Monitoring activities and outcomes enables the supervisor to track client progress as well as the caseworker’s completion of essential casework functions. In addition, supervisors monitor achievement of casework activities and outcomes across caseloads. Finally, by monitoring the unit to determine if it is achieving its program goals, supervisors can identify trends necessary for planning purposes as well as areas in need of corrective action. One problem with caseload tracking in CPS is there is not a system in place to determine caseload numbers on a historical basis. Supervisors informed audit staff that caseload numbers change daily and there is not a systematic procedure to produce reports, which offer a historical perspective on caseloads. Even with the Monthly Caseload Activity Report, we were unable to get a historical assessment of assignments across units and of 316 both DSS offices in the County. Analysis of the number indicated dramatic fluctuations in caseload numbers. One consistent theme emerged from discussion with upper management of the CPS division. The theme is that the performance measurements are not outcome based. Some interviewed felt outcome based performance measurements would be beneficial to the Department Outcome Measurement Systems in other Jurisdictions Jurisdictions throughout California have or are in the process of instituting outcomes- based performance measures for their child welfare service departments. Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties are among the California counties that have or are establishing outcomes-based performance measurement systems. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, in its Strategic Plan 2000, have identified accountability as one of its key values, defining it this way: Accountability involves the belief that efforts to achieve an outcome will be made, that these efforts will be directed at a goal and will result in achieving that goal, that achievement can be demonstrated, and that someone is held accountable for the results. Based on this value, Los Angeles County distinguishes five broad outcome areas for all children in the county: • Safety and survival • Good health • Social and emotional well being • Economic well being • School achievement and work force readiness Of the broad goals listed above, each has its own specific outcomes tailored to the children in the Los Angeles County system, which includes performance indicators and data sources for each specific outcome. The data sources established in Los Angeles to track each performance indicator is generated by CWS/CMS. For instance, for social and emotional well being the desired outcome goal is to reduce the time a child spends in placement. To measure this outcome Los Angeles County used CWS/CMS data to determine the average amount of time a child spends in foster care, stratified by placement type. Data for this measure is available in CWS/CMS Contra Costa County’s child welfare system established broad outcomes, strategies, performance measures, and data sources, similar to the structure of Los Angeles County’s system. The outcomes are as follows: • 13 Strategic Plan 2000, 2000; Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 317 • Children’s health and developmental needs are being met • Families are satisfied • Children are safe and remain in their own homes whenever possible • Children achieve permanency in a timely manner El Dorado County could replicate the outcomes and models in both Los Angeles and Contra Costa Counties. To establish an outcome based performance measurement system usually requires an investment of staff time and possibly funding for new or enhanced information systems. The Department of Social Services Child Protective Services division can create outcome based performance measures from data stored in CWS/CMS. While the system has its limitations, it also has the ability to produce some useful outcome and performance reports for management. For example, throughout the audit, CPS staff provided ample data to audit staff directly extracted from CWS/CMS. The Department filled numerous audit staff data requests by extracting the data from CWS/CMS. Examples of the data provided included number of: Emergency Response Investigations; Active Cases; Cases Closed; Current Caseload; Referral Counts by Start Date; and Voluntary Family Maintenance Cases. Since CWS/CMS is an automated version of a case file, all data recorded about each child and family should be available from the system and able to be extracted and aggregated for outcome reporting. Some of these measures listed above, such as the number of families reunited at case closure and number of Social Workers per child, would require development of special reports that are not produced at this time, though they are all technically possible to produce. For example, recidivism data is recorded in individual case files and could be extracted to review family referrals to the Department subsequent to case closures, but this would require production of a new CWS/CMS based report. Production of any performance measurement report requires that all Social Workers input the data needed on to CWS/CMS. All staff does not consistently use the system at this time, making some data collection and analysis difficult to perform. Employee Evaluations As a result of an organization’s goals and objectives, performance measures should be tracked to ascertain if the stated purpose of the organization is met. Further, organizations must have a formal system to review employee performance to determine if goals are being met by employees consistent with organization-wide goals. Without evaluation there is no objective, quantifiable measurement of service or staff quality, no technique for fostering improvement and no system to determine if stated employee goals are achieved. Employee performance evaluations can foster improvement in worker morale and employee performance. With detailed employee evaluations, areas for individual employee improvement can be identified and goals set for improvement in those areas. Unless feedback is provided voluntarily by supervisors to their staffs, the absence of an employee evaluation system can encourage the status quo or even a decline in performance as it communicates the message that one’s performance doesn’t matter. Performance evaluations are a method of communicating and reinforcing an organization’s goals and values such as efficiency and responsiveness to customers. An effective performance evaluation system should not be constructed or used as a punitive measure but as a proactive system for management to communicate its expectations to employees and for assisting employees to improve. Employee performance evaluations are crucial in the initial stages of employment when workers are in the socialization process of learning the details of the job. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between El Dorado County and Public Employees, Local Unit No. 1 details the review process for the yearlong probationary period for new employees. The MOU identifies the probation review process as follows: • The employee will receive a written statement of expectations signed by the supervisor and employee. The supervisor shall retain the copy signed by the employee and provide a copy to the employee. • Not less than monthly the supervisor shall meet with the employee to review the employee’s progress toward meeting the supervisor’s expectations. The supervisor shall provide the employee with a written summary of the meeting. • The employee will acknowledge receipt of the summary of his/her progress by signing a copy of the summary. The supervisor shall retain the copy signed by the employee. • The employee shall be considered to have met expectations in any month in which the supervisor does not meet with the employees and provide them with a written summary of his/her progress. • All written summaries, containing the employee’s acknowledgement of receipt, shall be submitted to Human Resources with the appropriate forms for successful completion of probation or of the employee’s failure to complete the probation period. In addition to this process, the Department maintains a more formalized employee evaluation process in which probationary employees are reviewed using the Department’s standardized Employee Performance Appraisal form after six months and eleven months of employment. These more formal reviews are done in accordance with Merit Systems. Merit Systems is a contractor for the California State Personnel Board that satisfies the 319 State of California’s responsibility to ensure that personnel systems which cover county employees of federal grant-in-aid programs comply with federal merit standards. The employee evaluation process begins when an employee is hired. The Department gives the employee a description of the job and a list of essential functions related to the job. According to the Department, employees are given informal monthly reviews. These informal reviews are supposed to consist of a memorandum chronicling the employee’s status and highlighting any issues regarding the employee’s job performance. These reviews describe the nature of the meeting, and provide some feedback to the employee regarding their performance. The formal employee evaluation process starts with the supervisor completing a formal written evaluation of the employee. Once the appraisal form is complete the supervisor will sign and date the review. The employee will then review, sign and date the evaluation. The form, however, clearly states that the employee signature does not mean the employee is in agreement with the review. At this point, the Program Manager reviews the employee evaluation and signs the form. Unlike the employee signature, the upper management signature does indicate concurrence with the employee review. The Department’s instrument to meet the Merit System requirement for a formal performance evaluation is the Employee Performance Appraisal. This form is only completed for the formal evaluations at the six-month review and end of probation. This appraisal is used to evaluate the performance of staff based on several criteria. A review of this document indicates that the evaluator must (a) identify or report on the probation status of employee, (b) identify an overall rating, (c) identify employee goals, and (d) report on the employee’s performance using a list of performance factors, which includes job knowledge, output, compliance with rules, and initiative. A supplementary appraisal form, used only in South Lake Tahoe, indicates that the evaluator must (a) list items discussed during the review, (b) identify desired training and training attended, and (c) identify length of time with the Department. As part of this audit, verification of employee performance evaluations was conducted for 13 randomly selected CPS employees at pre and post-probationary stages and for all employees on probation during the previous three fiscal years. Several issues limited the immediate review of the employee evaluations. DSS management was reluctant to provide audit staff access to the employee performance reviews due to confidentiality considerations and outstanding litigation. The County Counsel’s Office determined their office could conduct the review and provide the data to audit staff with names redacted so employee privacy would remain intact. Based on this review, the Department does a good job of providing yearly post probationary evaluations. Analysis of the performance evaluations of post probationary employees revealed the Department completed an employee appraisal on a timely basis for all but one of the 13 employees. The employee that did not have a yearly review had their performance evaluated each of the previous six years prior and three years after the missed evaluation. The evaluations reviewed were conducted more than one year after their last evaluations. Excluding the missed review, we found that in 8 of 26 yearly post probation evaluations for six employees, or 30.8 percent of all their evaluations, the Department missed the required yearly time period. On average the missed reviews were 58 days past the one- year period. The longest delay was 141 days more than a year. The shortest delay was 4 days past the one-year mark for a post probation evaluation. This review found significant problems with probationary evaluations. The formal evaluation forms, performed after six months and at the end of probation, are conducted on an inconsistent basis. The Department does a sufficient job of conducting employee evaluations for some employees, while other employees get performance evaluations on a sporadic basis, if at all. As Exhibit 3.1 illustrates, the Department conducted formal Merit Systems evaluations during probation on employees at various frequencies. A majority of probationary employees, 23 out of 30, or 76.7 percent, received between one and three formal evaluations during their one year probation. Two employees, or 6.7 percent, received four formal evaluations, an average of once every three months. Exhibit 3.1 Completion of Formal Employee Performance Reviews during Probation Number of Number of Employees Percent Probationary Reviews 4 2 6.7% 3 7 23.3% 2 9 30.0% 1 7 23.3% 0 3 10.0% N/A 2 6.7% 30 100.0% Total Further, Exhibit 3.1 shows of the 30 employees in the random sample, five employees, or 16.7 percent, did not receive a formal performance evaluation at either the six-month point of employment or at the conclusion of probation. Two of these employees are not applicable since each employee has been with the Department less than six months. However, of the three remaining employees without a formal review, one has worked for the Department for more than 540 days without a formal appraisal of work quality. Additionally, we found a second employee employed at the Department for over 375 days with no formal evaluation conducted, although the Department policy is that these reviews should happen at the 6-month point of employment and again at the end of probation. Moreover, these two employees moved from the probation period of employment to post-probationary timeframe of employment without a formal review. In an examination of nine probationary employees where formal probationary reviews were completed using the Employee Performance Appraisal form, we found minimal consistency in how the results of the formal evaluation were used. Of these nine cases, we found that only one employee was given ratings above standard, the equivalent of above average. The remaining eight employees were all rated as meets standard, which is the equivalent of average or satisfactory, for all of their formal reviews during probation. The findings of the eight employees are presented in Exhibit 3.2. Exhibit 3.2 Probation Results for Eight Employees who Met all Standards in Their Formal Evaluations • No. of Average Overall Rating Result of Probationary Percent Employees Number of Reviews Of Review Period 4 50% 1.50 Meets Standards Retained 4 50% 1.25 Meets Standards Terminated 8 100% 1.38 As Exhibit 3.2 demonstrates, based on the formal evaluations half of the employees were terminated at the end or during their probationary period even though their overall ratings were the same as those who were retained. This demonstrates that either these formal evaluations are not documented well or the meaning of the evaluation elements are not consistently understood by all supervisors and the Program Manager who reviews all evaluations. Moreover, of the four terminated employees, three received a

F34: Fleet Services is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, disposing of, and interdepartmental billing for all county-owned vehicles. Response to F34: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Not all County owned vehicles are maintained in the Fleet program.

F35: There are presently over 550 county-owned and operated vehicles, approximately 100% more than existed five years ago. This has dramatically increased the workload of the entire staff in Fleet Services. The Board, in September 2001, approved a new position for a Fleet Services Technician in South Lake Tahoe. Response to F35: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Board approved a new Fleet Services Technician for the Fleet Services unit in Placerville in the 01/02 budget not South Lake Tahoe. We have no Fleet Services operation in South Lake Tahoe. There are currently 526 fleet vehicles and were 337 five years ago – a 58% increase.

F36: Technicians provide specialized installation and maintenance of lights, consoles, radios, computers, etc., in vehicles. Routine maintenance continues to be performed countywide by outside vendors. Response to F36: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. While the Fleet Services Technicians do provide the services referenced in the Grand Jury Report, we also provide many aspects of routing vehicle maintenance as well.

F37: Fleet vehicles are fueled at a county-owned gas pump operated by DGS. Fuel can be pumped without providing accurate vehicle identification numbers and odometer readings, thereby distorting records for interdepartmental billings. As a result, certain departments are not billed for all mileage and vehicle use by employees of those departments. Consequently, budget preparations by those departments do not incorporate accurate cost projections. Response to F37: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Mileage charges are billed, not via the “Gas Boy” system but by mileage reading provided by departments on a monthly basis, so vehicle mileage and use is accurate. Fuel use and charges are distorted as stated because of problems with the “Gas Boy” system. Within the next six months General Services will replace the “Gas Boy” system or utilize an outside vendor for fuel provision.

F38: Administrative responsibility for Fleet Services was transferred in September 2001 from the Supervisor of the Communications and Fleet Services Division of DGS to the Manager of the Airports, Parks and Grounds Division. The most current reorganization proposal is to transfer responsibility for Fleet Services from the Manager of Airports, Parks and Grounds, which is now a vacant position, to the Assistant Director of DGS, which is also a vacant position. Line authority has not been clearly defined for making and reporting decisions, and the continuing changes have had an adverse effect on employee morale. Response to F38: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F39: The position of Fleet Services Supervisor has been vacant for more than six months. During this time the duties and responsibilities of Fleet Services Supervisor have been carried out by an employee who has not been given official supervisory authority or a pay differential. Response to F39: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The position of Fleet Supervisor was not vacant for six months. The Fleet Supervisor was placed on Administrative Leave. Because the position was not vacated, recruitment could not be initiated with the HR Department until that Supervisor resigned some months later. The individual who voluntarily took over the supervision of the Fleet unit did receive a 5% pay differential.

F40: Because of inadequate staffing and inconsistent management, interdepartmental billings for use of fleet vehicles fell months behind schedule. Requests for administrative assistance and for substantial fiscal and clerical help were ignored or denied. As a result, interdepartmental billings were not completed for certain departments in the 2000-2001 fiscal year, resulting in incomplete data for preparation of budgets for the 2001-2002 fiscal year. In an effort to address these problems, in September 2001 the Board approved a new position, Fiscal Technician, for Fleet Services. Response to F40: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F4.1: The County budget includes two internal service funds; the Risk Management fund covers centralized County insurance costs and the Fleet Management fund covers the County’s vehicle maintenance and replacement services. Internal Service fund costs are not as predictable as Operating Departments because they rely on forecasts of future needs and variables such as the number of employees who will need health services or be injured on the job, the extent to which claims will be filed against the County and the number of vehicles that will need to be replaced. The budget for these two funds in FY2001-02 is approximately $20.9 million and together the County maintains reserves for these two funds of another approximately $16 million. This level of expenditure and reserves represents a larger budget than most County departments. Response to F4.1 The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Risk Management fund covers much more than the County’s “insurance” costs. El Dorado County is self-insured for Liability, Workers’ Compensation, and Health Benefits. For fiscal year 2001/02 overall insurance costs as compared to the total Risk Management program were 18%. Risk Management manages the county’s loss control program (ergonomics, illness and injury reporting, OSHA, property safety, emergency evacuation, threat assessment training and management, contract review, etc.), medical and disability leave program (miscellaneous state and federal leave acts, short and long term disability, return to work, rehabilitation), employee benefits (life insurance, disability insurance, health, dental, employee assistance, vision, retiree and former employee health billing), workers’ compensation, general liability, medical malpractice, property insurance etc.

F41: For years, Fleet Services was housed in an old leaky trailer with damp, moldy interior wall spaces. Even though this condition was reported, the Department allowed this unhealthy work environment to continue to exist and did nothing to remedy the situation. Finally, action was taken in August 2001 by the new Interim Director of DGS. The new Manager of Airports, Parks, and Grounds was assigned responsibility for Fleet Services, and the old leaky trailer was replaced with a new trailer. Response to F41: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. Prior to the new General Services Director securing a new modular unit for the Fleet program, the Department would routinely caulk areas determined to be the cause of the leaks. In addition the department applied “cold patch” and asphalt emulsion to the roof. It is not only the Board policy, but CalOsha regulations, to provide safe and healthful working conditions for all County employees.

F4.2: Key information on assumptions used for these funds is not fully disclosed in the proposed and addenda budget documents to assist the Board of Supervisors in determining the appropriate level of appropriations and reserves for these funds. The budget does not present actual expenditures for previous years or projections of expenditures for subsequent years. Without this information it is not easy to determine if appropriate funding and reserves are in place. If too much is budgeted and reserved, budget resources are tied up that could otherwise be used for other purposes. If too little is budgeted, the County may need to reduce expenditures elsewhere or use contingency funds to meet its insurance or fleet obligations. Response to F4.2: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Internal service funds follow the same budget procedures as all other fund types which includes reporting at a fundtype level the prior year actual expenditures, the current year approved budget, the department request, the CAO recommendation 47 and the difference from the prior year approved budget. There are three fundtypes larger than the internal service fund and two smaller. For example, during Fiscal Year 2001/02 the General Fund expenditures exceed $100 million, the Special Revenue Fund exceeded $67 million and the Special Revenue Board Governed Districts approximately $28 million; the Enterprise fund was approximately $.7 million and the Capital Projects fund $2.5 million. Several department budgets equal or exceed the Risk Management such as General Services ($17.5 million), Sheriff ($33.56 million), DOT ($42.75 million), Health ($28.9 million) and Social Services ($30.3 million). Key information and assumptions are included in the CAO recommendations. The 2002-03 budget includes 6.5 pages of discussion regarding the assumptions included in the internal services’ program budgets. These departments are no more at risk for over or underestimating funding needs than any other program. All fundtypes, including the general fund, must budget for reserves and contingencies. The point is, every fundtype and department program is unique. That uniqueness or size alone, should not dictate special budgeting procedures falling outside the normal budgeting process of rest of the County.

F42: The Fleet Services trailer location is isolated from other DGS offices. This has contributed to administrative problems, separation of employees from support systems, and inadequate oversight by management. Response to F42: The respondent agrees with the finding. 127

F4.3: The Risk Management budget for FY 2001-02 includes reserves based on five year projections for the County’s risk management fund. The basis for these projections should be provided to the Board of Supervisors, who should then adopt a County policy regarding appropriate reserve levels for each type of insurance. Response to F4.3: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. Although insurance amounts are a part of the expenses and amounts that the County must consider when budgeting, insurance is not a big consideration when establishing reserve levels. There are two types of reserves. The first type is based on claims that have been made. The County has reviewed these claims and established “reserves” that equal estimates of the worth of these claims. Since the County believes that these claims are liabilities that will have to be paid, it sets up a payable called a “reserve”. In addition to the known claims, the County must estimate amounts for unknown claims. These are called “incurred but not reported” or IBNR. These are claims that the County does not know about yet, but that it must anticipate based on historical information and experience. These IBNR amounts are also set up as a payable or reserve. Reserve amounts are then established based on known and unknown amounts, based on historical actual information, and finally something called “confidence level”. “Confidence level” is a means of measuring how good the County’s reserves are. Budgeting at a 50% confidence level is budgeting at the “expected” level of payment. Budgeting above 50% builds in “confidence levels” that amounts funded are sufficient to pay claims, since what the County ultimately 48 pays may exceed what was expected. If the County performs better than expected, future funding needs decline and the County takes a “credit” on funding future reserves, thereby reducing the possibility of overfunding. Should the County choose to reduce funding of reserves, this would be a one-time only savings, as the amounts would need to be made up at a later point. Should later reserves not be adequate, and should unanticipated expenditures occur during any one fiscal year, amounts would have to be provided from another fund’s reserves or contingencies. Reducing reserves could negatively impact the cost applied process, which allocates charges to each program so that programs can pass those charges on to grant, state, and federally funded programs. If reserves are not being charged properly at the time that the liability is determined to exist, then reserve charges are not applied to programs. Later on, when the liability is paid, programs which should receive the charge may not exist. Therefore grant funding, state and federal funding, fees and charges would be lost forever. Reserve and funding level information is an integral part of the proposed budget information to the Board. The County had adopted via the budget process the goal of a 60% confidence level with the fiscal year 1996/1997 budget and a 70% confidence level with the fiscal year 2001/02 budget. In fiscal year 2001/02 the County approved the first year costs of a five year plan to bring both the Workers’ Compensation and General Liability programs to a 70% confidence level. A discussion of the second year of this five-year plan was included in the fiscal year 2002/03 proposed budget. Although the Health Plan also establishes payables or reserves, the reserves are much simpler. There is no long period of payout of liabilities associated with this self-insured program. Instead, the County has traditionally maintained an average amount of 2.5 months worth of costs to be in reserves (IBNR). The County does this because 2.5 months equals the average lag time between medical services being received and paid. Beginning in 1996/97 the County was also able to fund a “rate stabilization account” of approximately $1 million. The account was established to help mitigate cost increases. Because of huge increases in expenditures, beginning in March 2001 and continuing through fiscal year 2001/02, the County spent its rate stabilization amounts along with its IBNR. Fiscal year 2002/03 increases are designed to stop spending over amounts anticipated for claims.

F43: Supervisory and management personnel at various levels of DGS have failed to address obvious conduct and performance issues. Some employees have performed well above required standards. Other employees have failed to meet standards for attendance and productivity. This has resulted in unfair workloads for some employees and a potential risk to the County of increases in workers compensation claims. Response to F43: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. This is a very broad statement and the respondent has no specific references for response. When the Interim Director was appointed in May 2001 new accountability standards were applied to all Department staff. Those employees who were unable or unwilling to comply, for the most part, are gone from the Department. Continuity in Department management staff will result in greater accountability and performance.

F4.4: Historical and projected vehicle purchase expenditures are not presented in the budget. Such information would help the Board determine an appropriate level of funding and reserves for the County’s vehicle replacement fund. Response to F4.4: The respondent agrees with the finding. Internal service funds are defined as funds used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies, on a cost reimbursement basis. El Dorado County has two such funds: 1) Risk Management and 2) Vehicle Replacement. The Risk Management fund is used to account for payments from all County departments to cover their share of the County’s costs for general liability, employee health and workers’ compensation insurance. The costs covered by the monies in this fund include claims payments, legal costs, insurance premiums for excess insurance3, a third party administrator and staff and indirect costs of the County Risk Management Office. The fleet management fund charges each department for the costs of maintaining and acquiring and maintaining the department’s vehicles and heavy equipment. The charges also cover the costs of County fleet management staff and related indirect costs. Key budgetary decisions to be made for these internal service funds are: a) the level of appropriation to include in the budget to meet annual expenses; and, b) the level of reserves to include in the fund to cover known future liabilities. Charges to customer departments are based on appropriated annual expenditures and a proportionate share of reserves. Annual appropriations are needed to cover the operating costs for a single budget year. Reserves are established for internal service funds to cover known or expected costs beyond what is expected in the budget year. Particularly with insurance, costs can be paid over multiple years. Although costs can be estimated for a claim filed in the current year, the case may not actually be settled for several years out. The risk management fund reserve provides funds for these types of situations and for unexpected pay outs in the event that a large claim against the County is settled sooner than expected or an unpredicted unusually high employee disability payment has to be made in a single year. Commercial excess insurance is also purchased by the County to cover high cost unusual cases. Fleet management fund reserves might be used if a number of vehicles or heavy equipment unexpectedly needing replacement in addition to what is expected in the County vehicle replacement schedule. Insurance expenditures are determined with input from actuaries who produce multi-year projections of likely future pay outs based on historical loss and expenditure data, known claims filed, demographics of the work force, changes in law and other contributing factors. For fleet management, maintenance and replacement costs can be projected based on existing fleet characteristics such as age and mileage plus any projected increases in fleet size or mix needed based on new or expanded programs or workload in the County. Risk Management Fund As mentioned above, El Dorado County’s risk management fund is comprised of three components: • 3 The County is self-insured but buys third party commercial insurance only for incidents above a certain dollar threshold. This helps prevent any dramatic swings in pay outs from year to year. 50 1) employee health insurance; 2) general liability; and 3) workers’ compensation. Each represents a significant cost to the County but the budget document does not present details on the three components. Instead, the County risk management fund is presented in aggregate with no breakdown of how much of the total cost is attributable to each component. Total budgeted expenditures for FY 2001-02 were approximately $18.1 million for all components of the risk management program. This amount is separate from the reserves kept in the risk management fund to cover known and projected insurance liabilities in future years. The budget document does not report the approximately $12 million reserved for the risk management fund nor does it report how much of this is attributable to each of the three components of the fund. Details on the risk management fund should be presented in the proposed budget for a number of reasons. First, it is important for the Board of Supervisors to know which costs are increasing, which are decreasing, and what, if anything, County management has done or can do to control these costs. For example, employee health insurance costs are expected to increase significantly in the next year, an issue that was widely discussed in the budget hearings for FY 2001-02, but it would be useful to present these costs in the context of overall health insurance costs, separate from general liability and worker’s compensation costs. Increases in workers’ compensation costs cannot always be controlled but a large increase may raise questions about the extent to which County management has implemented safety training programs for employees. Similarly, a rise in risk management costs should be reviewed to determine if certain exposures resulting in frequent claims have been effectively dealt with by management. The proposed budget document for FY 2001-02 presents information about the Risk Management office that is part of the Chief Administrative Office. The document presents revenues and costs for the Risk Management office, including County staff, claims payments and other administrative cost, as follows: Exhibit 4.1 Risk Management Revenues and Costs Presented in the Proposed FY 2001-02 Budget FY 1999-00 through FY 2001-02 CAO Actual Approved Recommended FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 Revenues: Charges to Departments $12,764,911 $14,824,755 $17,194,416 Use of Money & Property 684,255 594,007 527,506 Fund Balance - 1,199,008 366,515 Other Sources 1,500 4,000 1,500 51 Miscellaneous 103,356 166,667 Total $13,554,022 $16,788,437 $ 18,089,937 Expenditures: Salaries & Benefits 378,356 415,759 427,897 Services & Supplies 13,914,111 16,165,149 17,427,744 Other Charges 159,663 207,531 231,094 Intrafund Transfers 2,390 3,200 Total $14,454,520 $16,788,439 $18,089,935 As can be the Services and Supplies expenditure line items of $17.4 million for FY 2001- 02 represents the bulk of risk management annual costs. Since this is such a large amount and is comprised of a number of different costs, more detail should be provided in the budget including how much is for claims payments, legal services, the third party administrator, excess insurance premiums, and other costs, for each of the three risk management fund components. Staffing for the office and workload indicators are presented in the proposed budget document as is a description of the office’s programs and the Chief Administrative Officer’s recommended changes in the budget. Determining Appropriate Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds The revenue discussion includes the statement that the fund will be relying less on fund balance than it has in the past for health and worker’s compensation. The discussion reports that reserves for the General Liability program are greater than what is needed and that Worker’s Compensation reserves are lower than needed according to an actuarial analysis performed for the County. The Chief Administrative Office reports that it has prepared a five year plan to achieve reserves at a 70 percent confidence level for both the General Liability and Worker’s Compensation fund. The 70 percent confidence level is described as a reserve level that will statistically be sufficient or better in 70 percent of the cases and inadequate 30 percent of the time. While it is laudable that the budget discloses the imbalance in reserves found in the two funds and a plan to correct it, the discussion has some deficiencies from a public decision making perspective. First, the actual amount of reserves in the two fund components are not presented in the budget nor is the fiscal impact of adopting the 70 percent confidence level approach clearly laid out. Alternative reserve scenarios are not presented so that the Board could see the fiscal impact of choosing other approaches to funding reserves for these funds at the 70 percent confidence level. The choice of a lower reserve level, which would not prevent the County from meeting its current year claims payment obligations, could potentially mean millions of dollars available for other purposes in the budget. On the other hand, the Board of Supervisors may want to adopt a higher reserve level policy that would require increasing the charges paid by departments to increase reserve levels in the fund. To make an informed decision, the budget should include the following: 52 Current amounts in reserve, shown separately for Workers’ Compensation, General (cid:137) Liability and Health Benefits Three years of projected actual expenditures for the budget year and the next five to (cid:137) ten years, shown separately for Workers’ Compensation, General Liability and Health Benefits The amount needed to fund reserves at alternative confidence levels, covering the (cid:137) spectrum of possible approaches ranging from no reserves for future year expenses if a “pay as you go” policy is adopted, funding to cover the current year and some future costs, funding to cover the current year and some but not all projected future costs, and funding to cover the current year and all projected future costs. Counties and public jurisdictions have varying policies on reserves. On one end of the spectrum, some counties and other public jurisdictions simply budget for their expected payments in the budget year. Others choose to maintain reserves to fully cover all known current and future liabilities and some counties choose a position between these two. The Board of Supervisors should be involved in deciding the level of reserves for each of these funds. To inform this decision, the budget document should include information in a table such as presented in the example in Exhibit 4.2: 53 Exhibit 4.2 Example of Information to Provide to the Board of Supervisors for Consideration of Alternative Insurance Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds Reserves required Confidence level (000s) Pay as you go None 20 % $3,000 35% $3,500 50% $4,000 65% $4,500 70% $5,000 80% $5,500 100% $6,000 The County’s financial statement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001 showed that the Risk Management fund had approximately $12.9 million in cash reserves for future costs. The liability for noncurrent insurance payments was reported in the financial statement as $11.9 million. In other words, there was enough cash in the fund to cover all known and projected pay outs for the current and future years that would have to be paid if the County suddenly went out of business and never received any more payments from its customer County departments. Since the likelihood of the County actually going out of business is quite small, the Board may want to consider a lesser reserve level. By presenting the projected pay outs for future years in the proposed budget, the Board would be better informed for deciding the optimal level of reserves. A summary of information that should be presented is shown in the following two exhibits. The numbers are for illustration purposes only and do not reflect the actual or projected expenses of El Dorado County. The information in Exhibit 4.3 would provide a snapshot of retained earnings, annual revenues, annual costs, and cash reserves on hand for the future and projected future liabilities, all in one table. Exhibit 4.3 Example of cash reserve, revenue and expenditure information to be presented in the proposed General Liability and Workers’ Compensation Fund budgets (in 000s) General Workers’ Liability Compensation a Retained earnings: end of FY 00-01 $2,900 $3,600 b Revenues from charges to departments FY 01-02 3,700 4,200 c Total funds available (a+b) 6,600 7,800 d FY 01-02 Claims pay outs/legal costs, 2,000 2,600 e FY 01-02 Third party administrator costs 400 300 f FY 01-02Excess insurance costs 1,500 1,000 g FY 01-02 Staff and administrative costs 150 200 h Total costs FY 01-02 (d through g) 4,050 4,100 i Retained earnings: end of FY 01-02 (c-h) 2,550 3,700 J Cash reserves on hand 6,600 3,300 k Future Year Liabilities 6,500 4,200 Note: Amounts shown are for illustration purposes only and are not actual El Dorado County amounts. Actual historical expenditures should be shown to provide information about typical annual expenditures, what is likely to be needed in future years and to help determine how much cash should be kept in reserve to meet those expenses. Exhibit 4.4 Example of payment data to be presented in budget for General Liability and Workers’ Compensation Funds (in 000s) General Workers’ Liability Compensation Fiscal Year 1995-96 1,500 1,600 1996-97 1,700 1,500 1997-98 1,800 1,900 1998-99 2,000 1,900 1999-00 2,700 2,500 2000-01 2,500 2,700 Information such as that shown in Exhibit 4.4 should be presented to the Board of Supervisors to identify average annual expenditures in the past and as a basis for future projections. The historical numbers would have to be tied to some sort of appropriate index such as number of employees to determine an average cost per employee and then project forward based on expected increases in the County work force. Other variables should also be considered in the projections such as changes in County services that might result in changes in risk exposures. Fleet Management Fund Fleet management fund information in the budget document is less comprehensive than risk management fund information. The fleet management function is a function of the General Services Department and is included in that department’s budget. Because the department covers so many functions, such as capital projects, communications, purchasing, airports and parks and grounds, and because the expenditure level is lower, the level of reporting is lower for fleet management than risk management. In spite of its smaller size, similar information should be presented in the budget as discussed for risk management. The budget document should include cash on reserve (approximately $3.7 million as of June 30, 2001), annual revenues and historical and five year projected fleet maintenance and replacement costs. Unlike insurance costs, the County would not have future vehicle maintenance and replacement obligations if it went out of business but some reserve level is appropriate to cover unanticipated expenses such as replacement of critically needed vehicles before their expected replacement dates due to accident or unplanned repair costs exceeding the vehicle’s value. This information and reserve options would assist the Board of Supervisors in making decisions on funding levels and appropriate charges to customer departments for this fund.

F44: In the recent past, critical vehicle registration documents were not processed properly or timely for fleet vehicles. Among other consequences, this lack of proper documentation jeopardized the safety of law enforcement officers using Fleet Services vehicles in undercover investigations. Extra Help employees could perform critical functions in Fleet Services. With limited staff and no backup, absences for vacations, sick leaves, family leaves, administrative leaves, and scheduled training result in tremendous workloads for the remaining employees. Response to F44: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F45: The "fleet rate" set by DGS for interdepartmental billing includes administrative costs. It is unclear why the "fleet rate" was higher when DOT administrative costs were a factor and why the "fleet rate" decreased after Fleet Services was transferred to DGS. The "fleet rate" is critical to develop accurate budget proposals for every county department. Response to F45: The respondent agrees with the finding. Each department coordinates the Fleet program to function within their department using an organization structure designed to produce the greatest amount of efficiency and effectiveness. Each department could therefore have a higher or lower administrative rate, depending on whether or not “line” staff perform a function for the program, or whether administrative staff perform a function. Then too, the department could assign the work to employees that may make more or less pay. Airports, Parks, and Grounds Division Findings

F46: The Airports Division is authorized to have one Airport Supervisor and two Airport Technicians to cover the Placerville and Georgetown Airports. The position of Airport Supervisor has been vacant for more than a year and currently is under-filled on a temporary basis by one of the Airport Technicians. Response to F46: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Airport Manager retired and a recruitment was initiated which resulted with the hiring of the Airport Supervisor. Prior to this recruitment, a reorganization strategy recommended by an interim direction, deleted the Airport Manager position and replaced it with an Airport Supervisor position. The Airport Supervisor then resigned his position in December 2000 and another recruitment was initiated which resulted in the hiring of a new Airport Supervisor on January 8, 2001. This Airport Supervisor served as the Airport Supervisor until he transferred over the Planning Department in September 2001. The Airport Technician was appointed as the Acting Airport Supervisor in September and he received a 5% hourly increase in acting pay as specified in the Union Contract. He served in this capacity until a third recruitment resulted in rehiring one of the prior Airport Supervisors in April 2002.

F47: Board Policy F-9, dated October 19, 1993, Subject: Airports-Portable Hangar Color, and Board Policy F-10, dated April 19, 1994, Subject: Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities for El Dorado County Airports, refer to the Department of Transportation (DOT) as responsible for airport operations. DGS is currently the responsible department and has been handling all matters related to county owned and operated airports for more than three years. Response to F47: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F48: Board Policies F-9 and F-10 refer to the Airport Commission as the recommending body to the Board for airport matters. The Airport Commission no longer exists; it has been replaced by two Airport Advisory Committees, one for the Placerville Airport and one for the Georgetown Airport. Response to F48: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F49: Subsequently, the Board revised Policy I-3, September 16, 1999, Subject: El Dorado Airport Commission, to create two Airport Advisory Committees -- the Placerville Airport Advisory Committee and the Georgetown Airport Advisory Committee. This revised policy abolished the Airport Commission, but did not indicate which department has primary jurisdiction over airport matters. The original Policy I-3 indicated that DOT had primary jurisdiction. Primary jurisdiction, however, is now with DGS, but no written document has established this fact. Response to F49: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Airport Program was transferred to the Department of General Services from the Department of Transportation by Board Resolution No. 274-97 on December 7, 1997. Although the Board of Supervisors abolished the Airport Advisory Committee and created two Committees, the Georgetown Airport Advisory Committee and the Placerville Airport Advisory Committee there was no further clarification needed about the program continuing to be assigned to the General Services Department.

F50: Administrators of Fleet Services and Airports must interface with federal and state transportation agencies regarding policies and operating requirements. These units in DGS clearly have management issues and reporting responsibilities that are aligned with federal and state transportation matters. Response to F50: The respondent agrees with the finding. Fiscal and Administrative Services Findings

F5.1: Communications with top management of the Department of Social Services is considered poor by many staff social workers and office assistants. Many staff members feel there is no forum to express their concerns and problems and to make suggestions for improvements. This is particularly true in the South Lake Tahoe office as visits and meetings with staff there by the CPS Program Manager and the Director and Deputy Director are infrequent. Regular forums with open communications between staff and managers should be employed as a mechanism for improving CPS processes and services and to improve staff morale. Response to F5.1: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F51: According to the 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan, DGS is responsible for work plans and budgets set forth in five separate funds: Fund 10 is the DGS General Fund Budget for general operations; Fund 12 is for Special Districts (County Service Areas #2, #3, #5, and #9); Fund 13, the Accumulated Capital Outlay (ACO) Fund, sets forth the County's capital improvement projects for facilities and parks; Fund 31, the Airports Enterprise Fund, provides separate budgets for the Placerville and Georgetown airports; and Fund 32 is the vehicle Fleet Management Internal Service Fund. Response to F51: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F5.2: The CPS polices and procedures manuals are not up to date and omit some key areas of operations such as how the CWS/CMS computer system should be used for case intake and processing. Incomplete, out of date or missing policies and procedures could lead to inconsistencies in staff approaches to case work. Most staff surveyed reported that the Department’s rules and regulations are not clear or consistently enforced. The manuals are now all hard copy paper documents and could be placed on the Department’s computer system for easier updating and access by all staff. Response to F5.2: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F52: The Fiscal Administration Manager (FAM) is responsible for the operations of the Fiscal and Administration Services Division of DGS and for the work plans and budget preparations for the five Funds. Response to F52: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F5.3: Many staff members believe that more and different types of training are needed to ensure greater consistency in approach by staff. A mentor program for new staff is one approach suggested by staff which Department management could implement on a pilot basis and assess its costs and benefits to see if it should be replicated throughout the CPS division. Response to F5.3: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F53: Considerable money was spent for overtime during February and March to prepare DGS budget requests for submission to the CAO's budget analyst in early April 2001. The process, however, extended into May, and the FAM and DGS Director (then interim) were required to make major revisions with insufficient notice to complete revisions without additional overtime. Communication with division managers during this process was insufficient to keep them informed of critical budget requests, which were deleted from the final proposal by the FAM and the CAO's budget analyst. Response to F53: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Respondent recognizes that the Grand Jury was responding to concerns with the past budget processes between the DGS and the CAO’s office. It is important to note that the FY 02/03 budget process went much smoother with the Department’s new department head and fiscal administrative manager. The budget was submitted on time with accurate financial postings to the budget systems and complete and balanced financial schedules, and appropriate and accurate line item justifications. As a result there was sufficient time for CAO review and department response to questions. The County must adopt a proposed budget by July 1 of each year. Due to the DGS management and administrative problems, in the past, the department budget package did not comply with annual Board of Supervisor budget policy guidelines and/or CAO directions for budget preparation. The department submitted inadequate and incomplete budgets. This required the CAO’s office to work much more closely with the Department than normal and in compressed time frames due to the initial submittal delays coupled with the impending July 1 deadline. The department head is ultimately responsible for the department’s final request and for communicating changes to the division heads at the time deemed appropriate by the department head. Overtime is not unusual for department staff, as well CAO staff, to complete budget preparation. Staffing levels are geared to year long term operations and not the heavy additional workload which must be accomplished during the budget preparation season. Staff is expected to continue normal, routine operations and at the same time complete the extra work required for budget preparation.

F5.4: The Department does not have a formal written policy or formal reporting mechanism for client and family complaints. Such a policy is needed to ensure consistency in responses to complaints and to ensure that management is kept informed of all complaints and staff responses and corrective actions. Response to F5.4: The respondent agrees with the finding. For staff and supervisors to perform in a manner that will lead to the consistent and desired outcomes for an organization, management must first clearly and accurately define policies and procedures. Second, management must communicate these policies and procedures to staff. Then, adequate resources and supports for staff to perform successfully must be provided. Finally, and most important, the organization must maintain a capacity to obtain feedback and measure and report the degree of success it has achieved in following the policies and to determine if the policies are effective. Deficiencies, in various forms, were identified in each of these elements at Child Protective Services. Communications The employee survey conducted for this audit showed that many CPS employees perceive communication between management and staff as a problem. Exhibit 5.1 shows the responses from social workers and office assistants to statements regarding communications within CPS. As the Exhibit clearly shows, line staff feel there is a problem with communications in the Department, particularly with top management. Exhibit 5.1 Survey Responses Regarding Departmental Communication Agree Disagree Communications between Department’s top 41.7% 58.3% staff and CPS staff are very good Top Management of the Department are very supportive 50.0% 50.0% of CPS Top Management of the Department is very responsive 33.3% 66.7% to suggestions from staff I can influence matters above me 16.7% 83.3% Source: Audit survey of CPS social worker and office assistant staff Only 16.7 percent of the survey respondents believe they have the ability to influence matters above them. Overall, 83.3 percent of office assistants and social workers felt they have little or no influence over Department matters. Further, 66.7 percent of the survey respondents believe that top management is not responsive to suggestions or concerns. Of greater concern is that half of all survey respondents, 50 percent, felt that Department management was not supportive in general of the Child Protective Services division and only 41.7 percent believe top management and CPS staff communications are very good. These perceptions are not conducive to high staff morale or a motivated work force. Child Protective Services management conducts staff meetings in Placerville bi-weekly. These meetings are attended by the CPS Program Manager, supervisors and line staff. A review of staff meeting minutes demonstrated that the CPS staff meetings are primarily a forum for management to update staff on new Department developments, changes in polices and related matters. The Department Director and Deputy Director do not attend 336 these meetings. While CPS should be commended for its efforts to keep staff informed, the meeting minutes demonstrate that staff is not provided with an opportunity to express concerns and grievances or make suggestions for program improvements at these meetings. Department staff indicates that forums to provide such opportunities do not occur on a regular basis. Regular staff meetings with the CPS Program Manager, supervisors and staff do not take place at the South Lake Tahoe office as they do in Placerville. The managers based in Placerville may discuss issues and concerns with South Lake Tahoe supervisors, but there is minimal, if any, group communication and feedback between the Program Manager and South Lake Tahoe line staff. Without regular contact with management, many of the South Lake Tahoe staff feels they do not have a place to air grievances, complaints or make suggestions for improvements. One technique for improving communications between management and line staff would be to set aside time during the regularly scheduled meetings where employee concerns and suggestions can be freely expressed directly to upper management. As such, the Director of the Department and/or the Deputy Director should attend these meetings which should take place on a regular basis in both the Placerville and South Lake Tahoe offices17. It is of equal importance that top management responds to issues, concerns, and suggestions on a timely basis. Many employees expressed frustration in their written comments on the audit survey over the lack of response from management toward their suggestions for improvements made in the past. Furthermore, employees often felt when a response came from management it was long after the employee suggestion was made if a response came at all. The Department should have strong support systems in place to provide workers with open forums to discuss and deal with dissatisfactions and frustrations, and suggestions for how to make constructive improvements. The forums should not become a series of sessions where workers continually complain about the Department but should be directed toward identifying and solving problems. The discussion above is not meant to imply that upper management should immediately implement any and all suggestions made by staff. But the process will be perceived as meaningless if management does not respond to staff suggestions and grievances within a reasonable amount of time, even if the decision is to not implement the staff suggestion. Responses to staff suggestions should be communicated directly to employees by upper management, including the Director, through as few layers as possible. By taking timely actions to address employee concerns, even if the actions are not what employees suggested, management would demonstrate responsiveness to staff concerns. Regularly • 17 A recommendation in Section 4 calls for routine visitation by the Program Manager to South Lake Tahoe so that upper management is represented at that office and to provide a means of resolving staff concerns and issues. One of the appropriate roles of this position would be conducting staff forums as described above. • 337 communicating how and why decisions have been made to staff would also help improve morale. Updating the Policies and Procedures Manual Child Protective Services possesses extensive policies and procedures manuals that provide guidance to social workers and staff regarding Department operations. However, the manuals are lacking some key policies and procedures such as reference to the Department’s CWS/CMS computer system and policies and procedures for office assistant support staff. Without documentation of all key areas of operations, the chances increase of certain activities being inconsistently applied throughout CPS. This current state of Department policies and procedures is consistent with findings of the FY 1999-2000 El Dorado Grand Jury which reported: The Grand Jury requested and received a copy of the El Dorado County CPS Policy and Procedures manuals. Analysis indicated that the manuals contained many outdated or undated documents, documents whose origin could not be determined, unsigned documents, and documents that referred to manual record keeping operations which had long since been replaced by computerized operations. This dilapidated state appeared to have been in existence for several years. In May, 2000, the Grand Jury observed that these manuals had been professionally updated. Further, it is noted that the Department of Social Services (DSS) has initiated other corrective actions, including initiation of periodic internal audits to ensure compliance with state requirements. The Department disagreed with the previous Grand Jury finding wholly, stating “first, the outdated manuals were state regulations that are outdated. Second, the professionally updated manuals were prepared by DSS.” However, during our review of CPS policy manuals we found that some formal statements were outdated and appeared to be produced by the Department. Many of the policies that appear outdated involve some of the most important responsibilities facing the Department and social workers such as use of CWS/CMS in processing cases. The Department’s policies and procedures regarding the overview of CPS appears to be dated 1992. The manual was written prior to the full implementation of CWS/CMS by the State. Thus, Department policies and procedures regarding the intake and screening process do not make any reference to CWS/CMS. As demonstrated in Section 2 of this report, documentation of intake processes could not always be found on CWS/CMS, indicating inconsistent application of Department policies and procedures. As discussed below in more detail, CPS does not have formal written policies regarding client complaints. Although, management provided a detailed oral description of how the client complaint process works, without a formal written policy in place regarding how to address concerns raised against the Department, responses to complaints have the potential to be inconsistently handled. Department management acknowledges these 338 lapses in the policies and procedures, however, they do not feel it is necessary to rectify these deficiencies. Clerical staff performs a vital role within CPS but currently are working without any formal policies regarding their roles and duties. According to staff, an effort is underway to complete a formal clerical policies and procedures manual but it is not yet complete. Thus, clerical staff is not provided with a training manual when new to the job and must learn their duties primarily through on-the-job training without written materials to use as references. Samples, training and written policies are particularly important for the Department’s court report procedures, which are very specific and must comply with the requirements of the State Welfare and Institutions Code. In some counties, clerical staff has specific written guidelines of their duties and responsibilities. In Los Angeles County, for example, a clerical policies and procedures manual deals with many issues similar to those faced by El Dorado County’s clerical staff. For instance, Los Angeles County has specific policies and procedures regarding how to handle instances of a mail referral containing allegations of child abuse or neglect. Los Angeles County policies also include court procedures ranging from processing proof of service notices for Welfare and Institutions Code 366.26 hearings to entering Court results into CWS/CMS. The results of the employee survey for this audit demonstrate staff concerns regarding Department policies and procedures. Exhibit 5.2 presents responses from social workers and office assistants regarding Department policies and procedures and enforcement of these procedures. Exhibit 5.2 Survey Responses Regarding Department Rules and Regulations Question Agree Disagree Department rules and regulations are clear 22% 78% Department rules and regulations are consistently 18% 82% enforced Source: Audit survey of CPS social worker and office assistant staff Nearly 8 out of 10 survey respondents, or 78 percent, stated that rules and regulations in the Department are not clear. Further, 82 percent of survey respondents stated that regulations are inconsistently enforced. This demonstrates a combination of incomplete written policies and procedures and/or lack of consistent implementation. One reason staff may feel policies and procedures are inconsistent and unclear is because the Department does not present them in a standardized format. At least three different formats are used to explain and illustrate current policies, each with different levels of information. By comparison, Los Angeles County has very formal policies and procedures regarding their entire Child Protective function all presented in a consistent format. Each policy is given a formal issue date, the employees the policy is applicable 339 to, associated documents, and relevant Code sections. Additionally, each policy provides a detailed description of the adopted policy and provides a step-by-step detailed description for guidance of the procedure. For some of El Dorado County’s CPS policies and procedures, the format includes subject, adoption date, revised date, reference and a detailed explanation of the policy and procedure. However, this format is the exception rather than the rule in the Department’s written policies and procedures. A standardized format with the data elements listed above should be used for all procedures to provide staff with improved guidance and clarity in performing their job duties. Improvements to Department policies and procedures should include making the manual available on-line to ensure that all staff members have access to the most up-to-date versions of all policies and procedures and that they are applied consistently throughout CPS. In written responses to the audit questionnaire, numerous staff expressed concern that each staff member did not have their own copy of the manual. An on-line version would be particularly useful for ensuring that the South Lake Tahoe staff has access to any updates or revisions to Department policies and procedures. All staff should be oriented and trained on the use of the on-line policies and procedures manual as soon as it is fully updated. When new policies or procedures are implemented, supervisors should be directed to discuss the changes with all unit staff at unit meetings rather than distributing copies to staff. That way accountability for remaining current with management approved policies and procedures would rest with the supervisor, rather than the line staff person. Training One example of a staff concern that could be addressed through the recommended staff forums is training. Throughout the audit process of interviewing line staff, supervisors and managers, concern about training was a common theme. Without exception, those that commented on employee training indicated that training is not done on a regular basis, and/or more training is needed but, for various reasons, is not taking place. Training is necessary to ensure supervisor, social workers and office assistants have the specialized skills and knowledge required to effectively provide the functions of CPS. Of the employees that responded to a survey conducted for this audit, 70 percent stated that not all CPS staff had received adequate training to perform their jobs. Many social workers believe that ongoing training was a key weakness in Child Protective Services. The main concern voiced by staff at all levels was that the training received by new employees of CPS was not sufficient given the complexity of the job. In discussions, some employees suggested that a mentoring program for new employees could provide new staff with a more useful hands-on training in the various functions performed by the Department. A staff forum for exchanging ideas and considering improvements in operations would be a place to discuss ideas such as this. Department management could then consider the costs and benefits of a mentoring program or other 340 training enhancements and respond to staff within a specified time frame concerning whether or not the idea could be implemented. Key to management’s decision should be an assessment of the costs and benefits of any proposals with benefits expressed in measurable terms such as reduced turnover, improved family outcomes, or reduced delays in processing cases. Client Complaints The Department does not have written policies and procedures regarding complaints filed against the CPS division or its social workers. Department management reports a single procedure for responding to all complaints filed against Child Protective Services. According to management, CPS requests that grievances be formally submitted to the Department in writing. Once a complaint is received, the Program Manager reports that she and the supervisor will develop a response and, in some cases, the complaint will be investigated. When the response is finalized, it is provided to the complainant in writing. The Program Manager and the supervisor responsible for the unit determine the final outcome. In response to a request by auditors for copies of documentation regarding complaints against any CPS social workers or CPS practices, the Department provided copies of seven complaints and all documentation prepared in response to the complaints, all of them dated from January to December 2001. The nature of the complaints against CPS included transfer of cases between two social workers, visitation complaints, placement complaints, and inadequate case plan therapy. One file contained a letter stating that the Department had failed to respond to an original complaint, sent 133 days earlier. Several of the complaint files contained documentation of the follow-up investigation conducted by the Department in response to the initial complaint. The thoroughness of the investigation, based on the documentation provided, ranges from extremely detailed to very brief. One letter chronicles the specific details of the investigation and makes it clear the Department indeed investigated the grievance. However, the letters explaining the details of the follow-up investigation make it difficult to determine the Department’s response. The Department should document and implement a formal consistent policy regarding how CPS responds and documents formal complaints. The Department should create a centralized, computerized database detailing the grievance and the response to said complaint. The computerized database should be accessible to County Counsel staff to conduct a periodic review to determine if the Department is handling complaints properly. A regularly produced summary report, such as quarterly, should be provided to the Department Director by the CPS Program Manager reporting the date of each complaint received, date the internal response was initiated, nature of internal response (e.g., full investigation, employee discipline, etc.), and date of written response to complainant. The Department should institute formal procedures governing when and how complaints are investigated, as follows: • The complainant shall make a formal complaint in writing and the Program Manager and/or unit supervisor shall have initial contact with the complainant within 10 working days; • The investigation and final decision shall be rendered by Child Protective Services within 10 working days once contact is made; • The final decision shall be signed off by the Director of Social Services or the Deputy Director of Social Services; and • The Department has the authority for formal disciplinary action if the investigation finds the staff violated State law or DSS policy. A benefit of this review process and a centralized database is that CPS will have access to documentation currently unavailable to determine any trends in grievances. The review and the database could provide a mechanism to implement further policy and procedure changes to minimize the number of complaints. Conclusion The employee survey conducted for this audit showed that communications between management and staff is not perceived positively by most Department employees. Specifically, most line staff believes upper management is unresponsive to their needs and that staff has no ability to influence matters above them within the Department. A widely held belief of CPS staff is that Department policies and procedures provide inadequate guidance for job tasks. Analysis of the Department’s policies and procedures manual found that complete formal policies do not exist for some key aspects of CPS, such as grievances and clerical duties and responsibilities, and that existing policies and procedures are presented inconsistently and without key information such as the date the policy became effective. Many of the existing policies are old and outdated. Our analysis found that child removal policies were written prior to the implementation of CWS/CMS, and the manual makes no reference to the program. Many employees expressed frustration at the level of training, especially relating to clerical support and new hires. Child Protective Services does not have written formal policies governing grievance procedures. Even where information was presented in the actions taken by the Department, the standard response or evidence of ample investigations could not be consistently documented.

F54: The CAO presented the DGS budget to the Board for approval without including substantial details on the full scope of budget needs for each division. The Board was not informed as to the nature or priority of requests deleted from the final DGS budget. It appears that the CAO’s budget analyst is too far removed from the operational requirements of DGS divisions, project design, and construction management to make critical budget recommendations. For example, at one time the construction of a toilet facility in a county park was approved, but, unbelievably, the septic system required for the toilet facility was deleted from the budget. Response to F54: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Respondent recognizes that the Grand Jury was responding to concerns with the past budget processes between the DGS and the CAO’s Office. The FY02/03 budget process allowed much better interaction between the Department and the CAO office as mentioned above in F53. The CAO Budget Analyst assigned to the Department of General Services was able to work with the DGS more efficiently and effectively on the FY 02/03 budget due to better and timelier budget information from the department. The CAO works primarily with the department head and chief budget analyst and expects that they in turn will work with their 131 department managers for needed information. For some prior DGS budgets, under former DGS directors, the Analyst was called upon to actually create parts of the DGS budget because of inadequate, inaccurate, unsupportable, and untimely budget information. In prior years the department requested budget exceeded funding available as determined by the Chief Administrative Officer. Consequently additional work was required to determine priorities, since the department did not prioritize items in the request. Additional work was required to identify what budget request components could be reduced or eliminated in order to finalize the budget plan for the subject budget year. In the immediate preceding years, the prior department heads refused to identify and recommend adjustments to bring the requested budget plan down to the level specified by the Chief Administrative Officer, i.e. the level of funding available to General Services. The Pioneer Park Septic System project was not included in the CAO Recommended Budget because sufficient funding was not available during the subject year. The Parks CIP consisted of a variety of projects throughout the County. The department head was requested to recommend priorities based on information from department staff and the Parks Commission. The Parks CIP request exceeded funding available, and the CAO was advised that "nothing could be cut". Because of the significant expenditures already incurred at Pioneer, and other higher priority projects identified at Pioneer and elsewhere, it was decided to recommend delay of the proposed septic system needed if a restroom were to be built in close proximity to the nearby ball field location. Funding was left for the restroom as seed money and as a placeholder in case additional funding or project savings from other projects became available. The "seed money" could also be used to initiate first steps in restroom project planning, design, etc., prior to construction. Actual construction would occur in a subsequent year when funding was available. It's not unusual for the annual CIP budget to include funding for only a phase of a proposed project. CAO budget recommendations are developed based on the information provided by the department.

F55: Some capital facilities projects for the county are identified in the budget of Department 15 (General Fund Other Operations), which is composed of discretionary county revenues and expenditures, rather than in the DGS budget for Fund 13 (Accumulated Capital Outlay projects). Examples of those discretionary projects set aside in the Department 15 Fixed Asset budget include the South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Hall ($4.5 million) and the “capital facilities programming and financing plan” ($250,000). Response to F55: The respondent agrees with the finding. 132

F56: It is not clear why the Department 15 budgeted item of $250,000 for a "capital facilities programming and financing plan" did not appear in the narrative for the DGS 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan. DGS has divisions of Real Property Planning and Administration and of Facilities Services, both of which should be (but have not been) fully informed and involved in the creation and execution of this "plan," referred to in previous Findings as "Facilities Master Plan." Response to F56: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Department of General Services was not clear as to whether any funding was to be allocated for the development of a Facilities Master Plan in the FY 2001/2002. The County Administrator included this set aside in the Department 15 budget before the final budget adoption in September 2001 and included a discussion of the issue in the proposed budget. This respondent believes that both the Facilities Division and the Real Property Planning Division were fully informed as to the prospect of developing such a plan. This planning process has just now been initiated and both Divisions are full participants. Real Property Planning and Administration Division Findings

F57: The Real Property Planning & Administration (RPPA) Division of DGS has authorized positions for a Manager, Administrative Secretary, Senior Administrative Analyst, and Administrative Technician. There is one additional position of Storekeeper for Records Management, which is filled by two "extra help" employees, each working one half time, or .5 full time equivalent (FTE). Response to F57: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F58: RPPA is responsible for purchasing, leasing, and disposing of county facilities, analyzing space needs, contacting realtors and property owners, coordinating department moves, managing county cemeteries, negotiating cable television franchises, and monitoring property leases in the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor. Response to F58: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F59: In addition to the above listed duties, RPPA provides storage for all permanent county records and documents in the basement of the main library building and the lower floor of county-owned Building C. Record storage and retrieval requests are processed daily. Records disposal is accomplished on a schedule determined by county ordinances and departmental regulations. The Grand Jury's inspection of the records storage areas was conducted without notice. Storage areas appeared to be organized, clean, and adequate. The present library building and Building C, however, were not designed to provide permanent, safe storage for county records in the event of a manmade or natural disaster. Response to F59: The respondent agrees with the finding. 133

F60: In 2001, RPPA prepared and published an excellent manual to assist county departments in planning, organizing and completing department or division moves from one facility to another, or reconfiguring existing space. Response to F60: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F61: Administration of cable television franchise contracts with five different cable companies was assigned to RPPA without a commensurate increase in staff and resources. RPPA does not have sufficient staff or expertise to address all the issues that must be resolved if the County is to collect higher revenues from franchise contracts. Communication with the responsible people in each company is difficult because of constantly changing ownership resulting from mergers and acquisitions in the telecommunications industry. Franchise contracts have been difficult to track and renegotiate. One company is seriously delinquent in paying franchise fees to the County, and collection of these delinquent fees has not been accomplished. Response to F61: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F62: Management of county-owned and county-operated cemeteries has required increased staff time and record keeping. RPPA personnel are required to respond frequently, often on very short notice, to the public, concerned citizens, and mortuaries in order to provide services and monitor compliance with state laws and county ordinances. They are required to be present at all interments in county cemeteries. Management of historic pioneer cemeteries has become a matter of public debate and concern. Response to F62: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F63: The Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor (SPTC) is an abandoned railroad right-of-way that was deeded to El Dorado County. There are 537 parcels in the SPTC. The County is the lessor for 77 of these parcels. RPPA requested an initial budget allocation of approximately $30,000 for Professional and Special Services. This money would be used for parcel appraisals in order to establish realistic values and lease rates. The Department has not been able to negotiate lease renewal contracts at realistic rates that are advantageous to the County. RPPA has begun eight parcel appraisals with the initial $24,000 in approved funding. Additional appraisals will be completed for future lease agreements as these leases are renewed. Response to F63: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. This finding is correct with the exception of the statement that the corridor was deeded to El Dorado County. The corridor was purchased by a joint power’s authority with State and Federal funding. 134

F64: Section 205 of County Resolution 228-84 identifies those county employees who may potentially invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission. Response to F64: Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Section 205 of Resolution 228-84 originally identified those employees who were eligible for Civil Service status and those who were exempt from Civil Service. While many of the named exclusions still apply, changes resulting from the adoption of the Charter and revisions to Ordinance 2.60.010, et seq. update and supercede Section 205 of Resolution 228-84. Resolution 228-84 is in process of comprehensive amendment.

F65: Matters are brought to the attention of the Commission through review of decisions of department heads. The Commission’s caseload is generated through procedures initiated by employees through HRD. There is not a provision for the direct filing of complaints with the Commission. HRD attempts to resolve employee complaints before they are brought to the Commission, and employee complaints generally reach the Commission only as a last resort. Response to F65: Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. However, the finding appears to address several different procedures and Respondent provides the following clarification to ensure that its response is understood in context. The first sentence is inaccurate. The second sentence is generally accurate, in that parties invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission based on established procedures administered by the Director of Human Resources, acting in the capacity of Executive Officer of the Civil Service Commission. The Commission serves as an appellate body that reviews decisions made by department heads or actions taken by other County personnel. Matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission are brought to it through appeals by employees as prescribed in rules, policies or Memoranda of Understanding. Proceedings before the Commission are initiated through HRD. However, in receiving such filings, the HRD is, in fact, acting on behalf of the Commission and as part of the Commission’s process, not separately from the Commission. The finding states: "There is not a provision for the direct filing of complaints with the Commission." and “HRD attempts to resolve employee complaints before they are brought to the Commission.” Respondent agrees with both statements. It is true there is no “direct filing” with the Commission, and the commission supports this process in part because it minimizes the possibility that improper ex parte contacts can occur. This is consistent with the Commission's role as a reviewing body, rather than a body having initial jurisdiction to decide or resolve complaints. However, if the statement is intended to indicate that an 173 appeal which is properly the subject of Commission review is not filed directly with the Commission, but with HRD, Respondent notes that the Director of HRD acts as the Executive Officer to the Commission and that the filing, therefore, is with the Commission. With respect to the last sentence of the finding, efforts to resolve complaints are often made through the grievance procedure or through the informal processes of bringing a problem to the HRD's attention in order to have appropriate review and expeditious resolution, if possible. In these cases, HRD's efforts usually are to attempt to facilitate a resolution between the employee and the affected department, rather than to resolve the complaints directly. In cases of discipline, discrimination, or matters within the purview of the Commission, efforts at resolution of the appeal may continue after an appeal is filed. However, those efforts are made concurrent with the processing of the appeal to a hearing, not as a separate effort that defers the appeal process, although hearings before the Commission may be scheduled or continued when desired by both the County and the employee to facilitate discussions. It is correct that employee complaints generally reach the Commission only as a last resort since the Commission is the final reviewing body that is empowered to act only after completion of all other applicable review processes. Employees are not dissuaded from exercising their appeal rights to the Commission and are advised of those rights in any appealable proceedings.

F66: The Commission is authorized to hear only the following types of matters: • Claims of unlawful discrimination in personnel matters; • Disciplinary matters involving classified employees with permanent status; and • Such other matters as may be provided for in personnel rules, MOUs between the County and recognized employee organizations, or Board Policy. Response to F66: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F67: The Commission has authority to cause subpoenas duces tecum to be issued for matters within its lawful jurisdiction. Response to F67: The respondent agrees with the finding. The Commission may also issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses only.

F68: The Commission is empowered only to affirm, modify or reverse decisions of the “appointing authority,” generally the department heads, in disciplinary actions. Response to F68: The respondent agrees with the finding. 174

F69: Findings and decisions of the Commission in disciplinary actions are final and binding, subject only to judicial review. Response to F69: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F70: Remedies available to county employees through access to the Commission are seldom sought, and accordingly, the Commission is not used to its full capacity. The Commission has not had a contested hearing for approximately a year. The most recent contested matter brought before the Commission for hearing was the complaint of a sergeant in the Sheriff’s Department. Response to F70: Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Respondent agrees that contested hearings before the Commission do not occur frequently. The Commission’s jurisdiction is invoked when appeals are filed. However, Respondent disagrees that this means that the Commission is not used to its full capacity. In fact, the Commission diligently works to its “full capacity” when hearing appeals, but the first sentence suggests that the commission should be hearing even more appeals, which does not make sense in the context of a complaint driven appeal process. Under the Charter and other governing regulations, the Commission acts as an appellate reviewing body, a court of "last resort" within the County personnel system as suggested in F65. If few appeals are filed, this could be construed that the Department of Human Resources is effectively resolving matters, thus obviating the need for appeals. The function of the Commission is to serve as a forum when the parties cannot otherwise resolve their complaints or grievances. The fact that this does not occur frequently is not an indication that the Commission is underutilized. The better the system works, then the less frequently the parties should need to resort to the Commission.

F71: On occasion, properly requested information has not been provided to the Commission in a timely manner. Response to F71: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. There may have been isolated instances (for example, 2 or 3 in the past several years) when information requested by the Commission has not been timely provided by departments other than the Department of Human Resources. The commission does not anticipate further problems obtaining relevant documents.

Related Recommendations (5)

R1: All department heads must be held accountable for adhering to the County Purchasing Ordinance. Directors of departments ordering supplies and services without an appropriate purchase order or contract in advance of those orders should be required to appear before the Board of Supervisors, explain the reason(s) for such noncompliance, and obtain express approval for the unauthorized acquisitions. Response to R1: The recommendation has been implemented. The department has established a policy of not signing any item that has not been appropriately authorized. These items must go to the Board of Supervisors for review and approval.

R2: Each department head should develop a system to hold subordinates exercising purchasing authority accountable for noncompliance with the County Purchasing Ordinance. Response to R2: The recommendation has been implemented. County positions that are responsible for purchasing are under the same County requirements to adhere to proper job performance, which includes following County procedures, as all other County staff. If purchasing duties are an element of the job, performance evaluations will reflect performance. The department head will be aware of noncompliance since General Services is requiring that the Board of Supervisors review and approve any items that have not been appropriately authorized – see R1 above.

R3: The County Purchasing Ordinance should be amended to expressly prohibit the “splitting” of purchase orders. Response to R3: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The revised Purchase Ordinance, which will include a prohibition against “splitting” purchase orders, will be presented to the Board of Supervisors no later than October 2002. Responses Required for Findings

R30: The Commission’s budget should be separate from HRD’s budget, and members of the Commission should have input before the budgetary request is submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer. Response to R30: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unwarranted. Again, in the absence of implementing R28, there appears to be no purpose served by establishing a separate budget for the Commission. If clerical and administrative services continue to be provided by HRD, the budget process would be most efficient by remaining within HRD's budget. There has never 189 been an instance where a concern regarding appropriate levels of funding has been a factor in conducting Commission hearings and business.

R32: All information properly requested by the Commission relevant to a pending proceeding should be furnished to it expeditiously. Response to R32: The recommendation has been implemented. The Commission has taken steps to ensure that it timely receives all properly requested information.

F72: The Director and/or other employees of HRD: • Act as the Executive Officer for the Commission; • Receive all mail directed to the Commission concerning appeals and grievances; • Provide a secretary to the Commission; • Prepare the budget for the operation of the Commission, without the Commission’s participation; and • Administer the expenditure of funds for the Commission. This state of affairs essentially removes any opportunity for confidential communications from employees to the Commission without the necessity of initiating formal proceedings. Response to F72: Respondent agrees with the finding. The Respondent does agree with the bulleted points and notes again that it is appropriate to avoid direct communications with employees in order to prevent improper ex parte communications. (See comment regarding F65.) Respondent disagrees with any negative implication contained in the finding or any implied suggestion that circumstances should be otherwise, given the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission is an adjudicatory body whose jurisdiction is prescribed by Charter Section 502.3. It functions essentially as an appellate hearing body that operates only in the context of formal proceedings. No role is assigned to the Commission to become involved in or to resolve employee complaints or grievances at an earlier stage of the process. Therefore, there is no need or appropriate role for communications between employees and the Commission, confidential or otherwise, in the absence of formally initiated proceedings before the Commission. In fact, receipt of such communications could prejudice the Commission's performance of its role as an adjudicatory body should an appeal later be filed.

Related Recommendations (2)

R31: Time should be scheduled during new employee orientation for one or more Commission members to explain what the Commission is, its functions, and how and when to contact it. A pamphlet containing such information should be prepared and given to new employees during their orientation. Response to R31: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. Information will be provided to new employees during employee orientation regarding the role and function of the Commission and how the appeal process is initiated. A pamphlet will be prepared for distribution. However, the recommendation that one or more members of the Commission be present to provide information during new employee orientation will not be implemented because of the frequency of such orientations, the impact on the schedules of the Commissioners, and the desire to develop and maintain a consistent presentation.

F73: Members of the Grand Jury toured the hospital emergency rooms and several floors of the facility, and found them to be very clean and well maintained. There is only one examination room in the emergency room area with an observation window. When the examination rooms are full, this particular room, which is preferred for psychiatric observation, may not be immediately available. Response to F73: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F74: Security at Barton Memorial Hospital is provided by the maintenance staff, who have received special training and who are available on every shift. When restraint is necessary to control mentally ill patients, the preferred method of restraint is medication, rather than physical restraint, to reduce injuries to patients and staff. Response to F74: The respondent agrees with the finding. The respondent has not way of knowing the practices of Barton Hospital, but has no reason to believe that the finding is other than stated.

F75: Tahoe Manor Residential Care (Tahoe Manor) is a privately owned, state licensed board and care facility in South Lake Tahoe with accommodations for 49 residents. Fifteen of the residents are clients of the Clinic. Response to F75: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F76: Tahoe Manor is the only residential care facility in El Dorado County that accepts Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments for board and care residents. The County contracts with Tahoe Manor for residential care for clients who are also receiving mental health services at the Clinic. Response to F76: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F77: Grand Jury members toured Tahoe Manor without an appointment. During the visit, no group activities were observed. The physical layout and floor plan are not adequate for group activities and events. Hallways are narrow. There is no designated activity area except a small day room and a dining room. The overall appearance of the facility is drab, but it is moderately clean. Response to F77: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Tahoe Manor is not a Mental Health facility but an elderly residential placement facility. Although the physical layout could be improved by being larger, overall it is above average for a board and care facility.

F78: Tahoe Manor is not licensed to accept residents who have been diagnosed with dementia. A request for a dementia waiver was denied by the Department of Social Services of the State of California in October 2000. Response to F78: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F79: Monthly payments from the County to the contractor at Tahoe Manor were approximately two months in arrears. The County’s requirement that invoices be routed through several different departments slows payment processing and discourages providers from contracting with the County. Response to F79: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The County’s requirement for payment processing does not discourage providers from contracting with the County. The Department has not experienced any refusal by any contractor to participate with the County as a result of invoice processing protocols.

F80: The annual licensing review and evaluation of Tahoe Manor by the State Department of Social Services, called a Facility Evaluation Report and dated April 2000, identified four deficiencies: • Medications were not stored, locked, labeled, and dispersed according to regulations. • Medications were being set up more than 24 hours in advance. • Hazardous areas in the laundry room were accessible to residents. • Staffing was not sufficient to meet state licensing standards. Response to F80: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F81: The Facility Evaluation Report for Tahoe Manor dated April 2001 showed no deficiencies in the community care licensing standards. The resident census at that time was 35, which was 14 less than the maximum allowed number of 49 residents. Response to F81: The respondent agrees with the finding.

F82: The 2002 Facility evaluation and inspection of Tahoe Manor has not yet been conducted. Response to F82: The respondent agrees with the finding. 246

Additional Recommendations 24

Not linked to specific findings.

R4: 1 Adopt a policy establishing reserve levels for the three components of the risk management fund and the total fleet management fund based on information provided by the Chief Administrative Officer including: (a) a year by year schedule of all known and estimated liabilities for the health benefits, workers’ compensation and general liability funds; and, (b) the amount needed to fund reserves at alternative confidence levels ranging from “pay as you go” to fully funded. Response to R4.1: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Fleet Management currently employs a straight forward policy and procedure to establish reserve levels based on actual accident experience of the prior three years. This information is reviewed, as part of the budget process, by the CAO office. Adding this administrative step to the Fleet program would not improve oversight of the County budget process. Risk Management will present the annual actuary report (which contains all of the information that the Grand Jury is recommending be presented to the Board) on Workers Compensation and General Liability to the Board. This report is completed prior to December of each year. Risk Management will present this information to the Board prior to the CAO applying charges for these services to the upcoming budget. This report will be the basis for presenting the 5-year plan and allowing for Board discussion and direction regarding appropriate reserve, funding, and confidence levels. Since Health reserves are simply 2.5 months worth of average costs, because outside consultants advise the County as to appropriate rates to charge for medical coverage and because this information is shared and discussed with the Health Plan Advisory Committee, and finally because this information comes to the Board for review each year, the procedures recommended by the Grand Jury are not necessary for adequate oversight by the Board for this program. As stated above in F4.3, and in response to the “Cost and Benefits” section below: “Should the County choose to reduce funding of reserves, this would be a one- time only savings, as the amounts would need to be made up at a later point. Should reserves not be adequate, and should unanticipated expenditures occur, amounts would have to be provided from another source, i.e. other County fund reserves or contingencies. Reducing reserves could negatively impact the cost applied process, which allocates charges to each program so that programs can pass those charges on to grant, state, and federally funded programs resulting in the County maximizing revenues thereby benefiting all county programs. Later on, when the liability is paid, programs which should receive the charge may not exist. Therefore grant funding, state and federal funding, fees and charges would be lost forever.”

R7: The personnel practice allowing Sheriff’s Department Captains and Lieutenants to use their respective 96 or 80 hours of personal management leave for election activities should be amended to preclude the use of such time for election activities. Response to R7: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Employees are allowed to utilize their personal time off (i.e., management leave, compensatory time off, vacation leave) as they see fit. The County does not have the authority to limit an employee’s activities while the employee is on approved leave time. Nor does the County have the authority to limit their employees’ political activities while they are utilizing their own time, as it would be deemed a violation of their civil rights.

R8: STAR volunteers should receive training in appropriate election campaign behavior and be held accountable to the same standards as the sworn deputies. Response to R8: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. This training will be completed by December 31, 2002. Responses Required for Findings

R9: The Cohen and Associates Report of 2000 needs to be updated. It should set forth current county demographics and future trends. It should include not just numbers of juvenile anticipated to become wards in detention but also other relevant information such as gender, age, type of problems and type of programs that will be needed. Response to R9: The recommendation has been implemented. The Probation Department completed a comprehensive Needs Assessment update in January of 2002.This Needs Assessment included information as outlined by the Grand Jury, and included treatment needs, detention needs, and was accompanied by a Grant Request to the Board of Corrections for additional Grant funding. Unfortunately, El Dorado County was not recommended to receive this funding.

R10: Participating school districts should keep files of clippings with corresponding purchase orders for printed advertisements and print-outs of web site postings in conjunction with advertised job openings, including positions for contract employees like ROP instructors. Response to R10:

R11: Participating school districts should review student enrollment in ROP classes such as computer training to ascertain that all enrollees meet the criteria for ROP vocational instruction. Response to R11:

R12: The CIP should be placed on a proposed list by the DGS director, CAO's Office, and Risk Management in order of priority, based on ADA compliance requirements, life/health/safety issues, and other established criteria. Response to R12: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. See explanation for R11.

R13: Assuming the Board is willing to delegate authority to the CAO based on the reasons set forth in the Grand Jury's Report on the CAO/CEO dated January 23, 2002, the CAO should determine, and explain to the Board, the reasons why each CIP project was not contracted or completed before recommending re- authorization of that project in the following fiscal year. Response to R13: The recommendation has not yet been implement but will be implemented in the future. The CAO/CEO will work with the Department of General Services, will provide information to the Board regarding current-year CIP projects that require rebudgeting in subsequent fiscal years during the FY 03/04 budget process. 138

R14: If CIP projects are not contracted or completed within the fiscal year, the Board should re-authorize each specific project for the following fiscal year only after determining to its satisfaction the reasons why projects were not contracted or completed as planned. Response to R14: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. This step will be included within the fy 03/04 budget process.

R15: The Board and the DGS Director should review the current ordinances on bidding requirements for service contracts. The Board should consider revising policies and ordinances for such contracts to increase the limit from $10,000 to $15,000. County ordinances requiring bids for New Facility Projects, Carryover Projects, and New Park Development Projects costing less than $15,000 appear to be out- of-date and do not reflect increased costs resulting from inflation. Response to R15: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. This respondent agrees with this recommendation. The DGS will work in coordination with County Counsel to bring forward recommendations to the Board for consideration within the next six months.

R16: The Board should increase the present $499.99 limit of signature authorization for materials and supplies to $999.99 to expedite work by DGS personnel on installation, repair, and maintenance projects. Response to R16: The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. This respondent agrees that the $499 limit for Department signature for materials and supplies should be amended. The Purchasing Ordinance revisions should be before the Board of Supervisors by October 30, 2002. These Ordinance revisions will include increasing this limit.

R17: The Board should take appropriate action to approve and acquire new call accounting system software. This is a matter of urgency because the Communications Division cannot obtain software support for the original call accounting system. Response to R17: The recommendation will not be implanted because it not warranted. The Communications Division may be transferred to the IS Department in September 2002. An evaluation of various cost accounting systems needs to be conducted by the IS Department. Technology and costs vary considerably for these types of systems and warrant a careful evaluation by staff with the appropriate expertise. An analysis of the need will be conducted following a final determination of where this program will reside. 139

R18: The Board should take appropriate action to transfer Fleet Services and Airports from DGS back to DOT. Response to R18: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. In 1997 both the Airports and the Fleet Management program were transferred from the Department of Transportation to the DGS. The Board of Supervisors, at that time, felt that the DOT should be divested of all functions that were not specifically related to the road program. Both programs enjoyed significant savings due to the lower overhead rate charge by the DGS versus that charged by DOT. Also the Airport program involves significant public interface with the Airport users and Advisory Committees and the DGS was felt to be better equipped to deal with these groups. The Board believes these programs have functioned fairly well, even under a revolving door of directors. With the new director, and every indication of stability, these programs are appropriately placed.

R19: A complete review and analysis of the formula used to establish the vehicle "fleet rate" in DGS should be undertaken by the DGS Director, the CAO, and the Board to determine why the overhead costs in the DOT formula and the overhead costs in the DGS formula are different. The Board should receive a full explanation of the reasons for any change in the "fleet rate" which would result from transferring Fleet Services from DGS to DOT. Response to R19: The recommendation has not been implemented because it is unreasonable. As stated above in F45 each department will optimize staff and funding in order to achieve the highest level of service. Overhead costs will vary considerably depending on whether or not line or overhead staff is used to complete various work. In addition there are pay differences for various positions that can do the same work. Since the Board is not considering moving the Fleet program to DOT, the exercise of reviewing past data would not be useful.

R20: The DGS Director should immediately order the installation of a system that will require the identification of the county employee, the vehicle, and the vehicle's mileage before pumping fuel at the county fuel pump. Employees who attempt to bypass these identification requirements should be identified by the system, reported to the appropriate department, and disciplined. Response to R20: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The new Fleet Supervisor has begun an evaluation of the existing Gas Boy fueling system. The strategy will be to either upgrade that fueling system or purchase a newer system that can accommodate those features identified by the Grand Jury. A decision on this should be made within the next six to eight months. 140

R21: If the Board does not adopt the recommendation to transfer Fleet Services back to DOT, the DGS Director, the CAO, and the Board should consider providing budget support, training, and authorizing positions for "Extra Help" in DGS. Response to R21: The recommendation has been implemented. The Fleet Unit has been allocated considerable funding for extra-help to assist during peak periods. We also have been successful is securing a job training volunteer who has provided considerable support to the unit over the last six months.

R22: The DGS Director, the CAO, and the Board, with the assistance of HRD, should initiate a thorough analysis of the compensation schedule for the authorized position of Airports Supervisor. Response to R22: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. By October 1, 2002 the DGS will begin working with the Human Resources Department to conduct an analysis of this position description and salary range.

R23: The Board should revise policies and adopt ordinances, which clearly state which department -- DGS or DOT -- is responsible for and has primary jurisdiction over Airports. Response to R23: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. Although the Board action to bring the Airport program to DGS was very clear, cleanup of existing policies, ordinances with the DGS designation will be made by December 1, 2002.

R24: The Board should recognize and take appropriate action to remedy the County's lack of expertise in the area of cable television franchise fee negotiations and collection of fees. Response to R24: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The Cable Franchise program is intended to be transferred to the IS Department from DGS in the FY 02/03 budget approval process. It will be the responsibility of the IS Department to insure that training is made available when staff assignments are made.

R25: The Board should authorize immediately the full budget allocation which was requested by the RPPA to contract for property appraisals in the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor. Response to R25: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. The DGS has requested funding for the SPTC in the FY 02/03 budget. Budget hearings are scheduled for the second week in September 2002. The Board will consider this request in context with all other budget requests and needs. 141

R26: The DGS Director, with the assistance of the CAO's office, should be allowed to present the Department’s entire budget request to the Board, including detailed justifications for expenditures, to assist the Board in understanding the unique and critical functions of DGS. Response to R26: The recommendation has been implemented. The Fiscal year 2002/03 budget hearings will allow the DGS to present its entire budget request.

R27: The Board should establish a new method of budget preparation for DGS, which allows for full and open discussion of budget needs and requirements by the DGS Director, division managers and supervisors, the Fiscal and Administrative Manager, the CAO's budget analyst, and Board members. This new method must allow adequate time for input directly to the Board from supervisors and managers on recommendations. Response to R27: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The County has a budget process which permits a full and open discussion of all budgets. Some budgets require more discussion and some less. In addition to permitting full

R28: The Board must establish new priorities in budget allocations for DGS staff recruitment, training, retention, and critical functions. Response to R28: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The County has a budget process whereby the needs of all programs are considered. General Services’ needs will be considered within the context of that process. Every department and program provides a critical need and/or service to its users. The Board must consider all of these needs and make the difficult allocation decision based on the needs perceived and the priorities developed.

R29: The DGS Director should identify, and the Board should authorize the transfer of, personnel and responsibilities before permitting budget proposals to be developed outside of DGS for divisions and units within DGS. Response to R29: The recommendation has been implemented. Although the Respondent does not quite understand the reference here, it presumes this

July 01, 2002 — Citizens' Complaints ElDorado County Grand Jury

7 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

July 01, 2002 — Public School Buildings and Grounds Committees Inspections of Public Schools Reason for the Report The 200l/2002 El

4 pages 13 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 13 findings

F2: Concerns addressed in the 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 Grand Jury’s Reports, as they related to the schools visited by the 2001/2002 Grand Jury, have been addressed and corrected.

F3: Construction dates of the schools, as reflected in the attached exhibit, do not necessarily reflect their present condition, because of intervening additions and modernization.

F4: Many of the schools visited by the Grand Jury members have either finished or are in the process of modernization.

F5: Local school districts have difficulties obtaining funding for modernization. Although schools can apply for modernization projects, funding frequently is not available even when a school qualifies for state grants.

F6: Additionally, local school districts are often unable to generate matching funds which are required for state grants.

F7: Edwin Markham School has the following structural problems: · Laminated beams have sustained significant damage from years of exposure to the elements. · Runoff from the slope of the roofing at the intersection of the main roof and the covered walkways creates pooling of water, resulting in substantial damage. · The parking lot has numerous cracks and potholes, creating a dangerous condition which could give rise to potential liability. · The blacktop basketball play area is used for play during school hours and as a traffic egress in the mornings and afternoons. Such use for egress is potentially dangerous because there are no lanes indicated for cars and there are no designated areas for students to wait for pick up. · The maintenance shed is being utilized for storage of equipment leaving maintenance personnel without an inside work area.

Related Recommendations (4)

R2: The roof at Edwin Markham School should be repaired and/or redesigned to eliminate pooling of water.

R3: The parking lot at Edwin Markham School should be repaired and resurfaced.

R5: The basketball play area at Edwin Markham School should be repaired and resurfaced.

R6: A storage shed for maintenance equipment and general storage, with an inside work area for maintenance personnel, should be added at Edwin Markham School. Responses Required For Findings

F8: Edwin Markham School has an outstanding computer science lab that could be a model for other schools.

F9: The Principal of William Brooks School recognized and corrected a significant traffic problem, improving the traffic flow for the dropping off and picking up of students.

F10: Camino School personnel have corrected problems noted by the 1999/2000 Grand Jury in a timely manner.

F11: The Principal of El Dorado High School, through diligent efforts, secured a grant for the replacement of all the school’s computers. The school’s new computer lab is now equipped with more than fifty stations with Internet capabilities.

F12: The Principal of Charles Brown School, in an effort to preserve aesthetics and save trees, is redesigning and using materials other than concrete in some areas to decrease damage done by tree roots.

F13: The playground equipment area at Indian Creek School has been completely reorganized. Unsafe equipment has been removed, old equipment has been updated and new equipment has been added. Surface materials in the play equipment area have been changed to make it safer for the children.

F14: The Pinewood School bus barn has been converted to a maintenance/storage unit. This has eliminated the hazard of having the busses in the schoolyard.

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Laminated beams at Edwin Markham School should be repaired or replaced.

R4: The traffic flow system at Edwin Markham School should be redesigned to eliminate safety hazards.

May 10, 2002 — Audit & Finance Committee Independent Management Audit During the course of its investigations, the 2001/2002 El Dorado*

45 pages 17 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings

F1: 1 The County does not have a long range strategic plan with goals and objectives set by the Board of Supervisors to guide the allocation of County funds and resources. Without this, budget and program priorities are set primarily by County staff without the benefit of structured input from elected officials and the public. This has been particularly true in past years when the budget was adopted with very little discussion at the Board of Supervisors public hearings.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: 1 Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to implement a strategic planning process for the County to include: an assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the County organization; input from all key stakeholders; a mission statement and vision for the future of the County; goals, objectives and action plans to achieve the mission and vision; and, a system for measuring and reporting the County's success in achieving the goals and objectives;

F2: 1 Using County budget documents it is not possible to determine the status of capital projects or whether the projects are over or under budget. Capital project status reporting in the budget would be improved by including comparisons of originally proposed and actual costs and project timing.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: 1 plan now in progress and direct the General Services Director continue with reported efforts to develop such a plan for County facilities. The plans should include proposed priorities for projects, identification of revenue sources for projects, and proposed time schedules and milestones; Follow a process of collecting input from the public and other County departments on the

F3: П YTD Comments Qrt Result 4 Calculation: Number of installed and redeployed desktops divided by the annual budget of the PC/LAN Solutions and Support Team. MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, SupportMagic Call Tracking software and Data Source: the budget system. Jack Coffin Activity Leader: рј і 2. Capital Projects F2.1 Using County budget documents it is not possible to determine the status of capital projects or whether the projects are over or under budget. Capital project status reporting in the budget would be improved by including comparisons of originally proposed and actual costs and project timing. F2.2 Funding and priority setting for El Dorado County's facility and transportation capital projects takes place without benefit of a multi-year capital improvement or facility master plan. As a result, department managers can set project priorities without formalized direction from the Board of Supervisors and the public. These priorities may or may not reflect the highest and best use of limited resources in the opinion of Board members and the public but a method doesn't exist to reach consensus, formalize and update those priorities. F2.3 Both the General Services and Transportation departments have relatively new directors who have developed project tracking systems that allow for better project status reporting. The Department of Transportation has a five year capital project plan prepared in 1995 but it has never been updated. Staff is currently preparing a new document for review by the Board of Supervisors. With adoption of this plan and a similar one that County management reports is in the planning stages for County facility projects, project priorities will be clearer, the budget process simplified and department accountability for completing projects on time and on schedule improved. There are two primary types of multi-year capital projects in El Dorado County. First are construction and rehabilitation of County facilities such as parks and public buildings that are the responsibility of the General Services Department. Second are road, bridge and transportation system projects that are the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. These projects often span multiple years so their presentation in the budget document is different than presentation of annual operating revenues and expenditures for most departments. County Facility Projects The budget for the General Services Department includes a list of County facility projects categorized as either carryover or new. This list is first presented in the proposed budget submitted to the Board of Supervisors in June and then updated for the budget addenda report in September. Differences between the two lists for FY 2001-02 are shown in Exhibit 2.1. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Capital Projects Exhibit 2.1 Difference in General Services Department Capital Projects between the Proposed and Addenda Budget Documents FY 2001-02 Proposed Budget Addenda Change Budget 45 72 27 # Carryover Projects $2,827,090 $2,077,786 $749,304 Carryover Funding # New Projects 22 43 21 New Funding $1,181,900 $2,358,761 $1,176,861 # Projects Total 67 115 48 $3,259,686 $5,185,851 Funding Total $1,926,165 Source: FY 2001-02 Proposed Budget & Workplan and Budget Addenda Report As can be seen, there is a significant change in the number of projects and funding levels between the two documents. This reflects the timing of the two budget documents. The proposed budget presented to the Board in June has to be submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer by the departments by the end of March/early April. The September budget addenda information is prepared five to six months later. By then, more construction activity has taken place during the prime construction season and the department has more information regarding which projects will be carried over to the next year. In addition, the original budget submission does not include carryover parks projects at all which added 19 more carryover projects and $371,456 in costs to the carryover projects in the budget addenda. With a 59 percent change in funding between the June and September lists, the Board's approval of projects in June is somewhat meaningless. Besides changes between the two lists, it is not possible to tell from either the status of the carryover projects in terms of time or costs. The lists simply present all projects with no indication of whether they are 10 percent or 90 percent done, when project completion is expected, or whether they are under or over budget. The lists are not prioritized so it is not possible to tell the order in which projects will be worked on and completed. While there are many projects in progress and compilation of information on these projects can be complex, a simple report showing the original budget and schedule compared to actual costs and schedule could be readily compiled from Department records with a column for briefly explaining significant variances in time or cost. The Department already maintains a project tracking list for use internally by management. This document could be modified for reporting to the Board and for inclusion in the budget documents. In addition to better reporting of the status of projects, the General Services Department needs a multi-year master plan, approved by the Board of Supervisors, that establishes project priorities and includes estimated funding and timing for each project over a multi-year period such as five years. With agreed upon project priorities, Department management would have clear direction about how to allocate their resources. Project priorities and available funding would also be Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Capital Projects better aligned with such a plan as it would allow for determination of what should be done given limited resources and what cannot be done. New projects could still be added and planned projects deleted after the plan is adopted if priorities change or funding becomes unavailable. The difference would be that the process would be formalized so the Board would have to make a conscious choice to delete a project rather than a project remaining on the list but never getting done. The interim Chief Administrative Officer reports that plans are underway at the time of preparation of this report to commence preparation of such a plan, including financing plans, for County facilities. Department of Transportation Capital Projects and Maintenance Work Transportation capital projects are presented in a different format in the budget than General Services projects. In the FY 2001-02 budget addenda document, the Department presents a list of approximately $24 million worth of capital improvement projects. For each project, a breakdown of project costs (labor, overhead, fixed assets, etc.) and the project's revenue source(s) are presented. The budget addenda document submitted to the Board of Supervisors in September lists 25 capital projects but does not show the timing or funding status of any of the projects or sequencing or priorities for the coming year (see Attachment 2). As with the General Services Department budget, information is not presented comparing planned and actual costs and timing of the Department's capital improvement projects. Nor are projects prioritized in accordance with a multi-year plan approved and updated by the Board of Supervisors. A five year roads capital improvement project plan was prepared in 1996 but it has not been updated since according to Department of Transportation management. The Department's planned road maintenance projects are also shown with the same cost breakdown as presented for capital projects and with revenue source(s) identified (see Though these projects tend to be single year in scope compared to capital Attachment 3). improvement projects, the work to be done such as patching and overlay, chip seal and traffic signal maintenance, is not prioritized by long term County goals such as achieving an average road condition on the County network by a certain date in the future. If specific priorities such as these were established in a multi-year plan, the Department would have a stronger basis to justify the allocation of its maintenance dollars. Like most counties in California, El Dorado County faces extensive deferred maintenance costs in excess of available resources for road and bridge work. Officially adopted agreed upon priorities are all the more important when need exceeds resources available. The Department of Transportation has prioritized its capital improvement projects by three tiers of priority and is in the process of preparing a new multi-year capital improvement plan. The Department is intending to use this document as a budgetary document as well as a work program so that project priorities and resources available will be linked. Department management's goal is to update the plan annually in advance of the April submittal to the Chief Administrative Officer and Board of Supervisors. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Capital Projects To develop the annual plans and budgets for the two departments' capital improvement plans, a process is needed in advance and in lieu of the budget hearing process in September. By September, or budget adoption time, it is too late to add capital projects which often require a fair amount of advance work to obtain funding or to plan in relation to resources available. Midyear planning workshops with the Board of Supervisors With five year plans in place for both departments, workshops should be held with the Board of Supervisors in January or at a more convenient time but well in advance of budget submission and adoption. The purpose of the workshops should be to revise and update the plans in accordance with any changes in circumstances, funding or Board priorities. From that point on, the plan for the next year should be established and budget submission and adoption should reflect the agreements reached at those workshops. This would make for a more clear and streamlined budget process for capital improvement projects as most of the projects and funding levels would have been previously agreed to or modified well in advance of the Board of Supervisors review and approval of the proposed budget. The Department of Transportation does prepare a monthly report on its capital projects but this report does not include a comparison of planned and actual project timing and costs. While this does not need to be provided to the Board and public on a monthly basis, it would be useful to present it at budget time and once more during the year such as at the annual planning workshop discussed above. Similarly, the General Services Department should prepare such a report for Board review twice a year, once at its planning workshop and again at budget addenda submission time. The list of projects included in the proposed budget in June should match that resulting from the January planning workshop and then be updated for the addenda process in September based on actual projects completed during the prime construction period and identification of carryover projects. Recommendations It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors: Direct the Director of Transportation to complete its draft five year capital improvement R2.1 plan now in progress and direct the General Services Director continue with reported efforts to develop such a plan for County facilities. The plans should include proposed priorities for projects, identification of revenue sources for projects, and proposed time schedules and milestones; Follow a process of collecting input from the public and other County departments on the R2.2 proposed five year plans, and adopt both documents to guide the two department's work plans and budgets; Implement a process where the five year plans for both departments are reviewed and R2.3 updated annually in a workshop with the Board of Supervisors that takes place well in advance of the budget review and hearing process so that department management can Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Capital Projects secure funding and other resources in a timely manner to ensure that the highest priority projects are able to be accomplished in the targeted time frame; and, Direct the Directors of Transportation and General Services to develop and provide R2.4 reports twice a year; once when the proposed budget is submitted to the Board and once at the recommended annual planning workshops, showing all projects in process, comparing original and actual costs and timing, and explaining any variances in either. Costs and Benefits The General Services Department is planning to use the services of an outside consultant in preparation of their multi-year facilities plan. The cost for this is unknown as of the writing of There would not be any other new direct costs associated with the above this report. recommendations. Benefits would include a better use of resources by focusing the General Services and Transportation departments on specific agreed upon capital project priorities and road maintenance work, a more streamlined budget process for capital projects, and greater accountability by department managers for delivery of projects on time and budget. Responses Required for Findines El Dorado County Board of Supervisors F2.1 through F2.4 Responses Required for Recommendations El Dorado County Board of Supervisors R2.1 through R2.4 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation COSICENIER 305 DOf - CAPITAL PROJECTS EL DORADO COUNTY 08/24/2001 WORK PROGRAM 2001-2002 BUDGET YEAR DINER FIXED VEHICLE OVERHEAD SERVICES INTRAFUND REVENUE 1A1RK REVENUE L SUPPLIES CHARGES USAGE CHARGES TRANSFER$ LABOR ASSETS TOTAL DESCRIPIION SOURCE AMOUNT ORDER SUPPORT TO O THER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 0 0 CONTRIBUTION TO OTHER AGENCY 0 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 STATE-RSIP 182.9 52101 50,000 0 US 50 WEST BOUND-PONDEROSA 6 N SHINGLE SIGNALIZATION 0 1,556,300 22,000 0 114,580 1,692,880 STATE-RSIP 182.6d1 0 53108 300,000 CALTRANS 300,000 RA2 1 STATE SYSTEM T,IM 1,092,880 NWY 50 IIOV LANE EDN 10 SHINGLE SPRINGS 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 53110 RA2 1 STATE SYSTEM: TIM 5,000 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 FORHI ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - CITY 53112 150,000 222,000 0 О 0 1,556,300 0 119,580 1,897,880 CATEGORY TOTAL 1,897,880 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS MISSOURI FLAT INTERCHANGE PSR 71317 457,880 28,500 0 0 0 99,620 586,000 0 FUND BALANCE EDCTC CARRYOVER 96,706 RA2 1 STATE SYSTEM TIM 489,294 581,000 1,524,000 0 71318 EDIT BLVD INTERCHANGE PSR 0 0 0 145,000 2,250,000 EL DORADO HILLS RIF/SALMON FAL 750,000 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 1,500,000 CAMINO INTERCHANGE 0 0 О 71319 0 0 0 41,669 41,669 FUND BALANCE EDCTC CARRYOVER 31,669 RA2 2.5 STATE TIM FEE 10,000 UNITE ROCK RD REALIGII14EIIT 27,500 2,500 0 0 120,000 150,000 0 EL DORADO HILLS RIF/SALMOII FAL 71329 0 150,000 0 2,134,901 682,500 0 0 0 38,849 2,856,250 EDIT BLVD E/B DIAGONAL EL DORADO HILLS RIF/SALMOII FAL 71350 2,856,250 0 128,953 08/24/2001 EL DORADO COUNTY COSICENTER 305 DOI - CAPITAL PROJECTS WORK PROGRAM 1001-2002 BUDGET YEAR REVENUE REVENUE INTRAFUND FIXED VEHICLE OVERHEAD SERVICES 0111ER WORK CHARGES TRANSFERS 10fAL SOURCE AMOUNT CHARGES ASSETS USAGE L SUPPLIES LABOR DESCRIPTION ORDER TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACT 103,719 0111ER GOVT AGENCIES 15,620 SHVAQ (DMV AIR QUALITY) 13,225 0 0 0 64,000 115,000 3,700 47,300 0 BIKEPATII-EL DORADO HILLS BLVD/fRAHCISCO TO GOVERNORS 71352 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACT 101,775 RAZ 1 STATE SYSTEN : TIN 0 50,000 100,000 100,000 500 О 0 0 49,500 PONDEROSA RD 0 IHIY 50 ROUTE ADOPTION 71353 0 0 0 0 3,608,527 FUND BALANCE - UNRESTRICTED 309,649 Ω 0 3,608,527 ROAD REHABILITATION 72100 FUND BALANCE GOVERNORS CONGEST 1,755,690 TRANSPORTATION TAX IDA 43,188 OPERATING TRANSFERS IN 1,500,000 EL DORADO HILLS RIF/SALMON FAL 0 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 0 0 0 EL 00 HILLS NORTHERLY ALLIGNMENT 72332 1,265,613 TIN 1,265,613 0 0 0 101,438 0 98,750 1,065,425 MISSOURI FLAT/PLEASANT VALLEY CONNECTOR 72334 EL DORADO HILLS RIF/SALMON FAL 1,132,000 0 0 0 663,156 1,132,000 464,344 4,500 0 LATROBE ROAD - WHITE ROCK 0 WETZEL OVIATT 72335 0 0 0 95,000 95,000 TIM 95,000 О 0 0 CAMERON PARK DRIVE PHASE 11 72343 EL DORADO HILLS RIF/SALMON FAL 0 0 166,184 5,673,907 1,352,382 0 4,041,999 1,465,724 0 GRII VLY RD WIDENING/SIIADOWFAX 10 BROWNS RAVINE 72353 TIM 1,588,326 RISC REIMBURSABLE 430,000 LONGTERM ADVANCE 2,303,199 294,717 0 174,693 755,685 TIN 0 0 411,301 0 169,691 GREEN VALLEY RD WIDENING COMMERCIAL AREA B 72354 LONGTERM ADVANCE 460,968 EL DORADO HILLS RIF/SALMON FAL 0 0 106,000 147,500 89,975 0 2,000 39,500 0 GREEN VALLEY RD WIDENING MORMON ISLAND TO FRANCISCO 72355 TIN 57,525 CALTRANS 1,323,473 77,000 COSTCERTER 305 DOT - CAPITAL PROJECTS EL DORADO COUNTY 08/24/2001 WORK PROGRAM 2001-2002 BUDGET YEAR SERVICES OTHER FIXED VEHICLE OVEANEAD INTRAFUND 1RIRK REVENUE REVENUE DESCRIPTION LABOR L SUPPLIES CHARGES ORDER ASSETS USAGE CIIAROES TRANSFERS TOTAL SOURCE AMOUNT I E S (HAZARD ELIH SEC) 500,000 RAZ 1 STATE SYSTEM TIM 746,473 GREEN VALLEY NO 41 MORMON ISLAND 0 1,720,499 667,369 0 0 0 70,001 2,457,869 73349 EL DORADO HILLS RIF/SALMON FAL 1,046,708 TIM 669,206 CIP INIRA DEPARTMENT 65,000 MISC REIMBURSABLE 11,086 LONGTERM ADVANCE 665,869 73351 METAL BEAM GUARDRAILS - 7 LOCATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 15,000 11 E S (HAZARD ELIH SEC) 15,000 BRIDGES/GRIT VLY RD-RECONST GROG 0 DRY CRK 77103 0 18,278 256,000 0 0 0 54,110 328,388 FUND BALANCE RSTP CARRYOVER 135,091 IIBRR (IDLY BRIDGE RE/REII) 193,297 77108 BRIDGES/BRIDGEPORT SCHOOL RD-REPLACE BRGE 398,804 27,000 0 0 0 0 49,780 475,584 FUND BALANCE RSTP CARRYOVER 163,706 RSTP STATE EXCHANGE 205,286 HBRR (IIWY BRIDGE RE/REN) 106,592 77109 GR11 VLY RD BRIDGE 0 TENNESSEE 0 140,000 10,500 0 0 0 24,500 175,000 FUND BALANCE RSTP CARRYOVER 35,088 RSTP STATE EXCHANGE 83,912 IIBRR (NWY BRIDGE RE/REII) 56,000 SALMON FALLS BRIDGE 2 AMERICAN RIVER 77110 139,800 4,684 0 0 0 0 20,200 164,684 FUND BALANCE RSTP CARRYOVER 11,566 RSTP STATE EXCHANGE 11,470 HORN (IIWY BRIDGE HIRER) 141,648 0 77112 BRIDGES - HT MURPHY 0 AMERICAN RIVER 135,000 0 0 0 0 23,606 158,606 FUND BALANCE RSTP CARRYOVER 28,606 RSTP STATE EXCHANGE 10,000 IIBRR (IIWY BRIDGE RE/REII) 120,000 BRIDGE BARRIER RAILING 77113 0 98,000 0 0 0 0 23,022 121,022 FUND BALANCE RSTP CARRYOVER 3,545 RSTP STATE EXCHANGE 11,241 IIBRR (IIWY BRIDGE RE/REII) 106,236 baD3 rrt Co rt (D W n а COSTCLYTER 305 DOT - CAPITAL PROJECTS EL DORADO COUNTY 08/24/2001 WORK PROGRAM 2001-2002 BUDGET YEAR SERVICES OTHER FIXED VEHICLE OVERHEAD INTRAFUND REVENUE REVENUE MRK UROLN UESCRI1-Tfoil LABOR A SUPPLIES CHARGES ASSETS USAGE CHARGES TRANSFERS TOTAL SOURCE AMOUNT COHIIHGEHCY - PROJECTS 1101 COMPLETED 79999 0 0 0 0 0 -626,186 0 -626,186 TIM -626,186 CATEGORY TOTAL 0 15,800,126 6,168,719 0 0 1,600,865 23,569,710 0 23,569,710 SUBTOTAL 0 17,356,426 6,390,719 0 0 0 1,720,445 25,467,590 25,467,590 TOTAL AVOW ED COME Ω Ω Ω Ω 0 0 - • COSICENTER 306 001 - ROADS EL DORADO COUNTY 08/24/2001 WORK PROGRAM 2001-2002 BUDGET YEAR tA)RK SERVICES OTHER FIXED VEHICLE OVERHEAD INTRAFUND REVENUE REVENUE DESCRIPTION LABOR L SUPPLIES CHARGES ASSETS USAGE ORDER CHARGES TRANSFERS TOTAL SOURCE AMOUNT ROAD MAINTENACE PROJECTS 11,628 161,650 0 0 41100 IRAF SIG L LGT MATH\WS RD 1,663 5,145 180,086 0 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 180,086 13,000 0 0 41101 SIGNAL MAINT - TO 0 0 0 0 13,000 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 13,000 76,654 18,050 I NSTALL NEW SGH, SIRP L Sf1Y DEV/WS RD 0 0 43100 11,689 36,155 0 142,578 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 142,578 43101 INSTALL SGH, SIRP A SFTY OEV/CATTLE GUARD INSTALL TO 3,037 3,150 319 986 0 0 0 7,492 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 7,492 44100 PATCHING/OVERLAY PAIC11111G (BASE RECONST.) 265,812 344,356 0 0 123,300 116,585 0 850,061 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 550,061 PATCIIIIG/VS O/L PATCH - 10 (BASE RECONST.) 44101 99,209 192,385 0 0 74,493 53,504 0 419,591 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 419,591 45136 CONTRACT OVERLAY-EL DORADO HILLS BUS PARK О 36,000 0 0 0 0 0 36,000 MISC REIMBURSABLE 18,000 OPERA71NG TRANSFERS IN 18,000 CHIP SEAL/WS RD 46100 297,113 481,153 0 0 139,783 131,667 0 1,049,716 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 1,049,716 46101 CHIPSEAL TO 0 230,000 0 0 0 0 230,000 0 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 230,000 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 48100 43,714 1,900 0 1,476 0 14,588 0 61,678 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 61,678 MAINTAINED MILEAGE 150 13,214 Ω 0 36 48101 4,346 0 17,746 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 17.746 ROUT MAIN/RD SUR POT IILS 48102 536,044 302,926 О 0 313,323 251,899 0 1,404,192 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 1,404,192 ROUT MAIN/AC GERMS 48103 3,834 9,297 0 0 2,226 1,827 0 17,184 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 17,184 ROUT MATH/CRACK SEALS 48104 27,778 30,300 0 0 18,111 14,016 0 90,205 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 90,205 7,895 0 0 ROUT MAIN/RD SUR GRAD 48105 0 3,696 3,331 0 14,922 DEPARTMENT.DISCRETIOHARY 14,922 87,839 162,995 Ω Ω 75,470 COSTCENTER 306 DOT - ROADS EL DORADO COUNTY 08/24/2001 WORK PROGRAM 2001-2002 BUDGET YEAR Won K OTHER SERVICES FIXED VEHICLE OVERHEAD INTRATUND REVENUE REVENGE OROLIT DESCRI1111011 LABOR R SUPPLIES CHARGES ASSETS USAGE CHARGES TRANSFERS TOTAL SOORCE AMOUNT 156,884 1,208 ROUT MAIN/RD SIDE DITCH 0 86,882 48108 0 72,512 0 317,486 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 317,486 ROUT MAINT/ DRAINAGE EASHEIII 48109 759 0 0 0 369 333 0 1,461 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 1,461 ROIL MAIN/SWEEPING 41,701 1,200 0 48110 0 24,884 20,122 87,901 0 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 87,907 ROUT MAIN/CLN-RPR CULVERT 280,924 46111 22,647 0 140,067 125,593 0 0 569,231 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 569,231 68111 ROUT HAITI/TNCE, GORL, OAR REP 8,354 10,000 0 0 4,066 3,664 0 26,084 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES/INSPECT 5,000 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 21,084 RaOT RAIN/SIGH HAIRY - 115 48114 278,130 24,467 0 78,784 0 128,779 0 $10,160 MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES/INSPECT 5,000 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 505,160 48115 ROUT MAIN/CNTLR L MRK HAITI - WS 334,573 129,117 0 0 66,208 155,792 0 705,690 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 705,690 ROUT MAIN/DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 48116 0 15,000 39,000 0 0 0 0 54,000 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 54,000 48118 ROOT MAIN/8RDG MAIN ; 79,741 0 56,417 0 38.849 34,975 0 209,984 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 209,984 46119 YARD MAINTENANCE 10,777 4,097 0 5,434 0 4,799 0 25,107 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 25,107 ROOT MAINT/EROSION 48122 1,639 1,400 0 О 1,256 902 О 5,197 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 5,197 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 48123 4,810 0 0 0 2,347 2,110 0 9,267 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 9,267 ROUT HAIRY/ SPRAYING 48124 22,784 48,067 0 0 11,098 9,993 0 91,942 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 91,942 48127 DURAPATCHING 126,642 53,193 0 О 68,777 58,383 0 306,995 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 306,995 SIGN REMOVAL IN ROW 48129 4,149 0 0 0 148 5,828 0 10,125 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 10,125 48131 SIGN MAINTENANCE - TO 1,063 6,789 2.900 COSFCENTER 306 DOT - ROADS EL DORADO COUNTY 08/24/2001 WORK PROGRAM 2001-20OZ BUDGET YEAR WORK SERVICES OTHER FIXED VEHICLE OVERHEAD INTRAFUND REVENUE REVENUE ORDER DESCRIPTION i SUPPLIES LABOR CHARGES ASSETS USAGE CHARGES TRANSFERS TOTAL SOURCE AMOUR I 48132 CENTERLINE HAIRY - TO 16,870 22,950 0 0 3,724 8,017 0 51,561 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 51,561 ROUT MAIHT/FNCE,GURL,PAR REP TO 48134 380 0 0 0 190 167 0 737 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 737 R0111 MAIIII/BRIDGE HAIRY T 0 3110 48135 Ω 0 0 190 167 0 737 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 737 48901 SAFETY PROJ - 2 WAY LEFT TURN LN/PLEASANT VLY RD E/O O.S. 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 10,000 45902 SAFETY PROJ - 2 WAY LEFT TURN LM/SUNSET TO FRENCH CRK 0 15,000 0 0 0 0 . 0 15,000 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 15,000 48903 SAFETY PROJ - LEFT RUN L11/GREEN VLY 0 W DEER VLY 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 10,000 48904 SAFETY PROD - ALL WAY SLOP/COLD SPROS 0 GOLD HILL 0 15,000 0 0 0 0 О 15,000 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 15,000 48908 SAFETY PROJ - LRDSCPE ISLANDS/CCC TO DUMP/SPREAD ROCK 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 О 30,000 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 30,000 49100 SNOW REMOVAL/WS 90,408 45,213 0 0 30,828 35,275 0 201,724 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 201,724 49101 SNOW REMOVAL/TO 697,396 76,437 4,768 Ω 271,154 217,112 0 1,266,867 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 1,266,867 49275 DOT/FOREST SERVICE CUL-DE-SACS 31,031 69,615 0 0 7,839 26,067 0 134,552 DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY 134,552 CATEGORY TOTAL 3,744,080 2,488,245 43,768 0 1,642,119 1,623,396 0 9,541,600 9,541,608 SUPPORT TO O THER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 50000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 59,230 0 0 0 0 52,850 -112,080 0 . 52101 CONIRIOUTION TO 0111ER AGENCY 0 0 86,000 0 0 0 0 86,000 TRANSPORTATION TAX IDA 86,000 CATEGORY TOTAL 59,230 86,000 0 0 52,850 0 -112,080 86,000 86,000 ь rt QQ rt FD W W 3. Budget Timing, Information and Analysis The Board of Supervisors receives very comprehensive, well organized reports on F3.1 the status of the budget at mid-year but no further formal reports until they receive the proposed budget for the next fiscal year in June. As stewards of the County's financial resources, more regularly produced status reports and updates should be provided with less detail than the mid-year reports but with enough information to allow the Board to monitor performance and receive early warnings of potential fiscal problems. The County's financial information system allows for production of a wide variety F3.2 of ad-hoc reports and analysis of expenditures and revenues accessible to all department managers. A monthly report to the Board showing actual expenditures and revenues by department, with a projection of the County's financial position at year end, could easily be produced and would facilitate more Board and public involvement in monitoring the County's fiscal status. It would eliminate surprise developments such as the increase from $12.5 to $21.5 million in fund balance available reported between the proposed and budget addenda for FY 2001-02. Information of this sort would also provide a basis for other questions and analyses of situations when revenues or expenditures are not at the level originally projected. The analysis of the proposed budget each year consumes many months of staff time F3.3 but largely focuses on incremental appropriations requested by the departments or recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer but not the baseline budget. Oftentimes, savings can be realized in the baseline budget by improving the efficiency of operations, reorganizing or consolidating programs or increasing revenues. One of the most effective means of identifying opportunities for savings in the baseline budget is through departme ntal performance audits. The major points of public presentation and discussion about the County's budget are: 1) the mid-year budget report to the Board of Supervisors; 2) presentation of the proposed annual budget in June; 3) presentation of the addenda budget in August; and, 4) budget hearings in September. At all four points, a great deal of useful information is provided to the Board covering all departments, revenue sources and operational issues. The information is prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer and, in the past, discussion about the contents were largely between the Board and the Chief Administrative Officer and the Auditor-Controller. For the FY 2001-02 budget, the process was expanded when the Board of Supervisors requested that each department make a presentation about their budget and operations. The mid-year budget report provided in February 2002 contained discussion of projected fund balance, expenditures and revenues by department, a discussion of expected increases in health benefits costs, detailed revenue projections (summarizing projections prepared by the Auditor- Controller), capital project highlights, a discussion of the State budget, a regional economic forecast, salary projections for FY 2002-03, and departmental savings. It provides a good deal of information of interest to the Board of Supervisors, department managers and the public. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis The proposed budget document for the subsequent fiscal year is provided in June of each year and includes detailed revenue projections and proposed expenditures for each department. Information for each department is also presented including staffing detail, descriptions of all major programs operated by the department, workload indicators, actual revenues and expenditures for the previous two fiscal years and proposed revenues and expenditures by major programs or costs centers for all departments. An overview of the County's financial situation is presented including detailed revenue estimates for the budget year, changes in State and other funding sources, and roll ups of expenditure data by fund and functional areas. The third and final budget report prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer is provided in August. This report provides final revenue and expenditure estimates for the year after the State budget has been adopted and actual fund balances are known based on better and more complete prior year actual data. While all three reports provided to the Board of Supervisors include a substantial amount of useful information, there are no routinely produced reports between these three to keep the Board abreast of the overall fiscal situation of the County and to have early warnings of potential problems. Budget related items do come up at Board meetings if an individual department is requesting mid-year supplemental funding or if the supervisors request information on a particular department or a budget related topic. However, fiscal information is not otherwise routinely reported in a standardized report to the Board to allow for comparisons and trend analyses throughout the year. Timing of County Budget Review and Approval Department budget staff spend many months of the year going through their internal budget review and preparation processes and then explaining and defending their proposals to the Chief Administrative Office before they are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Then, for many departments, there are additional analyses and expenditure plans to be prepared between June and September as actual fund balance amounts become known, the State budget is adopted and other adjustments are made. The net result is a lengthy process consuming more than half the year and a budget mostly prepared six months earlier being reviewed by the Board of Supervisors in September. While the County is subject to State timing requirements governing the preparation and adoption of the budget, attempts should be made to complete more of the budget process in June so that fewer staff hours are consumed in duplicative efforts between June and September and so the budget reviewed and discussed by the Board of Supervisors is more current. A review of changes between the proposed and addenda budget for FY 2001-02 shows that budget appropriations increased by $23 million between June and September. Most of the change, or 77.3 percent, was in the General Fund and Roads Fund. Exhibit 3.1 presents the changes for all funds. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis Exhibit 3.1 Changes between Proposed and Addenda Budget By Fund, FY 2001-02 Total Proposed Addenda Difference Budget Difference Budget Fund 41.2% $31,856,908 $41,367,148 $9,510,240 Roads Fund 36.1% 156,236,963 147,900,815 8,336,148 General Fund 2,590,499 11.2% 19,719,350 17,128,851 Health Department 1,729,801 7.5% 3,673,718 5,403,519 Accumulated Capital Outlay 713,411 3.1% 9,749,849 10,463,260 Mental Health Services 487,860 2.1% 487,860 Tobacco Settlement 0.7% 2,617,875 157,004 2,460,871 Road District 0.2% 8,026,027 39,974 Community Services 7,986,053 0.0% 20,000 20,000 Special Aviation 0.0% 5,000 5,000 Fish & Game 0.0% 300,000 300,000 EIR Development Fees -2.2% (504,615) 4,918,455 4,413,840 Erosion Control $23,060,322 100.0% $226,000,520 $249,060,842 TOTAL Source: Proposed and Addenda Budgets, FY 2002-03 The $9.5 million in Roads Fund monies was mostly from capital project carryovers and increases in estimated fund balance. For the General Fund, the increase was primarily generated from carryover fund balance, mostly due to a combination of capital project carryover, actual expenditures being less than budgeted, and actual revenues being more than budgeted the previous year. The fourth largest contributor to the increase, Accumulated Capital Outlay, was also the result of an increase in fund balance available compared to what was estimated in the proposed budget due to more projects being carried over from the previous year than anticipated in June. By producing more detailed projections of revenues and expenditures throughout the year, particularly in the second half, and projecting year-end fund balance monthly, the County's estimates of carryover fund balance in June should become more accurate and closer to the amounts now not identified until September. With better tracking and reporting of capital project expenditures and timing, as recommended in Section 2 of this report, and monthly projections of year-end fund balance for the Roads and Accumulated Capital Outlay funds, the discrepancy between the June and September budget for capital project carryover funds should also be decreased. The net result of more accurate forecasting would be fewer changes between June and September and less work for all County staff in creating and analyzing a second budget document with numerous revisions for the September hearings. Though the State budget could be and probably will be changed to some extent between June and September, most of it should be known and in place by June based on the Governor's budget. County estimates of the budget in June should be reasonably accurate for most of the State funding received. The County should endeavor to reduce discrepancies between the two budgets Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis and complete most of the budget process in June, with only some minor changes to be approved in September. While production of the three budget reports that the Board now receives involves a substantial amount of work for the Chief Administrative Officer and department fiscal staffs, other regularly provided information between these three reports is needed. Current budget information is readily available on the County's Financial Management Information System (FAMIS) and could be produced without extensive staff work. Of key importance for a monthly report is: 1. Budgeted vs. actual expenditures and revenues by department and major revenue source 2. Explanations of major variances between budgeted and actual expenditures and revenues 3. Projected expenditures, revenues and fund balances, by fund, for year end 4. Key performance indicators This information would provide ongoing assessments of the County's fiscal situation and individual department performance and would serve as a supplement to the annual budget review and approval process by making the Board aware of issues affecting certain revenues or individual departments during the year. The Interim Chief Administrative Officer directed all department heads in April 2002 to undertake detailed re-computations of their estimated year- end Net County Costs to improve the forecast for FY 2002-03. Even though monthly reports at the early part of the year would generally not be too revealing with so little time passed since budget adoption, the Board should still receive these reports as they will serve as the foundation for subsequent reports during the year. As the year progresses, the Board may want to request other special reports with more detail on a certain department or revenue or an issue such as turnover or workers compensation claims if a particular department is experiencing a high rate of claims. The County needs to analyze its baseline programs and budgets Another type of information that would be useful to inform the annual budget process is evaluations or performance audits of individual departments and programs conducted throughout the year. This would provide the Board with more detail that could be used at budget time regarding all aspects of individual department operations and provide a stronger basis for decisions about baseline department funding levels. The budget review process assumes that a baseline level of funding will be provided for all departments. The discussion in the proposed budget regarding funding changes almost entirely deals with incremental funding levels, or additions to the base level of funding. As in most counties, the Chief Administrative Office's analysis of budget requests submitted by the departments is focused primarily on any increases to the baseline budget but generally does not question the existing level of funding. Comments in the proposed budget document focus on increases or changes in the budget and recommendations on what new positions or programs should be funded, if any. For the most part there is no discussion or recommendations to decrease funding of the baseline budget through improved efficiency and/or increased revenue. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis There is an implicit assumption in the budget review that existing allocation levels should not be changed. In fact in many instances changes could be made to department operations or business processes and costs reduced through efficiency improvements or revenues increased through improved collections or establishing fee levels that capture more of the costs actually being incurred. One way of identifying such changes is through detailed review of department operations through performance auditing. Performance auditing can briefly be described as a review of all aspects of a department's operations to determine if the department is operating in compliance with all applicable laws and as efficiently, effectively and economically as possible. Performance audits can be conducted by outside consultants or in-house staff. While regular conduct of performance audits might represent a new cost to the County, if new staff is hired or consultants are used,' over time audits should more than pay for themselves with cost savings and/or revenue increases for the departments reviewed. Another benefit would be improved service levels for the public by identifying improvements in business processes and methods of streamlining operations. El Dorado County engaged a consultant to conduct a performance audit of the Department of Transportation and is planning one soon for the Department of Social Services. Efforts such as these should be continued and expanded to include all other departments on a multi-year cycle. Performance audits should take place throughout the year but their recommendations could be used in the budget process by identifying areas where departments could operate more efficiently particularly in the base budget. For example, a recently conducted analysis of Sheriffs Department staffing conducted independent of their budget preparation process recommended adding more permanent positions to reduce overtime. An analysis of a department's management structure might reveal an opportunity to consolidate and reduce management positions based on an analysis of duties performed. An audit of user fees charged by the County might show that they are not fully recovering costs and should be adjusted accordingly. In some jurisdictions performance audits are conducted on an ongoing basis so that all departments are audited over a certain number of years. Other counties select audit topics annually based on an assessment of the risk or exposure of each department and the potential impact of realizing improvements in that department. Other jurisdictions conduct performance audits as the need arises. An ongoing performance audit program in El Dorado County would have multiple benefits including improved service levels, reduced costs of operations and making resources available for other purposes. The County should explore the possibility of conducting performance audits with existing audit staff through re- prioritization of their current duties. If this is possible, new costs would not be incurred. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis Recommendations It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors: Direct the Chief Administrative Officer and/or the Auditor-Controller to begin producing R3.1 monthly fiscal status reports showing a comparison of budgeted and actual expenditures and revenues by department, projected expenditures and revenues through year end, projected year-end fund balance for each of the County's funds based on the latest actual revenues and expenditures, and selected key performance indicators for individual departments; Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to develop and implement a plan to reduce R3.2 differences between the proposed budgets in June and September and reduce County staff time spent preparing for the second budget hearing by using the recommended monthly projections of revenues, expenditures and fund balance and by more closely monitoring capital project progress and funding in the second half of the fiscal year; Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to implement a performance audit program to be R3.3 conducted either in-house by staff in the Auditor-Controller's office, staff reporting directly to the Board of Supervisors, by consultants, or a combination of in-house staff and external consultants; and, Establish a performance audit schedule using a risk assessment approach where all R3.4 departments are evaluated against a set of criteria to indicate where the largest benefits are likely to occur from conducting performance audits. Costs and Benefits The costs of implementing the above financial forecasting recommendations would primarily be existing staff time. The benefits would include staff time now spent preparing for the September budget addenda process becoming available for other purposes and more of the budget process being complete in June. The costs of an ongoing performance audit program would depend on whether new staff is hired and, if so, the number and level of audits to be conducted in a year. Assuming two to three audits would be typical and two to three staff positions, estimated costs would be between $100,000 and $200,000 per year. To the extent existing audit staff could be used for this purpose by re- prioritizing their activities rather than adding new staff, additional costs would not be incurred. The benefits of a performance audit program should greatly exceed the costs in terms of cost savings and revenue increases identified through the performance audit process. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section\ 3:\ Budget\ Timing,\ Information\ and\ A\ nallysis Responses Required for Findings F3.1 through F3.3 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations R3.1 through R3.4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Internal Service Funds 4. F4.1 The County budget includes two internal service funds; the risk management fund covers centralized County insurance costs and the fleet management fund covers the County's vehicle maintenance and replacement services. Internal service fund costs are not as predictable as operating departments because they rely on forecasts of future needs and variables such as the number of employees who will need health services or be injured on the job, the extent to which claims will be filed against the County and the number of vehicles that will need to be replaced. The budget for these two funds in FY 2001-02 is approximately $20.9 million and together the County maintains reserves for these two funds of another approximately $16 million. This level of expenditure and reserves represents a larger budget than most County departments. F4.2 Key information on assumptions used for these funds is not fully disclosed in the proposed and addenda budget documents to assist the Board of Supervisors in determining the appropriate level of appropriations and reserves for these funds. The budget does not present actual expenditures for previous years or projections of expenditures for subsequent years. Without this information it is not easy to determine if appropriate funding and reserves are in place. If too much is budgeted and reserved, budget resources are tied up that could otherwise be used for other purposes. If too little is budgeted, the County may need to reduce expenditures elsewhere or use contingency funds to meet its insurance or fleet obligations. The Risk Management budget for FY 2001-02 includes reserves based on five year F4.3 projections for the County's risk management fund. The basis for these projections should be provided to the Board of Supervisors, who should then adopt a County policy regarding appropriate reserve levels for each type of insurance. Historical and projected vehicle purchase expenditures are not presented in the F4.4 budget. Such information would help the Board determine an appropriate level of funding and reserves for the County's vehicle replacement fund. Internal service funds are defined as funds used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies, on a cost reimbursement basis. El Dorado County has two such funds: 1) Risk Management and 2) Vehicle Replacement. The Risk Management fund is used to account for payments from all County departments to cover their share of the County's costs for general liability, employee health and workers' compensation insurance. The costs covered by the monies in this fund include claims payments, legal costs, insurance premiums for excess insurance', a third party administrator and staff and indirect costs of the County Risk Management Office. The County is self-insured but buys third party commercial insurance only for incidents above a certain dollar threshold. This helps prevent any dramatic swings in pay outs from year to year. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds The fleet management fund charges each department for the costs of maintaining and acquiring and maintaining the department's vehicles and heavy equipment. The charges also cover the costs of County fleet management staff and related indirect costs. Key budgetary decisions to be made for these internal service funds are: a) the level of appropriation to include in the budget to meet annual expenses; and, b) the level of reserves to include in the fund to cover known future liabilities. Charges to customer departments are based on appropriated annual expenditures and a proportionate share of reserves. Annual appropriations are needed to cover the operating costs for a single budget year. Reserves are established for internal service funds to cover known or expected costs beyond what is expected in the budget year. Particularly with insurance, costs can be paid over multiple years. Although costs can be estimated for a claim filed in the current year, the case may not actually be settled for several years out. The risk management fund reserve provides funds for these type of situations and for unexpected pay outs in the event that a large claim against the County is settled sooner than expected or an unpredicted unusually high employee disability payment has to be made in a single year. Commercial excess insurance is also purchased by the County to cover high cost unusual cases. Fleet management fund reserves might be used if a number of vehicles or heavy equipment unexpectedly need replacement in addition to what is expected in the County vehicle replacement schedule. Insurance expenditures are determined with input from actuaries who produce multi-year projections of likely future pay outs based on historical loss and expenditure data, known claims filed, demographics of the work force, changes in law and other contributing factors. For fleet management, maintenance and replacement costs can be projected based on existing fleet characteristics such as age and mileage plus any projected increases in fleet size or mix needed based on new or expanded programs or workload in the County. Risk Management Fund As mentioned above, El Dorado County's risk management fund is comprised of three components: 1) employee health insurance; 2) general liability; and 3) workers' compensation. Each represents a significant cost to the County but the budget document does not present details on the three components. Instead, the County risk management fund is presented in aggregate with no breakdown of how much of the total cost is attributable to each component. Total budgeted expenditures for FY 2001-02 were approximately $18.1 million for all components of the risk management program. This amount is separate from the reserves kept in the risk management fund to cover known and projected insurance liabilities in future years. The budget document does not report the approximately $12 million reserved for the risk management fund nor does it report how much of this is attributable to each of the three components of the fund. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Details on the risk management fund should be presented in the proposed budget for a number of reasons. First, it is important for the Board of Supervisors to know which costs are increasing, which are decreasing, and what, if anything, County management has done or can do to control these costs. For example, employee health insurance costs are expected to increase significantly in the next year, an issue that was widely discussed in the budget hearings for FY 2001-02, but it would be useful to present these costs in the context of overall health insurance costs, separate from general liability and worker's compensation costs. Increases in workers' compensation costs cannot always be controlled but a large increase may raise questions about the extent to which County management has implemented safety training programs for employees. Similarly, a rise in risk management costs should be reviewed to determine if certain exposures resulting in frequent claims have been effectively dealt with by management. The proposed budget document for FY 2001-02 presents information about the Risk Management office that is part of the Chief Administrative Office. The document presents revenues and costs for the Risk Management office, including County staff, claims payments and other administrative cost, as follows: Exhibit 4.1 Risk Management Revenues and Costs Presented in the Proposed FY 2001-02 Budget FY 1999-00 through FY 2001-02 CAO Recommended Actual Approved FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 1999-00 Revenues: $14,824,755 $17,194,416 $12,764,911 Charges to Departments 527,506 594,007 684,255 Use of Money & Property 1,199,008 366,515 Fund Balance 4,000 1,500 1,500 Other Sources 166.667 103.356 Miscellaneous $16,788,437 $ 18,089,937 $13,554,022 Total Expenditures: 415,759 427,897 378,356 Salaries & Benefits 16,165,149 17,427,744 13,914,111 Services & Supplies 231,094 207,531 159,663 Other Charges 3.200 2,390 Intrafund Transfers $18,089,935 $16,788,439 $14,454,520 Total As can be the Services and Supplies expenditure line items of $17.4 million for FY 2001-02 represents the bulk of risk management annual costs. Since this is such a large amount and is comprised of a number of different costs, more detail should be provided in the budget including Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds how much is for claims payments, legal services, the third party administrator, excess insurance premiums, and other costs, for each of the three risk management fund components. Staffing for the office and workload indicators are presented in the proposed budget document as is a description of the office's programs and the Chief Administrative Officer's recommended changes in the budget. Determining Appropriate Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds The revenue discussion includes the statement that the fund will be relying less on fund balance than it has in the past for health and worker's compensation. The discussion reports that reserves for the General Liability program are greater than what is needed and that Worker's Compensation reserves are lower than needed according to an actuarial analysis performed for the County. The Chief Administrative Office reports that it has prepared a five year plan to achieve reserves at a 70 percent confidence level for both the General Liability and Worker's Compensation fund. The 70 percent confidence level is described as a reserve level that will statistically be sufficient or better in 70 percent of the cases and inadequate 30 percent of the time. While it is laudable that the budget discloses the imbalance in reserves found in the two funds and a plan to correct it, the discussion has some deficiencies from a public decision making perspective. First, the actual amount of reserves in the two fund components are not presented in the budget nor is the fiscal impact of adopting the 70 percent confidence level approach clearly laid out. Alternative reserve scenarios are not presented so that the Board could see the fiscal impact of choosing other approaches to funding reserves for these funds at the 70 percent confidence level. The choice of a lower reserve level, which would not prevent the County from meeting its current year claims payment obligations, could potentially mean millions of dollars available for other purposes in the budget. On the other hand, the Board of Supervisors may want to adopt a higher reserve level policy that would require increasing the charges paid by departments to increase reserve levels in the fund. To make an informed decision, the budget should include the following: Current amounts in reserve, shown separately for Workers' Compensation, General Liability and Health Benefits Three years of projected actual expenditures for the budget year and the next five to ten years, shown separately for Workers' Compensation, General Liability and Health Benefits The amount needed to fund reserves at alternative confidence levels, covering the spectrum u of possible approaches ranging from no reserves for future year expenses if a "pay as you go" policy is adopted, funding to cover the current year and some future costs, funding to cover the current year and some but not all projected future costs, and funding to cover the current year and all projected future costs. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Counties and public jurisdictions have varying policies on reserves. On one end of the spectrum, some counties and other public jurisdictions simply budget for their expected payments in the budget year. Others choose to maintain reserves to fully cover all known current and future liabilities and some counties choose a position between these two. The Board of Supervisors should be involved in deciding the level of reserves for each of these funds. To inform this decision, the budget document should include information in a table such as presented in the example in Exhibit 4.2: Exhibit 4.2 Example of Information to Provide to the Board of Supervisors for Consideration of Alternative Insurance Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds Reserves required Confidence level 000s None Pa as you o 20% $3,000 35% $3,500 50% $4,000 $4,500 65% 70% $5,000 80% $5,500 $6,000 100% The County's financial statement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001 showed that the Risk Management fund had approximately $12.9 million in cash reserves for future costs. The liability for noncurrent insurance payments was reported in the financial statement as $11.9 million. In other words, there was enough cash in the fund to cover all known and projected pay outs for the current and future years that would have to be paid if the County suddenly went out of business and never received any more payments from its customer County departments. Since the likelihood of the County actually going out of business is quite small, the Board may want to consider a lesser reserve level. By presenting the projected pay outs for future years in the proposed budget, the Board would be better informed for deciding the optimal level of reserves. A summary of information that should be presented is shown in the following two exhibits. The numbers are for illustration purposes only and do not reflect the actual or projected expenses of El Dorado County. The information in Exhibit 4.3 would provide a snapshot of retained earnings, annual revenues, annual costs, and cash reserves on hand for the future and projected future liabilities, all in one table. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Exhibit 4.3 Example of cash reserve, revenue and expenditure information to be presented in the proposed General Liability and Workers' Compensation Fund budgets (in 000s) Workers' General Liability Compensation $2,900 $3,600 a Retained earnings: end of FY 00-01 3,700 4,200 b Revenues from charges to departments FY 01-02 6,600 7,800 c Total funds available (a+b) 2,000 2,600 FY 01-02 Claims pay outs/legal costs, • FY 01-02 Third party administrator costs 400 300 1,500 1,000 FY 01-02Excess insurance costs FY 01-02 Staff and administrative costs 150 200 4,050 4,100 h Total costs FY 01-02 (d through g) i Retained earnings: end of FY 01-02 c-h 2,550 3,700 J Cash reserves on hand 6,600 3,300 6,500 4,200 k Future Year Liabilities Amounts shown are for illustration purposes only and are not actual El Dorado County amounts. Note: Actual historical expenditures should be shown to provide information about typical annual expenditures, what is likely to be needed in future years and to help determine how much cash should be kept in reserve to meet those expenses. Exhibit 4.4 Example of payment data to be presented in budget for General Liability and Workers' Compensation Funds (in 000s) Workers' General Compensation Fiscal Year Liability 1,500 1,600 1995-96 1,700 1,500 1996-97 1,900 1997-98 1,800 1998-99 1,900 2,000 2,500 1999-00 2,700 2,700 2000-01 2,500 Information such as that shown in Exhibit 4.4 should be presented to the Board of Supervisors to identify average annual expenditures in the past and as a basis for future projections. The historical numbers would have to be tied to some sort of appropriate index such as number of employees to determine an average cost per employee and then project forward based on expected increases in the County work force. Other variables should also be considered in the projections such as changes in County services that might result in changes in risk exposures. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Fleet Management Fund Fleet management fund information in the budget document is less comprehensive than risk management fund information. The fleet management function is a function of the General Services Department and is included in that department's budget. Because the department covers so many functions, such as capital projects, communications, purchasing, airports and parks and grounds, and because the expenditure level is lower, the level of reporting is lower for fleet management than risk management. In spite of its smaller size, similar information should be presented in the budget as discussed for risk management. The budget document should include cash on reserve (approximately $3.7 million as of June 30, 2001), annual revenues and historical and five year projected fleet maintenance and replacement costs. Unlike insurance costs, the County would not have future vehicle maintenance and replacement obligations if it went out of business but some reserve level is appropriate to cover unanticipated expenses such as replacement of critically needed vehicles before their expected replacement dates due to accident or unplanned repair costs exceeding the vehicle's value. This information and reserve options would assist the Board of Supervisors in making decisions on funding levels and appropriate charges to customer departments for this fund. Recommendations It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors: Adopt a policy establishing reserve levels for the three components of the risk R4.1 management fund and the total fleet management fund based on information provided by the Chief Administrative Officer including: (a) a year by year schedule of all known and estimated liabilities for the health benefits, workers' compensation and general liability funds; and, (b) the amount needed to fund reserves at alternative confidence levels ranging from "pay as you go" to fully funded; Require the Chief Administrative Officer to provide details on historical and projected R4.2 claims payment expenditures each year in the proposed budget for all internal service funds, with the three components of the risk management fund presented separately; Require the Chief Administrative Officer to clearly present the amounts in reserve each R4.3 year by each internal service fund or component thereof; Require the Chief Administrative Officer to provide more detail on the approximately R4.4 $17 million in annual Services and Supplies expenditures for the risk management fund and each of its component funds. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Costs and Benefits There would be no new direct costs associated with the above recommendations. Benefits would include better information about internal service fund funding levels provided to the Board of Supervisors and the public and, potentially, one time funds available for other purposes if the Board should choose to reduce reserve levels allocated to the funds. Responses Required for Findings El Dorado County Board of Supervisors F4.1 through F4.4 Res ponses Required for Recommendations El Dorado County Board of Supervisors R4.1 through R4.4 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: 1 monthly fiscal status reports showing a comparison of budgeted and actual expenditures and revenues by department, projected expenditures and revenues through year end, projected year-end fund balance for each of the County's funds based on the latest actual revenues and expenditures, and selected key performance indicators for individual departments; Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to develop and implement a plan to reduce

F4: 1 The County budget includes two internal service funds; the risk management fund covers centralized County insurance costs and the fleet management fund covers the County's vehicle maintenance and replacement services. Internal service fund costs are not as predictable as operating departments because they rely on forecasts of future needs and variables such as the number of employees who will need health services or be injured on the job, the extent to which claims will be filed against the County and the number of vehicles that will need to be replaced. The budget for these two funds in FY 2001-02 is approximately $20.9 million and together the County maintains reserves for these two funds of another approximately $16 million. This level of expenditure and reserves represents a larger budget than most County departments.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: 1 management fund and the total fleet management fund based on information provided by the Chief Administrative Officer including: (a) a year by year schedule of all known and estimated liabilities for the health benefits, workers' compensation and general liability funds; and, (b) the amount needed to fund reserves at alternative confidence levels ranging from "pay as you go" to fully funded; Require the Chief Administrative Officer to provide details on historical and projected

F1.2: For the current fiscal year, FY 2001-02, the Board of Supervisors chose to hold more extensive public hearings as part of the budget addenda process and received detailed presentations from all departments. While these hearings allowed for more interaction between the Board and the departments than has taken place in the recent past, this process would be even more valuable if the budgets submitted by the departments were prepared under policy direction already provided in a long range strategic plan. Another benefit of a strategic plan is providing a common set of goals and objectives for all County employees.

F1.3: As part of a multi-year strategic planning effort, a process for measuring individual department performance and plan outcomes is needed. This would also enhance the budget process by providing the Board of Supervisors with meaningful performance measures for each department and a method for measuring the effectiveness of allocated funds. Many organizations, public and private, engage in a strategic planning process to accomplish the following: 1) confirm and refine the mission statement of the organization with which all employees and stakeholders agree; 2) establish a vision for the future of the organization; 3) develop goals, objectives and action plans to ensure accomplishment of the mission and vision; and 4) establish a mechanism for measuring and reporting on actual organization performance relative to the goals, objectives and action plans. Generally, strategic plans are multi-year in nature with a five year horizon being fairly typical. A strategic planning process for El Dorado County should include the following steps: o Assessing the current state of County operations including resources available and strengths and weaknesses of the organization o Identifying likely future trends that will affect the County (e.g., population growth in El Dorado and neighboring counties, changes in State funding formulas, likely incorporation of cities, impacts of new technology, etc.) a Identifying likely future service needs and resources available to meet those demands (i.e., likely revenue streams) o Establishing service goals and objectives consistent with the mission and vision for the future o Establishing a system for measuring the County's success in meeting the stated goals and objectives Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget Currently El Dorado County does not have a long term strategic plan. Some departments such as the Information Services Department have developed plans specific to their departments and programs but there is no overarching plan for the County as a whole. A countywide plan would be valuable for budget purposes as it would help guide the allocation of resources consistent with established goals and objectives. Under the present system, department heads can set goals and objectives for their departments and Board members may provide direction on a case by case basis through budget hearings or other forums where department heads and Board members interact. But there is no formalized process by which the public and the Board as a group reach consensus and establish priorities that provide clear direction to all departments. A multi-year approach helps get around the limitations of the single year budget process that often doesn't address projects and initiatives that span more than one year. Typical multi-year projects in the county include capital projects, service delivery improvements, improvements in administrative activities, computer installations and upgrades, and other initiatives. While final appropriations still have to be made in the annual budget to fund multi-year projects and initiatives, providing directives in a strategic plan will help guide funding decisions in the budget process and will provide direction to department managers about their priorities. The County needs a system to measure department performance Measuring accomplishment of the goals, objectives and action plans in a strategic plan is probably one of the greatest benefits of embarking on such an effort and it is directly linked to the budget process. First, it makes the strategic plan a much more meaningful, results-oriented process. While establishing mission and vision statements, goals and objectives and action plans are all worthwhile activities, they can become meaningless if there isn't a method of measuring and reporting results. Setting an overall goal for the County such as making the County safe from crime is fine, but adding a method for measuring whether or not this occurs gives the process much greater impact. This could be measured in crime rate trends, arrest rates, successful prosecution and sentencings, community perception of safety, and other measures. These type of measures can be tied to the budget process through, for example, reviewing law enforcement officers per capita, arrests resulting in successful prosecutions, response times, and other measures. The budget can be adjusted accordingly to improve these measures to meet the service goals of the strategic plan. For each department, the proposed El Dorado County budget includes a mission statement, workload indicators, written summaries of all major programs, and staffing information. This is useful information but what is missing are goals and objectives for the department and outcome measures to provide meaning to the workload indicators. The workload indicators, shown for the proposed, current and previous two fiscal years, generally measure caseload but not program outcomes. For example, the Probation Department budget for FY 2001-02 shows 33 workload indicators for eleven program areas. The program areas include Juvenile Hall, Juvenile placement, Group Homes/Foster homes, Adult Court, Adult Supervision and others. Workload indicators include measures such as number of court disposition reports, number of intake hearings, average daily population at Juvenile Hall, number of Adult Court reports, number of Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget adult probationers supervised, number of number of felony sentencing reports prepared and others. The problem with the workload indicators in the Probation Department's budget is that none of them allow for an assessment of department outcomes. For example, a common objective for probation departments is to rehabilitate the probationer so they don't commit the same crime again and have subsequent encounters with the criminal justice system. To measure this objective, recidivism rates should be presented in the budget document rather than just the number of probationers supervised by the department. A high recidivism rate might indicate that Probation Department efforts are not succeeding and would lead to discussion about the level of funding for this effort and whether or not it is adequate and if the Department needs to operate its programs differently to achieve greater success. The Probation Department's number of court reports workload indicator also measures work but not outcomes. It is not possible to tell from the numbers alone if the department is doing a good job of producing its reports for court. Two of the most important factors for court reports generally are whether they are delivered to the court timely and whether they contain the information needed by the judiciary to facilitate decision-making. Useful performance measures for this work might include number of reports delivered to the court on time and the results of a survey of the court's satisfaction with the content of the reports. As with the previous example, this type of information would enable a more informed discussion of the appropriateness of funding levels and program management. Having broad countywide goals and objectives in a strategic plan would also help guide departments such as the Probation Department in that their goals, objectives and funding allocations and requests would need to be linked to the countywide goals and objectives. For example, countywide goals and objectives related to the Probation Department might be to improve coordination between all of the County criminal justice agencies and expansion of alternative programs to keep nonviolent offenders out of jail. The Probation Department would need to respond to these goals and objectives by presenting its coordination efforts with other departments, and development or expansion of alternatives to incarceration programs. Another link between the strategic plan and the budget is that the strategic plan should include financial goals and objectives for the County. These could include target reserve levels, target user fee recovery rates, a countywide approach to one-time revenues, approaches to funding levels for internal service funds, policies regarding deficit spending and others. Departmental strategic planning in El Dorado County As mentioned above, El Dorado County's Information Services Department produced a strategic plan in 2000. The plan was prepared in response to a request from the Board of Supervisors and it states that it will be regularly updated. The purposes of the plan are to: anticipate future information processing needs and provide a strategy for meeting those goals; define an optimum sequence of events to achieve the strategy; facilitate common understanding and support for the department's future direction and goals by all key stakeholders (customers, staff, County management); provide a framework to manage and control the working environment; and, Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget achieve optimum effectiveness and efficiency of resources. Its goals for the future include: expanding basic intranet/internet services; sharing and integrating data; providing business support data in multiple formats; providing multi-level integrated computing services; re- engineering business processes; guaranteeing the integrity and availability of County data; and, maintaining adequate and appropriate resources. The Information Services plan and any other department strategic plan in the County should be used as underpinnings to a countywide strategic plan. The countywide plan would provide higher level goals and objectives and individual department plans would be more specific and detailed regarding their particular services. The various individual department plans should be consistent with the countywide plan prepared by the Board of Supervisors. As suggested for the countywide strategic plan, individual department success in meeting the goals and objectives in their plans should be measured on an annual basis. Strategic planning in other jurisdictions As mentioned above, many private and public organizations have prepared and are implementing strategic plans. The public organizations include counties and cities throughout the country. In California, one of the more extensive county strategic plans was prepared in Riverside County. The plan, entitled Strategic Vision 2020, addresses the County's mission and business, vision for the next twenty years and guiding principles, service delivery priorities, service goals and inter-governmental relations, environmental issues, financial management strategies, fundamentals, land use planning principles, and related matters. Since many departments in the county have also prepared strategic plans, the Countywide plan incorporates all of those plans. The Riverside plan addresses limits to County service and highlights what the County cannot do as well as areas where it should excel. Maricopa County, Arizona initiated a strategic planning process in 2000 that integrated planning, budgeting and performance measures. For this effort, each department was required to prepare a strategic plan that included the following: a The County mission and vision statement 0 A department mission and vision statement' 0 Department goals 0 Identification of department issues 0 Identification of all key programs in each department including: D Program name Program purpose Key results for the program (usually a quantifiable measure) Activities and services within each program Outputs for each activity Actual results for each activity compared to key result expectations D Cost per output 1 The department vision statement was optional in the Maricopa County plan. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget Quarterly reports are produced for each department in Maricopa County. A sample report for the Maricopa County Information Systems department is shown as Attachment 1. As can be seen, performance data is not available yet for each key activity in this program. But efforts are now underway to regularly collect this data and to tie it to a cost efficiency factor shown at the end of the attachment. There is a range of approaches for El Dorado County to consider in establishing a strategic planning process but the key elements should include: statement of purpose or mission; o vision for the future; o goals, objectives and action plans for accomplishing the mission and vision statements; and, o a system for measuring results linked to the budget process. The plan's goals and objectives will also drive the budget process as each department will be expected to show how they are contributing to the strategic plan's goals and objectives through their activities.

F2.2: Funding and priority setting for El Dorado County's facility and transportation capital projects takes place without benefit of a multi-year capital improvement or facility master plan. As a result, department managers can set project priorities without formalized direction from the Board of Supervisors and the public. These priorities may or may not reflect the highest and best use of limited resources in the opinion of Board members and the public but a method doesn't exist to reach consensus, formalize and update those priorities.

F2.3: Both the General Services and Transportation departments have relatively new directors who have developed project tracking systems that allow for better project status reporting. The Department of Transportation has a five year capital project plan prepared in 1995 but it has never been updated. Staff is currently preparing a new document for review by the Board of Supervisors. With adoption of this plan and a similar one that County management reports is in the planning stages for County facility projects, project priorities will be clearer, the budget process simplified and department accountability for completing projects on time and on schedule improved. There are two primary types of multi-year capital projects in El Dorado County. First are construction and rehabilitation of County facilities such as parks and public buildings that are the responsibility of the General Services Department. Second are road, bridge and transportation system projects that are the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. These projects often span multiple years so their presentation in the budget document is different than presentation of annual operating revenues and expenditures for most departments. County Facility Projects The budget for the General Services Department includes a list of County facility projects categorized as either carryover or new. This list is first presented in the proposed budget submitted to the Board of Supervisors in June and then updated for the budget addenda report in September. Differences between the two lists for FY 2001-02 are shown in Exhibit 2.1. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Capital Projects Exhibit 2.1 Difference in General Services Department Capital Projects between the Proposed and Addenda Budget Documents FY 2001-02 Proposed Budget Addenda Change Budget 45 72 27 # Carryover Projects $2,827,090 $2,077,786 $749,304 Carryover Funding # New Projects 22 43 21 New Funding $1,181,900 $2,358,761 $1,176,861 # Projects Total 67 115 48 $3,259,686 $5,185,851 Funding Total $1,926,165 Source: FY 2001-02 Proposed Budget & Workplan and Budget Addenda Report As can be seen, there is a significant change in the number of projects and funding levels between the two documents. This reflects the timing of the two budget documents. The proposed budget presented to the Board in June has to be submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer by the departments by the end of March/early April. The September budget addenda information is prepared five to six months later. By then, more construction activity has taken place during the prime construction season and the department has more information regarding which projects will be carried over to the next year. In addition, the original budget submission does not include carryover parks projects at all which added 19 more carryover projects and $371,456 in costs to the carryover projects in the budget addenda. With a 59 percent change in funding between the June and September lists, the Board's approval of projects in June is somewhat meaningless. Besides changes between the two lists, it is not possible to tell from either the status of the carryover projects in terms of time or costs. The lists simply present all projects with no indication of whether they are 10 percent or 90 percent done, when project completion is expected, or whether they are under or over budget. The lists are not prioritized so it is not possible to tell the order in which projects will be worked on and completed. While there are many projects in progress and compilation of information on these projects can be complex, a simple report showing the original budget and schedule compared to actual costs and schedule could be readily compiled from Department records with a column for briefly explaining significant variances in time or cost. The Department already maintains a project tracking list for use internally by management. This document could be modified for reporting to the Board and for inclusion in the budget documents. In addition to better reporting of the status of projects, the General Services Department needs a multi-year master plan, approved by the Board of Supervisors, that establishes project priorities and includes estimated funding and timing for each project over a multi-year period such as five years. With agreed upon project priorities, Department management would have clear direction about how to allocate their resources. Project priorities and available funding would also be Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Capital Projects better aligned with such a plan as it would allow for determination of what should be done given limited resources and what cannot be done. New projects could still be added and planned projects deleted after the plan is adopted if priorities change or funding becomes unavailable. The difference would be that the process would be formalized so the Board would have to make a conscious choice to delete a project rather than a project remaining on the list but never getting done. The interim Chief Administrative Officer reports that plans are underway at the time of preparation of this report to commence preparation of such a plan, including financing plans, for County facilities. Department of Transportation Capital Projects and Maintenance Work Transportation capital projects are presented in a different format in the budget than General Services projects. In the FY 2001-02 budget addenda document, the Department presents a list of approximately $24 million worth of capital improvement projects. For each project, a breakdown of project costs (labor, overhead, fixed assets, etc.) and the project's revenue source(s) are presented. The budget addenda document submitted to the Board of Supervisors in September lists 25 capital projects but does not show the timing or funding status of any of the projects or sequencing or priorities for the coming year (see Attachment 2). As with the General Services Department budget, information is not presented comparing planned and actual costs and timing of the Department's capital improvement projects. Nor are projects prioritized in accordance with a multi-year plan approved and updated by the Board of Supervisors. A five year roads capital improvement project plan was prepared in 1996 but it has not been updated since according to Department of Transportation management. The Department's planned road maintenance projects are also shown with the same cost breakdown as presented for capital projects and with revenue source(s) identified (see Though these projects tend to be single year in scope compared to capital Attachment 3). improvement projects, the work to be done such as patching and overlay, chip seal and traffic signal maintenance, is not prioritized by long term County goals such as achieving an average road condition on the County network by a certain date in the future. If specific priorities such as these were established in a multi-year plan, the Department would have a stronger basis to justify the allocation of its maintenance dollars. Like most counties in California, El Dorado County faces extensive deferred maintenance costs in excess of available resources for road and bridge work. Officially adopted agreed upon priorities are all the more important when need exceeds resources available. The Department of Transportation has prioritized its capital improvement projects by three tiers of priority and is in the process of preparing a new multi-year capital improvement plan. The Department is intending to use this document as a budgetary document as well as a work program so that project priorities and resources available will be linked. Department management's goal is to update the plan annually in advance of the April submittal to the Chief Administrative Officer and Board of Supervisors. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Capital Projects To develop the annual plans and budgets for the two departments' capital improvement plans, a process is needed in advance and in lieu of the budget hearing process in September. By September, or budget adoption time, it is too late to add capital projects which often require a fair amount of advance work to obtain funding or to plan in relation to resources available. Midyear planning workshops with the Board of Supervisors With five year plans in place for both departments, workshops should be held with the Board of Supervisors in January or at a more convenient time but well in advance of budget submission and adoption. The purpose of the workshops should be to revise and update the plans in accordance with any changes in circumstances, funding or Board priorities. From that point on, the plan for the next year should be established and budget submission and adoption should reflect the agreements reached at those workshops. This would make for a more clear and streamlined budget process for capital improvement projects as most of the projects and funding levels would have been previously agreed to or modified well in advance of the Board of Supervisors review and approval of the proposed budget. The Department of Transportation does prepare a monthly report on its capital projects but this report does not include a comparison of planned and actual project timing and costs. While this does not need to be provided to the Board and public on a monthly basis, it would be useful to present it at budget time and once more during the year such as at the annual planning workshop discussed above. Similarly, the General Services Department should prepare such a report for Board review twice a year, once at its planning workshop and again at budget addenda submission time. The list of projects included in the proposed budget in June should match that resulting from the January planning workshop and then be updated for the addenda process in September based on actual projects completed during the prime construction period and identification of carryover projects.

F3.1: the status of the budget at mid-year but no further formal reports until they receive the proposed budget for the next fiscal year in June. As stewards of the County's financial resources, more regularly produced status reports and updates should be provided with less detail than the mid-year reports but with enough information to allow the Board to monitor performance and receive early warnings of potential fiscal problems. The County's financial information system allows for production of a wide variety

F3.2: of ad-hoc reports and analysis of expenditures and revenues accessible to all department managers. A monthly report to the Board showing actual expenditures and revenues by department, with a projection of the County's financial position at year end, could easily be produced and would facilitate more Board and public involvement in monitoring the County's fiscal status. It would eliminate surprise developments such as the increase from $12.5 to $21.5 million in fund balance available reported between the proposed and budget addenda for FY 2001-02. Information of this sort would also provide a basis for other questions and analyses of situations when revenues or expenditures are not at the level originally projected. The analysis of the proposed budget each year consumes many months of staff time

F3.3: but largely focuses on incremental appropriations requested by the departments or recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer but not the baseline budget. Oftentimes, savings can be realized in the baseline budget by improving the efficiency of operations, reorganizing or consolidating programs or increasing revenues. One of the most effective means of identifying opportunities for savings in the baseline budget is through departme ntal performance audits. The major points of public presentation and discussion about the County's budget are: 1) the mid-year budget report to the Board of Supervisors; 2) presentation of the proposed annual budget in June; 3) presentation of the addenda budget in August; and, 4) budget hearings in September. At all four points, a great deal of useful information is provided to the Board covering all departments, revenue sources and operational issues. The information is prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer and, in the past, discussion about the contents were largely between the Board and the Chief Administrative Officer and the Auditor-Controller. For the FY 2001-02 budget, the process was expanded when the Board of Supervisors requested that each department make a presentation about their budget and operations. The mid-year budget report provided in February 2002 contained discussion of projected fund balance, expenditures and revenues by department, a discussion of expected increases in health benefits costs, detailed revenue projections (summarizing projections prepared by the Auditor- Controller), capital project highlights, a discussion of the State budget, a regional economic forecast, salary projections for FY 2002-03, and departmental savings. It provides a good deal of information of interest to the Board of Supervisors, department managers and the public. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis The proposed budget document for the subsequent fiscal year is provided in June of each year and includes detailed revenue projections and proposed expenditures for each department. Information for each department is also presented including staffing detail, descriptions of all major programs operated by the department, workload indicators, actual revenues and expenditures for the previous two fiscal years and proposed revenues and expenditures by major programs or costs centers for all departments. An overview of the County's financial situation is presented including detailed revenue estimates for the budget year, changes in State and other funding sources, and roll ups of expenditure data by fund and functional areas. The third and final budget report prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer is provided in August. This report provides final revenue and expenditure estimates for the year after the State budget has been adopted and actual fund balances are known based on better and more complete prior year actual data. While all three reports provided to the Board of Supervisors include a substantial amount of useful information, there are no routinely produced reports between these three to keep the Board abreast of the overall fiscal situation of the County and to have early warnings of potential problems. Budget related items do come up at Board meetings if an individual department is requesting mid-year supplemental funding or if the supervisors request information on a particular department or a budget related topic. However, fiscal information is not otherwise routinely reported in a standardized report to the Board to allow for comparisons and trend analyses throughout the year. Timing of County Budget Review and Approval Department budget staff spend many months of the year going through their internal budget review and preparation processes and then explaining and defending their proposals to the Chief Administrative Office before they are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Then, for many departments, there are additional analyses and expenditure plans to be prepared between June and September as actual fund balance amounts become known, the State budget is adopted and other adjustments are made. The net result is a lengthy process consuming more than half the year and a budget mostly prepared six months earlier being reviewed by the Board of Supervisors in September. While the County is subject to State timing requirements governing the preparation and adoption of the budget, attempts should be made to complete more of the budget process in June so that fewer staff hours are consumed in duplicative efforts between June and September and so the budget reviewed and discussed by the Board of Supervisors is more current. A review of changes between the proposed and addenda budget for FY 2001-02 shows that budget appropriations increased by $23 million between June and September. Most of the change, or 77.3 percent, was in the General Fund and Roads Fund. Exhibit 3.1 presents the changes for all funds. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis Exhibit 3.1 Changes between Proposed and Addenda Budget By Fund, FY 2001-02 Total Proposed Addenda Difference Budget Difference Budget Fund 41.2% $31,856,908 $41,367,148 $9,510,240 Roads Fund 36.1% 156,236,963 147,900,815 8,336,148 General Fund 2,590,499 11.2% 19,719,350 17,128,851 Health Department 1,729,801 7.5% 3,673,718 5,403,519 Accumulated Capital Outlay 713,411 3.1% 9,749,849 10,463,260 Mental Health Services 487,860 2.1% 487,860 Tobacco Settlement 0.7% 2,617,875 157,004 2,460,871 Road District 0.2% 8,026,027 39,974 Community Services 7,986,053 0.0% 20,000 20,000 Special Aviation 0.0% 5,000 5,000 Fish & Game 0.0% 300,000 300,000 EIR Development Fees -2.2% (504,615) 4,918,455 4,413,840 Erosion Control $23,060,322 100.0% $226,000,520 $249,060,842 TOTAL Source: Proposed and Addenda Budgets, FY 2002-03 The $9.5 million in Roads Fund monies was mostly from capital project carryovers and increases in estimated fund balance. For the General Fund, the increase was primarily generated from carryover fund balance, mostly due to a combination of capital project carryover, actual expenditures being less than budgeted, and actual revenues being more than budgeted the previous year. The fourth largest contributor to the increase, Accumulated Capital Outlay, was also the result of an increase in fund balance available compared to what was estimated in the proposed budget due to more projects being carried over from the previous year than anticipated in June. By producing more detailed projections of revenues and expenditures throughout the year, particularly in the second half, and projecting year-end fund balance monthly, the County's estimates of carryover fund balance in June should become more accurate and closer to the amounts now not identified until September. With better tracking and reporting of capital project expenditures and timing, as recommended in Section 2 of this report, and monthly projections of year-end fund balance for the Roads and Accumulated Capital Outlay funds, the discrepancy between the June and September budget for capital project carryover funds should also be decreased. The net result of more accurate forecasting would be fewer changes between June and September and less work for all County staff in creating and analyzing a second budget document with numerous revisions for the September hearings. Though the State budget could be and probably will be changed to some extent between June and September, most of it should be known and in place by June based on the Governor's budget. County estimates of the budget in June should be reasonably accurate for most of the State funding received. The County should endeavor to reduce discrepancies between the two budgets Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis and complete most of the budget process in June, with only some minor changes to be approved in September. While production of the three budget reports that the Board now receives involves a substantial amount of work for the Chief Administrative Officer and department fiscal staffs, other regularly provided information between these three reports is needed. Current budget information is readily available on the County's Financial Management Information System (FAMIS) and could be produced without extensive staff work. Of key importance for a monthly report is: 1. Budgeted vs. actual expenditures and revenues by department and major revenue source 2. Explanations of major variances between budgeted and actual expenditures and revenues 3. Projected expenditures, revenues and fund balances, by fund, for year end 4. Key performance indicators This information would provide ongoing assessments of the County's fiscal situation and individual department performance and would serve as a supplement to the annual budget review and approval process by making the Board aware of issues affecting certain revenues or individual departments during the year. The Interim Chief Administrative Officer directed all department heads in April 2002 to undertake detailed re-computations of their estimated year- end Net County Costs to improve the forecast for FY 2002-03. Even though monthly reports at the early part of the year would generally not be too revealing with so little time passed since budget adoption, the Board should still receive these reports as they will serve as the foundation for subsequent reports during the year. As the year progresses, the Board may want to request other special reports with more detail on a certain department or revenue or an issue such as turnover or workers compensation claims if a particular department is experiencing a high rate of claims. The County needs to analyze its baseline programs and budgets Another type of information that would be useful to inform the annual budget process is evaluations or performance audits of individual departments and programs conducted throughout the year. This would provide the Board with more detail that could be used at budget time regarding all aspects of individual department operations and provide a stronger basis for decisions about baseline department funding levels. The budget review process assumes that a baseline level of funding will be provided for all departments. The discussion in the proposed budget regarding funding changes almost entirely deals with incremental funding levels, or additions to the base level of funding. As in most counties, the Chief Administrative Office's analysis of budget requests submitted by the departments is focused primarily on any increases to the baseline budget but generally does not question the existing level of funding. Comments in the proposed budget document focus on increases or changes in the budget and recommendations on what new positions or programs should be funded, if any. For the most part there is no discussion or recommendations to decrease funding of the baseline budget through improved efficiency and/or increased revenue. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis There is an implicit assumption in the budget review that existing allocation levels should not be changed. In fact in many instances changes could be made to department operations or business processes and costs reduced through efficiency improvements or revenues increased through improved collections or establishing fee levels that capture more of the costs actually being incurred. One way of identifying such changes is through detailed review of department operations through performance auditing. Performance auditing can briefly be described as a review of all aspects of a department's operations to determine if the department is operating in compliance with all applicable laws and as efficiently, effectively and economically as possible. Performance audits can be conducted by outside consultants or in-house staff. While regular conduct of performance audits might represent a new cost to the County, if new staff is hired or consultants are used,' over time audits should more than pay for themselves with cost savings and/or revenue increases for the departments reviewed. Another benefit would be improved service levels for the public by identifying improvements in business processes and methods of streamlining operations. El Dorado County engaged a consultant to conduct a performance audit of the Department of Transportation and is planning one soon for the Department of Social Services. Efforts such as these should be continued and expanded to include all other departments on a multi-year cycle. Performance audits should take place throughout the year but their recommendations could be used in the budget process by identifying areas where departments could operate more efficiently particularly in the base budget. For example, a recently conducted analysis of Sheriffs Department staffing conducted independent of their budget preparation process recommended adding more permanent positions to reduce overtime. An analysis of a department's management structure might reveal an opportunity to consolidate and reduce management positions based on an analysis of duties performed. An audit of user fees charged by the County might show that they are not fully recovering costs and should be adjusted accordingly. In some jurisdictions performance audits are conducted on an ongoing basis so that all departments are audited over a certain number of years. Other counties select audit topics annually based on an assessment of the risk or exposure of each department and the potential impact of realizing improvements in that department. Other jurisdictions conduct performance audits as the need arises. An ongoing performance audit program in El Dorado County would have multiple benefits including improved service levels, reduced costs of operations and making resources available for other purposes. The County should explore the possibility of conducting performance audits with existing audit staff through re- prioritization of their current duties. If this is possible, new costs would not be incurred. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis

F4.1: The County budget includes two internal service funds; the risk management fund covers centralized County insurance costs and the fleet management fund covers the County's vehicle maintenance and replacement services. Internal service fund costs are not as predictable as operating departments because they rely on forecasts of future needs and variables such as the number of employees who will need health services or be injured on the job, the extent to which claims will be filed against the County and the number of vehicles that will need to be replaced. The budget for these two funds in FY 2001-02 is approximately $20.9 million and together the County maintains reserves for these two funds of another approximately $16 million. This level of expenditure and reserves represents a larger budget than most County departments.

F4.3: projections for the County's risk management fund. The basis for these projections should be provided to the Board of Supervisors, who should then adopt a County policy regarding appropriate reserve levels for each type of insurance. Historical and projected vehicle purchase expenditures are not presented in the

F4.4: budget. Such information would help the Board determine an appropriate level of funding and reserves for the County's vehicle replacement fund. Internal service funds are defined as funds used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies, on a cost reimbursement basis. El Dorado County has two such funds: 1) Risk Management and 2) Vehicle Replacement. The Risk Management fund is used to account for payments from all County departments to cover their share of the County's costs for general liability, employee health and workers' compensation insurance. The costs covered by the monies in this fund include claims payments, legal costs, insurance premiums for excess insurance', a third party administrator and staff and indirect costs of the County Risk Management Office. The County is self-insured but buys third party commercial insurance only for incidents above a certain dollar threshold. This helps prevent any dramatic swings in pay outs from year to year. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds The fleet management fund charges each department for the costs of maintaining and acquiring and maintaining the department's vehicles and heavy equipment. The charges also cover the costs of County fleet management staff and related indirect costs. Key budgetary decisions to be made for these internal service funds are: a) the level of appropriation to include in the budget to meet annual expenses; and, b) the level of reserves to include in the fund to cover known future liabilities. Charges to customer departments are based on appropriated annual expenditures and a proportionate share of reserves. Annual appropriations are needed to cover the operating costs for a single budget year. Reserves are established for internal service funds to cover known or expected costs beyond what is expected in the budget year. Particularly with insurance, costs can be paid over multiple years. Although costs can be estimated for a claim filed in the current year, the case may not actually be settled for several years out. The risk management fund reserve provides funds for these type of situations and for unexpected pay outs in the event that a large claim against the County is settled sooner than expected or an unpredicted unusually high employee disability payment has to be made in a single year. Commercial excess insurance is also purchased by the County to cover high cost unusual cases. Fleet management fund reserves might be used if a number of vehicles or heavy equipment unexpectedly need replacement in addition to what is expected in the County vehicle replacement schedule. Insurance expenditures are determined with input from actuaries who produce multi-year projections of likely future pay outs based on historical loss and expenditure data, known claims filed, demographics of the work force, changes in law and other contributing factors. For fleet management, maintenance and replacement costs can be projected based on existing fleet characteristics such as age and mileage plus any projected increases in fleet size or mix needed based on new or expanded programs or workload in the County. Risk Management Fund As mentioned above, El Dorado County's risk management fund is comprised of three components: 1) employee health insurance; 2) general liability; and 3) workers' compensation. Each represents a significant cost to the County but the budget document does not present details on the three components. Instead, the County risk management fund is presented in aggregate with no breakdown of how much of the total cost is attributable to each component. Total budgeted expenditures for FY 2001-02 were approximately $18.1 million for all components of the risk management program. This amount is separate from the reserves kept in the risk management fund to cover known and projected insurance liabilities in future years. The budget document does not report the approximately $12 million reserved for the risk management fund nor does it report how much of this is attributable to each of the three components of the fund. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Details on the risk management fund should be presented in the proposed budget for a number of reasons. First, it is important for the Board of Supervisors to know which costs are increasing, which are decreasing, and what, if anything, County management has done or can do to control these costs. For example, employee health insurance costs are expected to increase significantly in the next year, an issue that was widely discussed in the budget hearings for FY 2001-02, but it would be useful to present these costs in the context of overall health insurance costs, separate from general liability and worker's compensation costs. Increases in workers' compensation costs cannot always be controlled but a large increase may raise questions about the extent to which County management has implemented safety training programs for employees. Similarly, a rise in risk management costs should be reviewed to determine if certain exposures resulting in frequent claims have been effectively dealt with by management. The proposed budget document for FY 2001-02 presents information about the Risk Management office that is part of the Chief Administrative Office. The document presents revenues and costs for the Risk Management office, including County staff, claims payments and other administrative cost, as follows: Exhibit 4.1 Risk Management Revenues and Costs Presented in the Proposed FY 2001-02 Budget FY 1999-00 through FY 2001-02 CAO Recommended Actual Approved FY 2000-01 FY 2001-02 FY 1999-00 Revenues: $14,824,755 $17,194,416 $12,764,911 Charges to Departments 527,506 594,007 684,255 Use of Money & Property 1,199,008 366,515 Fund Balance 4,000 1,500 1,500 Other Sources 166.667 103.356 Miscellaneous $16,788,437 $ 18,089,937 $13,554,022 Total Expenditures: 415,759 427,897 378,356 Salaries & Benefits 16,165,149 17,427,744 13,914,111 Services & Supplies 231,094 207,531 159,663 Other Charges 3.200 2,390 Intrafund Transfers $18,089,935 $16,788,439 $14,454,520 Total As can be the Services and Supplies expenditure line items of $17.4 million for FY 2001-02 represents the bulk of risk management annual costs. Since this is such a large amount and is comprised of a number of different costs, more detail should be provided in the budget including Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds how much is for claims payments, legal services, the third party administrator, excess insurance premiums, and other costs, for each of the three risk management fund components. Staffing for the office and workload indicators are presented in the proposed budget document as is a description of the office's programs and the Chief Administrative Officer's recommended changes in the budget. Determining Appropriate Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds The revenue discussion includes the statement that the fund will be relying less on fund balance than it has in the past for health and worker's compensation. The discussion reports that reserves for the General Liability program are greater than what is needed and that Worker's Compensation reserves are lower than needed according to an actuarial analysis performed for the County. The Chief Administrative Office reports that it has prepared a five year plan to achieve reserves at a 70 percent confidence level for both the General Liability and Worker's Compensation fund. The 70 percent confidence level is described as a reserve level that will statistically be sufficient or better in 70 percent of the cases and inadequate 30 percent of the time. While it is laudable that the budget discloses the imbalance in reserves found in the two funds and a plan to correct it, the discussion has some deficiencies from a public decision making perspective. First, the actual amount of reserves in the two fund components are not presented in the budget nor is the fiscal impact of adopting the 70 percent confidence level approach clearly laid out. Alternative reserve scenarios are not presented so that the Board could see the fiscal impact of choosing other approaches to funding reserves for these funds at the 70 percent confidence level. The choice of a lower reserve level, which would not prevent the County from meeting its current year claims payment obligations, could potentially mean millions of dollars available for other purposes in the budget. On the other hand, the Board of Supervisors may want to adopt a higher reserve level policy that would require increasing the charges paid by departments to increase reserve levels in the fund. To make an informed decision, the budget should include the following: Current amounts in reserve, shown separately for Workers' Compensation, General Liability and Health Benefits Three years of projected actual expenditures for the budget year and the next five to ten years, shown separately for Workers' Compensation, General Liability and Health Benefits The amount needed to fund reserves at alternative confidence levels, covering the spectrum u of possible approaches ranging from no reserves for future year expenses if a "pay as you go" policy is adopted, funding to cover the current year and some future costs, funding to cover the current year and some but not all projected future costs, and funding to cover the current year and all projected future costs. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Counties and public jurisdictions have varying policies on reserves. On one end of the spectrum, some counties and other public jurisdictions simply budget for their expected payments in the budget year. Others choose to maintain reserves to fully cover all known current and future liabilities and some counties choose a position between these two. The Board of Supervisors should be involved in deciding the level of reserves for each of these funds. To inform this decision, the budget document should include information in a table such as presented in the example in Exhibit 4.2: Exhibit 4.2 Example of Information to Provide to the Board of Supervisors for Consideration of Alternative Insurance Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds Reserves required Confidence level 000s None Pa as you o 20% $3,000 35% $3,500 50% $4,000 $4,500 65% 70% $5,000 80% $5,500 $6,000 100% The County's financial statement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001 showed that the Risk Management fund had approximately $12.9 million in cash reserves for future costs. The liability for noncurrent insurance payments was reported in the financial statement as $11.9 million. In other words, there was enough cash in the fund to cover all known and projected pay outs for the current and future years that would have to be paid if the County suddenly went out of business and never received any more payments from its customer County departments. Since the likelihood of the County actually going out of business is quite small, the Board may want to consider a lesser reserve level. By presenting the projected pay outs for future years in the proposed budget, the Board would be better informed for deciding the optimal level of reserves. A summary of information that should be presented is shown in the following two exhibits. The numbers are for illustration purposes only and do not reflect the actual or projected expenses of El Dorado County. The information in Exhibit 4.3 would provide a snapshot of retained earnings, annual revenues, annual costs, and cash reserves on hand for the future and projected future liabilities, all in one table. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Exhibit 4.3 Example of cash reserve, revenue and expenditure information to be presented in the proposed General Liability and Workers' Compensation Fund budgets (in 000s) Workers' General Liability Compensation $2,900 $3,600 a Retained earnings: end of FY 00-01 3,700 4,200 b Revenues from charges to departments FY 01-02 6,600 7,800 c Total funds available (a+b) 2,000 2,600 FY 01-02 Claims pay outs/legal costs, • FY 01-02 Third party administrator costs 400 300 1,500 1,000 FY 01-02Excess insurance costs FY 01-02 Staff and administrative costs 150 200 4,050 4,100 h Total costs FY 01-02 (d through g) i Retained earnings: end of FY 01-02 c-h 2,550 3,700 J Cash reserves on hand 6,600 3,300 6,500 4,200 k Future Year Liabilities Amounts shown are for illustration purposes only and are not actual El Dorado County amounts. Note: Actual historical expenditures should be shown to provide information about typical annual expenditures, what is likely to be needed in future years and to help determine how much cash should be kept in reserve to meet those expenses. Exhibit 4.4 Example of payment data to be presented in budget for General Liability and Workers' Compensation Funds (in 000s) Workers' General Compensation Fiscal Year Liability 1,500 1,600 1995-96 1,700 1,500 1996-97 1,900 1997-98 1,800 1998-99 1,900 2,000 2,500 1999-00 2,700 2,700 2000-01 2,500 Information such as that shown in Exhibit 4.4 should be presented to the Board of Supervisors to identify average annual expenditures in the past and as a basis for future projections. The historical numbers would have to be tied to some sort of appropriate index such as number of employees to determine an average cost per employee and then project forward based on expected increases in the County work force. Other variables should also be considered in the projections such as changes in County services that might result in changes in risk exposures. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Fleet Management Fund Fleet management fund information in the budget document is less comprehensive than risk management fund information. The fleet management function is a function of the General Services Department and is included in that department's budget. Because the department covers so many functions, such as capital projects, communications, purchasing, airports and parks and grounds, and because the expenditure level is lower, the level of reporting is lower for fleet management than risk management. In spite of its smaller size, similar information should be presented in the budget as discussed for risk management. The budget document should include cash on reserve (approximately $3.7 million as of June 30, 2001), annual revenues and historical and five year projected fleet maintenance and replacement costs. Unlike insurance costs, the County would not have future vehicle maintenance and replacement obligations if it went out of business but some reserve level is appropriate to cover unanticipated expenses such as replacement of critically needed vehicles before their expected replacement dates due to accident or unplanned repair costs exceeding the vehicle's value. This information and reserve options would assist the Board of Supervisors in making decisions on funding levels and appropriate charges to customer departments for this fund.

January 23, 2002 — Government & Administration Committee Final Reports - Introduction The 2001/2002 El Dorado County Grand Jury (Grand

3 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

November 26, 2001 — Government & Administration Committee Department of General Services Reason for the Report The Grand Jury investigates

14 pages 63 findings 29 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 63 findings

F1: DGS occupies a unique position and function as a department because the services provided by DGS are critical to the operations of every other county department. In addition, DGS provides direct services to the public.

F2: DGS has had a significant and destabilizing turnover of department directors, amounting to nine directors, appointed and interim, within the last 10 years. One of them served on two separate occasions. This turnover has had an unsettling effect on DGS personnel and has affected the morale of employees negatively.

Related Recommendations (3)

R1: The Board should contract with a professional management consulting firm for a comprehensive management audit of DGS to determine if the department is organized in a manner which enables it to perform its assigned responsibilities and functions efficiently and effectively with current resources and personnel. Among other management issues, this study should address and explain reasons for frequent vacancies and high turnover of Directors, Assistant Directors, Managers, and Supervisors in DGS.

R4: The Board should immediately institute intensive manager and supervisor training programs for DGS personnel. The Department should require such training before those employees complete probation as managers and supervisors.

R28: The Board must establish new priorities in budget allocations for DGS staff recruitment, training, retention, and critical functions.

F3: DGS has experienced significant reorganizations following the appointment of each new department director.

Related Recommendations (2)

R3: The Board should adopt general policies and identify specific procedures for the transfer of functions and responsibilities within departments and from one department to another.

F4: The DGS portion of the 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan provides for the continuance of the position of Assistant Director. This position, however, has been vacant for more than 10 months. Managers from divisions within DGS have been called upon to perform the duties of Assistant Director on an interim basis.

Related Recommendations (1)

F5: When the duties of the position of Assistant Director of DGS are assumed by an assigned employee who holds another management position in DGS, that employee is required to carry out the duties of two full-time positions for only a 5% pay differential.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board should direct the Human Resources Department (HRD) and the DGS Director to remove unnecessary requirements for post-secondary degrees from job descriptions for DGS division managers when the jobs do not require certification, registration, or licensing.

F6: Divisions in DGS have operated for extended periods with interim managers or without assigned managers. The result has been under-filled or vacant positions, or positions filled by employees who have been assigned responsibilities and duties above and beyond their normal scope of duties. This frequently occurs without additional compensation. Job descriptions have been ignored.

Related Recommendations (3)

R28: The Board must establish new priorities in budget allocations for DGS staff recruitment, training, retention, and critical functions.

F7: Over the past few years, various responsibilities have been transferred from other county departments to DGS. Examples include Vehicle Fleet Services (Fleet Services), Radio, and Airports, which were transferred from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to DGS, when administration personnel were transferred from DOT to DGS. In the example of Fleet Services, staffing was reduced 50%, from six employees at DOT to three employees at DGS, without a reduction in workload. This is significant because the DGS Fleet Services unit does not have adequate staff to cover absences and vacancies.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board should adopt general policies and identify specific procedures for the transfer of functions and responsibilities within departments and from one department to another.

F8: Frequently, responsibilities for the performance of duties have been assigned based on individual personalities and abilities rather than structural efficiency.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The Board should adopt general policies and identify specific procedures for the transfer of functions and responsibilities within departments and from one department to another.

F9: In February 2002, the current Director proposed another significant reorganization of the department into seven divisions, five of which would be headed by managers, one of which would be headed by a supervisor, and one of which would be headed by an Assistant Director. The Assistant Director would be assigned direct responsibility for Fleet Services and Special Districts.

Related Recommendations (1)

F10: As part of the proposed DGS reorganization, Radio would be transferred to the Sheriff's Department, and Communications (telephone services) would be transferred to the Information Services Department, thereby eliminating that portion of the DGS division called Communications. Facilities Services Division Findings

F11: The Project Management unit of the Facilities Services Division now consists of four staff positions: one Senior Architectural Project Manager, two Architectural Project Managers, and one Senior Engineering Technician. The Senior Project Manager position is new; the Board approved it in September 2001 with the adoption of the 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan. This new position has not been filled. One Architectural Project Manager position has been vacant since November 2001. The Facilities Services Manager position is currently vacant. This leaves two employees to handle the project management workload until such time as qualified staff can be recruited and trained.

F12: Sixty-seven Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) were listed in the 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan. Responsibility for 63 of those CIP projects was assigned to the Facilities Services Division.

F13: Of the 67 CIP projects named in the 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan, 18 were New Facility Projects, 45 were Carryover Facility Projects, and 4 were New Parks Development Projects. Some carryover projects, including those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and those relating to life/health/safety issues, have been set forth in budget proposals since 1997 without being completed.

Related Recommendations (2)

F14: Projects are not placed on the CIP list by priority, e.g., by the importance of ADA compliance and life/health/safety issues. The Grand Jury has been unable to determine what criteria are used to place projects on the New Facility Projects list or the Carryover Facility Projects list. Written policies or criteria do not exist within the Facilities Services Division for priority ranking of project requests.

Related Recommendations (4)

R11: The Board and the CAO, with the assistance of DGS staff, should adopt policies, which establish criteria to prioritize all Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), including New Facility Projects, Carryover Facility Projects, and New Parks Development Projects.

F15: The Facilities Services Division purchased the software program MP2 for managing work orders, preventive maintenance, and facility planning over three years ago. As of November 26, 2001, $16,246 had been expended to pay the vendor for software, services, and support. That expenditure did not include county staff time spent in training and working on the MP2 program.

F16: Less than 30% of the capability of the MP2 program is used because of inadequate division staffing, limited training, and frequent staff turnover. Original data entered at the time of purchase has not been verified or maintained. Significant staff time will be required to update the existing MP2 database.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The DGS Director should request, and the Board should make appropriate budget allocations for, staff and training to enable the Facilities Services Division and the proposed Maintenance Division to use the MP2 program consistently for repair orders, maintenance orders, and facilities planning.

F17: MP2, as currently used, does not provide useful and reliable information for the Facilities Services Division and the new Maintenance Division, its proposed offshoot. More efficient operation and use of data in the MP2 program can be accomplished. That would result in major cost savings of thousands of dollars each year.

Related Recommendations (1)

F18: Unlike the architectural, engineering and construction industries, the Facilities Services Division does not use computer-assisted drafting and design (CADD). The Division does not have designated hardware or software programs for CADD or trained staff able to perform CADD functions. The Division has made no effort to acquire this capability in order to achieve both prevailing standards of communication and efficiency and cost savings common in the referenced industries.

Related Recommendations (2)

R7: The DGS Director, with the assistance of the HRD, should recruit and hire staff for the Project Management unit who are proficient in CADD. The Director should budget for upgraded computer hardware and software to facilitate and expedite the design and construction management of facilities projects.

R9: The DGS Director, the CAO, and the Board should undertake a comprehensive review of outside contract services available to expedite design, engineering, construction and repair of county facilities. The Board should determine the economy of abolishing the Facilities Services Division and contracting all design and construction management to private enterprise. Privatization of functions of the Facilities Services Division should be considered for the following reasons: · Volume of work; · Current vacant positions; · Inability of current managers and staff to perform work in a timely manner; · Difficulty in recruiting and training qualified project design and management staff; · Antiquated manual construction project design and drafting methods; and · Staff turnover.

F19: Unbelievably, the County does not have an up-to-date Facilities Master Plan that addresses long range planning, acquisition of real property, disposal of real property, and leasing of facilities, even though a Master Plan has been a high priority of previous DGS directors.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The Board, with full participation of DGS administrative and management personnel, should proceed immediately to create a comprehensive Facilities Master Plan (the Plan) to guide this Board and future Boards in planning, acquiring, and disposing of real property and to assure more efficient and economical operation of all county buildings and facilities. The Plan must identify all currently owned and leased properties, determine the condition of current facilities, evaluate maintenance and repair requirements, estimate capital outlay costs for future growth, establish priority for acquisitions based on department needs, and recommend adequate budgets for continuing maintenance and repairs for long term planning.

F20: In adopting the 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan (P. 59), the Board authorized a budget allocation in Department 15 (General Fund Other Operations) of approximately $250,000 for an "other capital projects/countywide capital facilities programming and financing plan." Notwithstanding the Board's adoption of this 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan in September 2001 and dissemination of a Request for Qualifications by the Facilities Services Division, a consultant has not signed a contract. It is unclear when, or if, this $250,000 allocation will result in a comprehensive Facilities Master Plan.

Related Recommendations (1)

F21: In the absence of a Facilities Master Plan, the Board has not made, and cannot make, informed decisions in the area of capital improvement projects. As one example, the Board purchased the vacant Logan Building in Diamond Springs, then searched for appropriate uses for the building, and then planned to expend discretionary funds for tenant improvements in amounts exceeding the County's original purchase price, which itself was more than the appraised value of the property. The total expenditures may exceed $4.5 million.

Related Recommendations (1)

F22: The Interim Chief Administrative Officer, in August 2001, prior to the adoption of the proposed 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan, represented to the Board that capital facility construction needs were "unquantified" and that the State was in a budget crisis. In spite of this, the Board adopted a budget in September 2001 allocating $7 million for a new Community Enhancement Fund (CEF). This Fund would be used to provide money for a myriad of constituent-requested projects and programs with little reference to department-requested New Facility Projects or Carryover Facility Projects.

F23: Criteria for CEF projects were not written or publicly discussed by the Board. The Board did not instruct constituents to consider existing CIP projects, some dating back to 1997, in preparing "wish lists" for CEF funds. Moreover, members of the Board selectively chose, and recommended approval of, new CEF projects in November 2001 for the 01/02 fiscal year without direct involvement from the DGS Director or the Facilities Services Division. It does not appear that the Board gave any consideration to current workloads and staffing problems in existing divisions of DGS that would be directly responsible for coordination with requesting parties, contract issuance, and project management. Support Services Division Findings

F24: With its adoption of the 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan, the Board approved a reorganization of the Support Services Division and created a new Manager of Procurement and Contracts position. Support Services is now headed by that Manager, who has been delegated authority to act as the Purchasing Agent. Purchasing is now staffed by four full-time commodity buyers (one of whom is a Senior Buyer) and a Contract Analyst (Department Analyst) to write and process professional services contracts.

F25: The purpose of this reorganization and increase in staffing was to relieve departments from the time required to obtain informal quotations and process service agreements. Increased staffing was intended to re-institute centralized purchasing practices and capture detailed commodity utilization information to provide data for trend analysis. In turn, trend analysis results are supposed to support appropriate recommendations for revisions to the Purchasing Ordinance.

F26: Currently, limits for signature authority, purchase orders, and contracts without competitive bidding are being studied by the Manager of Procurement and Contracts in order to recommend appropriate changes for Board consideration.

F27: Board policy and county ordinance establish departmental signature authority up to $499.99 for direct or "over-the-counter" purchases of materials and supplies without formal purchase orders. The limit was increased from $99.99 to $499.99 in 1997 at the request of DGS. It has not been increased since 1997 in spite of increasing costs for materials and supplies. The $499.99 limit restricts the ability of the Facilities Services, Maintenance, Communications, and Radio units to respond quickly to requests for immediate repairs. As the County's buildings and equipment deteriorate from age and inadequate maintenance, and as inflation drives up costs, the $499.99 limit for "over-the-counter" purchases appears to be unrealistic.

Related Recommendations (1)

F28: The County's purchase-order limit is currently $10,000 without competitive bids. This limit has not been adjusted for inflation and may be unrealistic given the amount of inflation that has occurred since the limit was set.

Related Recommendations (1)

F29: The DGS Director is allowed to contract for services that do not exceed $10,000. The Purchasing Officer can require a department to seek competitive bids for contract work under $10,000. All contracts for services exceeding $10,000 must be bid competitively. This limit, also, has not been adjusted for inflation, and it may no longer be efficient for handling service contracts. Communications and Fleet Services Findings

Related Recommendations (1)

F30: The existing call accounting system, a software program used for cost analysis and billing telephone charges to each department, has been in operation since 1993. Periodic upgrades have been installed, but the original vendor is out of business and no longer supports this software. A new call accounting system software costing approximately $53,000 has been requested repeatedly, but those requests consistently have been rejected.

Related Recommendations (1)

F31: The existing call accounting system software is exceedingly time-consuming to use for billing purposes, although it was considered "state of the art" at the time of purchase. Without vendor support, the time necessary to recover from software failures greatly impedes the ability of the Communications Division to perform interdepartmental telephone billing functions.

Related Recommendations (1)

F32: Although no official reorganization plan had been adopted to transfer radio and telephone operations out of DGS, Communications was informed in midyear that the Information Services Department would assist it in budget preparation for FY 2002- 2003. Likewise, Radio was informed in midyear that the Sheriff's Department would assist it in budget preparation for FY 2002-2003. This unofficial midyear plan has created a problem for the employees in these units because the lines of authority are no longer clearly defined. There is uncertainty about how these units will operate in different departments in the coming fiscal year.

Related Recommendations (1)

F34: Fleet Services is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, disposing of, and interdepartmental billing for all county-owned vehicles.

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: The Board should take appropriate action to transfer Fleet Services and Airports from DGS back to DOT.

Related Recommendations (1)

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The Board should consider consolidating the physical offices of all DGS divisions at one site to improve administrative oversight, accountability, communication, operational efficiency, and working conditions.

R18: The Board should take appropriate action to transfer Fleet Services and Airports from DGS back to DOT.

Related Recommendations (2)

R28: The Board must establish new priorities in budget allocations for DGS staff recruitment, training, retention, and critical functions.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: The Board should authorize the DGS Director to hire contract employees as "Extra Help" to work on construction projects which are short term and seasonal.

Related Recommendations (1)

R22: The DGS Director, the CAO, and the Board, with the assistance of HRD, should initiate a thorough analysis of the compensation schedule for the authorized position of Airports Supervisor.

Related Recommendations (1)

R23: The Board should revise policies and adopt ordinances, which clearly state which department -- DGS or DOT -- is responsible for and has primary jurisdiction over Airports.

Related Recommendations (1)

R23: The Board should revise policies and adopt ordinances, which clearly state which department -- DGS or DOT -- is responsible for and has primary jurisdiction over Airports.

Related Recommendations (1)

Related Recommendations (2)

Related Recommendations (1)

R24: The Board should recognize and take appropriate action to remedy the County's lack of expertise in the area of cable television franchise fee negotiations and collection of fees.

Related Recommendations (1)

R25: The Board should authorize immediately the full budget allocation which was requested by the RPPA to contract for property appraisals in the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor.

📋October 10, 2001 — Criminal Justice Committee Growlersberg Conservation Camp, Georgetown, Ca Reason for the Report The California Penal

3 pages 93 findings 32 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 93 findings

F1: This Grand Jury agrees with the 1998/1999 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings and Recommendations: · The DOC and the California Department of Forestry (CDF) administer the camp jointly. · The design capacity of the camp is 80. · Current population was 131. · Inmates are typically confined at the camp for 9 months. · This is a minimum-security facility, with open dorms and no fences. · Only carefully screened minimum security inmates are assigned to the camp; · Inmates do conservation and rescue work and fire suppression. · Every inmate has a full-time job either working on a conservation crew or in camp (kitchen, clerks). · The Grand Jury recommended that there be more publicity about the good work done by the inmates and staff.

F2: This Grand Jury agrees with the 1999/2000 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings: · Housing areas were clean and well kept. · The food preparation area was clean, and the food was good. · Inmate welfare and recreation was provided for. · The kitchen needed to be updated, especially the range vent hood. · Management by the correctional staff seemed to be very efficient and professional.

F3: This Grand Jury agrees with the 2000/2001 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings: · The range hood was a danger. · Housing areas were clean and orderly. · The food preparation area was clean and orderly, and the food was good. · There was virtually no compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

F4: The camp is well organized; every inmate is fully employed. The camp is maintained by the inmates under staff supervision.

F5: The CDF, subject to the Governor's planning and budget process and legislative approval, is planning to replace the original buildings (circa 1965) beginning in FY 03/04.

F6: The camp is designed for 80 with a present population of 137. It is anticipated that the 137 will be reduced to 120 in the near future.

F7: Over the past 37 years the camp has enjoyed excellent relationships with its neighbors and neighboring communities.

F8: All staff assigned to this camp is experienced with many years' managing inmates, facilities, and programs.

F9: No weapons are kept at the camp. All DOC staff members maintain weapons in their homes. If necessary they will arm themselves to respond to emergencies (for example, an escape).

F10: Any inmate in need of a program not offered at this camp (such as education or mental health) is transferred to another State DOC facility.

F1.1: through F1.3 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses R~uired for Recommendations Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget Rl.1 through R1.6 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation NIFR Strategic Planning Results 3 u1 5 Key Results: °,'o Customers Satisfied with Applications Development Service Request Outcome. Activity Name: DESKTOP SUPPORT Activity Purpose: The purpose of the DESKTOP SUPPORT activity is to provide management and support of the entire desktop life cycle to clients so that they can benefit from a stable computing platform. Services that Desktop Upgrades comprise the Hardware Configuration & Pricing Activity: Desktop Virus Protection Distributed Equipment Help Desk Contacts Repaired Equipment Acquired Equipment Desktop Guidance Infrastructure Data Archiving & Recovery Technical Guidance (Desktop Hardware & Software) Desktop Installations Hardware & Software Inventory Network Server Services Office Automation Tools Personal Data Storage Performance Measures: RESULT: % of Available Server Services (24X7) Actuals FY 00: Actuals FY 01: Anticipated FY 02: 98 Mid Yr Forecast: Projected FY 03: Calculation: Data Source: Server logs. from the IT resource. of hours "up" / total number of server hours per quarter. (NOTE: 90 days in the quarter.) MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, Help Desk Tracking software and Internal Activity Leader: Jack Coffin RESULT: % of Available Server Services During Prime Business Hours (12X5) Actuals FY 00: Actuals FY 01: Anticipated FY 02: Nlid Yr Forecast: Projected FY 03: Atta chment 1 Page-I off' Program The purpose of the Information Technology Program is to provide IT leadership and Purpose: services to the client departments so that management can obtain maximum benefit 5.2 ()22 1 3 0 1" Qrt Result YTD 1 Comments 1 99.72 2 ( 99.81 99.75 3 4 Qrt Result YTD Comments I 1 100 2 l 100 100 3 4 ` \IFR Strategic Planning Results 1ut5 Calculation: # of hours "up" / total number of server hours in the quarter. (NOTE: 60 work days in the quarter.) Data MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, Help Desk Tracking software and Internal Source: Server logs. Activity Leader: Jack Coffin OUTPUTS: Number of installed and redeployed desktops Actuals FY 00: Actuals FY 01: Anticipated FY 02: 5600 Mid Yr Forecast: Projected FY 03: Calculation: # of PCs in the installed base + # of replacement and new PCs deployed + : of PCs "waterfalled" within installed base. Data Source: MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, SupportMagic Call Tracking software. Activity Leader: Jack Coffin DEMAND: Expected number of installed and redeployed desktops Actuals FY 00: Actuals FY 01: Anticipated FY 02: 5600 Mid Yr Forecast: Projected FY 03: Calculation: -- of PCs in the installed base + t of replacement and new PCs deployed + # of PCs "waterfalled" within installed base. Data Source: MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, SupportMagic Call Tracking software. Activity Leader: ' Jack Coffin EFFICIENCY: Cost per installed and redeployed desktop Actuals FY 00: Actuals FY 01: Anticipated FY 02: Mid Yr Forecast: Projected FY 03: Attachment l 5.20?: ? 0F Qrt , Result WD Comments 1 1426 2 1527 1 1635 3 4 Qrt I Result YTD Comments 1 1465 2 1587 1, 1682 3 4 NIFR Strategic Planning Results pj i Calculation: Number of installed and redeployed desktops divided by the annual budget of the PC/LAN Solutions and Support Team. Data MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, SupportMagic Call Tracking software and Source: the budget system. Activity Leader: Jack Coffin Attac hment 1 f 3 Qrt Result YTD I Comments 4 2. Capital Projects

F11: As of April 20, 2002, the complainant has received neither the money nor the gun.

F1.3: The County does not have a long range strategic plan with goals and objectives set by the Board of Supervisors to guide the allocation of County funds and resources. Without this, budget and program priorities are set primarily by County staff without the benefit of structured input from elected officials and the public. This has been particularly true in past years when the budget was adopted with very little discussion at the Board of Supervisors public hearings. For the current fiscal year, FY 2001-02, the Board of Supervisors chose to hold more extensive public hearings as part of the budget addenda process and received detailed presentations from all departments. While these hearings allowed for more interaction between the Board and the departments than has taken place in the recent past, this process would be even more valuable if the budgets submitted by the departments were prepared under policy direction already provided in a long range strategic plan. Another benefit of a strategic plan is providing a common set of goals and objectives for all County employees. As part of a multi-year strategic planning effort, a process for measuring individual department performance and plan outcomes is needed. This would also enhance the budget process by providing the Board of Supervisors with meaningful performance measures for each department and a method for measuring the effectiveness of allocated funds. Many organizations, public and private, engage in a strategic planning process to accomplish the following: 1) confirm and refine the mission statement of the organization with which all employees and stakeholders agree; 2) establish a vision for the future of the organization; 3) develop goals, objectives and action plans to ensure accomplishment of the mission and vision; and 4) establish a mechanism for measuring and reporting on actual organization performance relative to the goals, objectives and action plans. Generally, strategic plans are multi-year in nature with a five year horizon being fairly typical. A strategic planning process for El Dorado County should include the following steps: 0 0 a 0 0 Assessing the current state of County operations including resources available and strengths and weaknesses of the organization Identifying likely future trends that will affect the County (e.g., population growth in El Dorado and neighboring counties, changes in State funding formulas, likely incorporation of cities, impacts of new technology, etc.) Identifying likely future service needs and resources available to meet those demands (i.e., likely revenue streams) Establishing service goals and objectives consistent with the mission and vision for the future Establishing a system for measuring the County's success in meeting the stated goals and objectives Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget Currently El Dorado County does not have a long term strategic plan. Some departments such as the Information Services Department have developed plans specific to their departments and programs but there is no overarching plan for the County as a whole. A countywide plan would be valuable for budget purposes as it would help guide the allocation of resources consistent with established goals and objectives. Under the present system, department heads can set goals and objectives for their departments and Board members may provide direction on a case by case basis through budget hearings or other forums where department heads and Board members interact. But there is no formalized process by which the public and the Board as a group reach consensus and establish priorities that provide clear direction to all departments. A multi-year approach helps get around the limitations of the single year budget process that often doesn't address projects and initiatives that span more than one year. Typical multi-year projects in the county include capital projects, service delivery improvements, improvements in administrative activities, computer installations and upgrades, and other initiatives. While final appropriations still have to be made in the annual budget to fund multi-year projects and initiatives, providing directives in a strategic plan will help guide funding decisions in the budget process and will provide direction to department managers about their priorities. The County needs a system to measure department performance Measuring accomplishment of the goals, objectives and action plans in a strategic plan is probably one of the greatest benefits of embarking on such an effort and it is directly linked to the budget process. First, it makes the strategic plan a much more meaningful, results-oriented process. While establishing mission and vision statements, goals and objectives and action plans are all worthwhile activities, they can become meaningless if there isn't a method of measuring and reporting results. Setting an overall goal for the County such as making the County safe from crime is fine, but adding a method for measuring whether or not this occurs gives the process much greater impact. This could be measured in crime rate trends, arrest rates, successful prosecution and sentencings, community perception of safety, and other measures. These type of measures can be tied to the budget process through, for example, reviewing law enforcement officers per capita, arrests resulting in successful prosecutions, response times, and other measures. The budget can be adjusted accordingly to improve these measures to meet the service goals of the strategic plan. For each department, the proposed El Dorado County budget includes a mission statement, workload indicators, written summaries of all major programs, and staffmg information. This is useful information but what is missing are goals and objectives for the department and outcome measures to provide meaning to the workload indicators. The workload indicators, shown for the proposed, current and previous two fiscal years, generally measure caseload but not program outcomes. For example, the Probation Department budget for FY 2001-02 shows 33 workload indicators for eleven program areas. The program areas include Juvenile Hall, Juvenile placement, Group Homes/Foster homes, Adult Court, Adult Supervision and others. Workload indicators include measures such as number of court disposition reports, number of intake hearings, average daily population at Juvenile Hall, number of Adult Court reports, number of Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget adult probationers supervised, number of number of felony sentencing reports prepared and others. The problem with the workload indicators in the Probation Department's budget is that none of them allow for an assessment of department outcomes. For example, a common objective for probation departments is to rehabilitate the probationer so they don't commit the same crime again and have subsequent encounters with the criminal justice system. To measure this objective, recidivism rates should be presented in the budget document rather than just the number of probationers supervised by the department. A high recidivism rate might indicate that Probation Department efforts are not succeeding and would lead to discussion about the level of funding for this effort and whether or not it is adequate and if the Department needs to operate its programs differently to achieve greater success. The Probation Department's number of court reports workload indicator also measures work but not outcomes. It is not possible to tell from the numbers alone if the department is doing a good job of producing its reports for court. Two of the most important factors for court reports generally are whether they are delivered to the court timely and whether they contain the information needed by the judiciary to facilitate decision-making. Useful performance measures for this work might include number of reports delivered to the court on time and the results of a survey of the court's satisfaction with the content of the reports. As with the previous example, this type of information would enable a more informed discussion of the appropriateness of funding levels and program management. Having broad countywide goals and objectives in a strategic plan would also help guide departments such as the Probation Department in that their goals, objectives and funding allocations and requests would need to be linked to the countywide goals and objectives. For example, countywide goals and objectives related to the Probation Department might be to improve coordination between all of the County criminal justice agencies and expansion of alternative programs to keep nonviolent offenders out of jail. The Probation Department would need to respond to these goals and objectives by presenting its coordination efforts with other departments, and development or expansion of alternatives to incarceration programs. Another link between the strategic plan and the budget is that the strategic plan should include financial goals and objectives for the County. These could include target reserve levels, target user fee recovery rates, a countywide approach to one-time revenues, approaches to funding levels for internal service funds, policies regarding deficit spending and others. Departmental strategic planning in El Dorado County As mentioned above, El Dorado County's Information Services Department produced a strategic plan in 2000. The plan was prepared in response to a request from the Board of Supervisors and it states that it will be regularly updated. The purposes of the plan are to: anticipate future information processing needs and provide a strategy for meeting those goals; define an optimum sequence of events to achieve the strategy; facilitate common understanding and support for the department's future direction and goals by all key stakeholders (customers, staff, County management); provide a framework to manage and control the working environment; and, Harvey M. RoseAccountancy Corporation achieve optimum effectiveness and efficiency of resources. Its goals for the future include: expanding basic intranet/intemet services; sharing and integrating data; providing business support data in multiple formats; providing multi-level integrated computing services; re- engineering business processes; guaranteeing the integrity and availability of County data; and, maintaining adequate and appropriate resources. The Information Services plan and any other department strategic plan in the County should be used as underpinnings to a countywide strategic plan. The countywide plan would provide higher level goals and objectives and individual department plans would be more specific and detailed regarding their particular services. The various individual department plans should be consistent with the countywide plan prepared by the Board of Supervisors. As suggested for the countywide strategic plan, individual department success in meeting the goals and objectives in their plans should be measured on an annual basis. Strategic planning in other jurisdictions As mentioned above, many private and public organizations have prepared and are implementing strategic plans. The public organizations include counties and cities throughout the country. In California, one of the more extensive county strategic plans was prepared in Riverside County. The plan, entitled Strategic Vision 2020, addresses the County's mission and business, vision for the next twenty years and guiding principles, service delivery priorities, service goals and strategies, inter-governmental relations, environmental issues, financial management fundamentals, land use planning principles, and related matters. Since many departments in the county have also prepared strategic plans, the Countywide plan incorporates all of those plans. The Riverside plan addresses limits to County service and highlights what the County cannot do as well as areas where it should excel. Maricopa County, Arizona initiated a strategic planning process in 2000 that integrated planning, budgeting and performance measures. For this effort, each department was required to prepare a strategic plan that included the following: a 0 0 0 0 Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget The County mission and vision statement A department mission and vision statement' Department goals Identification of department issues Identification of all key programs in each department including: D Program name D Program purpose Key results for the program (usually a quantifiable measure) Activities and services within each program Outputs for each activity Actual results for each activity compared to key result expectations Cost per output 1 The department vision statement was optional in the Maricopa County plan. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget Quarterly reports are produced for each department in Maricopa County. A sample report for the Maricopa County Information Systems department is shown as Attachment 1. As can be seen, performance data is not available yet for each key activity in this program. But efforts are now underway to regularly collect this data and to tie it to a cost efficiency factor shown at the end of the attachment. There is a range of approaches for El Dorado County to consider in establishing a strategic planning process but the key elements should include: o statement of purpose or mission; o vision for the future; o goals, objectives and action plans for accomplishing the mission and vision statements; and, o a system for measuring results linked to the budget process. The plan's goals and objectives will also drive the budget process as each department will be expected to show how they are contributing to the strategic plan's goals and objectives through their activities.

F14: There is a $125 - $225 discrepancy between the $500 actual credit received by the Sheriff and the valuation amount reported by him.

F15: In the "Comments" section of Schedule E, the Sheriff made the following statements: "This man gave me a rifle and shotgun in 1999, I think. At the time I saw it as he wanted to ge [sic] rid of them and so he gave them to me. At the time I did not think them a reportable gift. As I am finishing my term and leaving elected office I was advised that maybe I should file to set the record straight."

F17: Internal election battles waged within the Sheriff’s Department and the resulting bad feelings affected relations among Sheriff’s personnel and between Sheriff’s personnel and the public.

F18: There are residual bad feelings among some of the Sheriff’s personnel. Many believe it will take years for healing to take place.

F19: There are seven elected county department heads. Elections for Sheriff are frequently contentious because: • Opposing candidates are generally long time employees of the Department. • The Sheriff’ Department has a greater number of employees. • Departmental employees are highly visible in uniform. • The type of work, such as responding to emergencies, is stressful. • Persons attracted to law enforcement are usually assertive, tough minded and confrontational. 13 • The culture and traditions of law enforcement encourage such contentiousness.

F20: The Sheriff’s Team of Active Retirees (STAR) are uniformed volunteers who assist the Sheriff’s Department with a variety of functions. There are more than 200 STAR volunteers. They are viewed by the public as being departmental employees.

F2.1: through F2.4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations

F22: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and a variety of religious programs are provided by volunteers from the community.

F2.3: Using County budget documents it is not possible to determine the status of capital projects or whether the projects are over or under budget. Capital project status reporting in the budget would be improved by including comparisons of originally proposed and actual costs and project timing. Funding and priority setting for El Dorado County's facility and transportation capital projects takes place without benefit of a multi-year capital improvement or facility master plan. As a result, department managers can set project priorities without formalized direction from the Board of Supervisors and the public. These priorities may or may not reflect the highest and best use of limited resources in the opinion of Board members and the public but a method doesn't exist to reach consensus, formalize and update those priorities. Both the General Services and Transportation departments have relatively new directors who have developed project tracking systems that allow for better project status reporting. The Department of Transportation has a five year capital project plan prepared in 1995 but it has never been updated. Staff is currently preparing a new document for review by the Board of Supervisors. With adoption of this plan and a similar one that County management reports is in the planning stages for County facility projects, project priorities will be clearer, the budget process simplified and department accountability for completing projects on time and on schedule improved. There are two primary types of multi-year capital projects in El Dorado County. First are construction and rehabilitation of County facilities such as parks and public buildings that are the responsibility of the General Services Department. Second are road, bridge and transportation system projects that are the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. These projects often span multiple years so their presentation in the budget document is different than presentation of annual operating revenues and expenditures for most departments. County Facility Projects The budget for the General Services Department includes a list of County facility projects categorized as either carryover or new. This list is first presented in the proposed budget submitted to the Board of Supervisors in June and then updated for the budget addenda report in September. Differences between the two lists for FY 2001-02 are shown in Exhibit 2.1. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Exhibit 2.1 Difference in General Services Department Capital Projects between the Proposed and Addenda Budget Documents FY 2001-02 Proposed Budget Budget Addenda Change # Carryover Projects Carryover Funding # New Projects New Funding 45 72 $2,077,786 $2,827,090 22 43 $1,181,900 $2,358,761 27 $749,304 21 $1,176,861 # Projects Total Funding Total 67 115 48 $3,259,686 $5,185,851 $1,926,165 Source: FY 2001-02 Proposed Budget & Workplan and Budget Addenda Report Section 2: Capital Projects As can be seen, there is a significant change in the number of projects and funding levels between the two documents. This reflects the timing of the two budget documents. The proposed budget presented to the Board in June has to be submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer by the departments by the end of March/early April. The September budget addenda information is prepared five to six months later. By then, more construction activity has taken place during the prime construction season and the department has more information regarding which projects will be carried over to the next year. In addition, the original budget submission does not include carryover parks projects at all which added 19 more carryover projects and $371,456 in costs to the carryover projects in the budget addenda. With a 59 percent change in funding between the June and September lists, the Board's approval of projects in June is somewhat meaningless. Besides changes between the two lists, it is not possible to tell from either the status of the carryover projects in terms of time or costs. The lists simply present all projects with no indication of whether they are 10 percent or 90 percent done, when project completion is expected, or whether they are under or over budget. The lists are not prioritized so it is not possible to tell the order in which projects will be worked on and completed. While there are many projects in progress and compilation of information on these projects can be complex, a simple report showing the original budget and schedule compared to actual costs and schedule could be readily compiled from Department records with a column for briefly explaining significant variances in time or cost. The Department already maintains a project tracking list for use internally by management. This document could be modified for reporting to the Board and for inclusion in the budget documents. In addition to better reporting of the status of projects, the General Services Department needs a multi-year master plan, approved by the Board of Supervisors, that establishes project priorities and includes estimated funding and timing for each project over a multi-year period such as five years. With agreed upon project priorities, Department management would have clear direction about how to allocate their resources. Project priorities and available funding would also be Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Capital Projects better aligned with such a plan as it would allow for determination of what should be done given limited resources and what cannot be done. New projects could still be added and planned projects deleted after the plan is adopted if priorities change or funding becomes unavailable. The difference would be that the process would be formalized so the Board would have to make a conscious choice to delete a project rather than a project remaining on the list but never getting done. The interim Chief Administrative Officer reports that plans are underway at the time of preparation of this report to commence preparation of such a plan, including financing plans, for County facilities. Department of Transportation Capital Projects and Maintenance Work Transportation capital projects are presented in a different format in the budget than General Services projects. In the FY 2001-02 budget addenda document, the Department presents a list of approximately $24 million worth of capital improvement projects. For each project, a breakdown of project costs (labor, overhead, fixed assets, etc.) and the project's revenue source(s) are presented. The budget addenda document submitted to the Board of Supervisors in September lists 25 capital projects but does not show the timing or funding status of any of the projects or sequencing or priorities for the coming year (see Attachment 2). As with the General Services Department budget, information is not presented comparing planned and actual costs and timing of the Department's capital improvement projects. Nor are projects prioritized in accordance with a multi-year plan approved and updated by the Board of Supervisors. A five year roads capital improvement project plan was prepared in 1996 but it has not been updated since according to Department of Transportation management. The Department's planned road maintenance projects are also shown with the same cost breakdown as presented for capital projects and with revenue source(s) identified (see Attachment 3). Though these projects tend to be single year in scope compared to capital improvement projects, the work to be done such as patching and overlay, chip seal and traffic signal maintenance, is not prioritized by long term County goals such as achieving an average road condition on the County network by a certain date in the future. If specific priorities such as these were established in a multi-year plan, the Department would have a stronger basis to justify the allocation of its maintenance dollars. Like most counties in California, El Dorado County faces extensive deferred maintenance costs in excess of available resources for road and bridge work. Officially adopted agreed upon priorities are all the more important when need exceeds resources available. The Department of Transportation has prioritized its capital improvement projects by three tiers of priority and is in the process of preparing a new multi-year capital improvement plan. The Department is intending to use this document as a budgetary document as well as a work program so that project priorities and resources available will be linked. Department management's goal is to update the plan annually in advance of the April submittal to the Chief Administrative Officer and Board of Supervisors. 1 2 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Midyear planning workshops with the Board of Supervisors Section 2: Capital Projects To develop the annual plans and budgets for the two departments' capital improvement plans, a process is needed in advance and in lieu of the budget hearing process in September. By September, or budget adoption time, it is too late to add capital projects which often require a fair amount of advance work to obtain funding or to plan in relation to resources available. With five year plans in place for both departments, workshops should be held with the Board of Supervisors in January or at a more convenient time but well in advance of budget submission and adoption. The purpose of the workshops should be to revise and update the plans in accordance with any changes in circumstances, funding or Board priorities. From that point on, the plan for the next year should be established and budget submission and adoption should reflect the agreements reached at those workshops. This would make for a more clear and streamlined budget process for capital improvement projects as most of the projects and funding levels would have been previously agreed to or modified well in advance of the Board of Supervisors review and approval of the proposed budget. The Department of Transportation does prepare a monthly report on its capital projects but this report does not include a comparison of planned and actual project timing and costs. While this does not need to be provided to the Board and public on a monthly basis, it would be useful to present it at budget time and once more during the year such as at the annual planning workshop discussed above. Similarly, the General Services Department should prepare such a report for Board review twice a year, once at its planning workshop and again at budget addenda submission time. The list of projects included in the proposed budget in June should match that resulting from the January planning workshop and then be updated for the addenda process in September based on actual projects completed during the prime construction period and identification of carryover projects.

F23: The booking area appeared cluttered.

F24: The loading dock was not clean.

F2.5: The Department's protocols for social workers to determine if an immediate investigation of a report of child abuse or neglect is needed are inadequate and allow for too much judgement by intake social workers. Though limited, the protocols provide at least some assurance of social worker consistency in determining appropriate responses to referrals. But in a sample of 58 case files reviewed for this audit, documentation of the required decision-making protocols was not found in approximately 50 percent of the cases. The Department does not have a formal risk assessment tool to assist investigation social workers in determining whether a child should be removed from home. The current tool and documentation used by Department social workers, called the Investigative Narrative, does not include a standardized scoring system or other methods to ensure consistent interpretation of similar situations. As with the intake protocols, the Investigative Narrative does not appear to even be used in all cases. In 8 out of 27 case files reviewed, or 29.6 percent, the Investigative Narrative documents were not completed. In another 11 cases, or 40.7 percent, the document was filled out incorrectly. The After Hours Intake function violates Department policies and procedures by not gathering background information from the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System on children who are the subject of telephone reports of alleged abuse and neglect. As a result of these problems, Department management does not have documented assurance that decisions made by social workers in the intake and investigative processes are consistent and properly supported. This problem is reinforced for the After Hours Intake function by the limited availability of supervisors for consultation. Structured Decision-Making is a system used by some counties to minimize individual variation in determining the level of response to initial reports of child abuse and neglect and in determining whether or not a child should be removed from their homes. By implementing at least some components of this system in El Dorado County, the Department will have greater assurance of consistency in its treatment of abuse and neglect allegations. In addition, the Department should require supervisors to be available on call by telephone to social workers assigned to After Hours for consultation and direction as needed. State law mandates that all counties provide initial intake and evaluation of risk services to all children reported to the County as being endangered by abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Every county is to maintain and operate a 24-hour response system and provide immediate in-person 10 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation responses by a county social worker in emergency situations in accordance with regulations of the department.' In response to this requirement, the El Dorado County Department of Social Services has developed its Child Protective Services Protocol, Criteria and Process for Accepting CPS Cases for Assessment, and Emergency Response Protocol included in the Department's policies and procedures manual. This protocol includes a form called the Emergency Response Protocol (Form EL 212) that is to be filled out by social workers for all initial calls alleging child abuse or neglect. When an initial call reporting suspected child abuse or neglect is received by the Department, the intake social worker has three response choices: • Conduct an investigation immediately; • Conduct an investigation within 10 days; or • Do not conduct an investigation or "Evaluate Out" the case. Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools The Department uses a 3 day response to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect. However, a 3 day response time is not formal policy in the Department. To assist intake social workers in determining which of these responses is the most appropriate, the Department's emergency response protocols include a series of response guidelines to guide the initial intake social worker's decision. The form includes the following questions to assist social workers in determining what the initial departmental response should be. 1. Is there sufficient information to locate the family? 2. Is this an open service case with DSS and is the current intervention adequately addressing the problem described in this allegation? 3. Does the allegation meet one or more of the legal definitions of abuse? 4. Is the perpetrator a caretaker of the child or is there reason to believe that the caretaker was negligent in allowing or unable or unwilling to prevent the perpetrator having access to the child? 5. Are specific acts and/or behavioral indicators of abuse, neglect, or exploitation included in the allegations? 6. Does additional information obtained from collateral contacts or record material invalidate the report? ' California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 16054 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools 7. Does this report represent one in a series of previously investigated, unsubstantiated, or unfounded reports from the same party in which no new allegations or risk factors are revealed? The answers to these questions are intended to guide CPS social workers in determining which referrals justify an in-person investigation. If an in-person investigation is not necessary, Department policies and procedures state the intake social worker should provide a more detailed rationale regarding their decision why an in-person investigation should not be conducted. This Emergency Response Protocol form is included in the Department's CWS/CMS computer system so that social workers receiving an initial call reporting child abuse or neglect can start a case file and enter all information required into the computer system as the call is received. According to Department procedures, this electronic form is supposed to be transferred to the emergency response supervisor for approval for all cases that are evaluated out. While the questions asked in the Emergency Response Protocol form seem appropriate for conducting an initial investigation, the problem with the protocol is that it is fairly open-ended and allows for significant individual interpretation of facts and circumstances. It relies primarily on interpretation of the facts and situation by the social worker. Social workers are trained to assess such situations and professional judgement is always required in children's welfare cases. However, trained social workers are still subject to personal biases and preferences and two social workers can interpret the same situation very differently. While the nature of the work is such that some judgement will always be required, Department management should make every attempt to minimize personal biases and variations in staff decision-making. The room for individual interpretation becomes more pronounced in cases where the situation is not obviously dire but may be on the border between a 10 day investigation or "evaluating out" the case. For such cases, the Department's policy is as follows: "Criteria are to be liberally interpreted, which means where circumstances are marginal, we should open a case for investigation. It is preferable to err in favor of ensuring the child(ren)'s safety and the appropriate response time should be considered." Thus, the explicit goal of the procedure, for safety purposes, is to conduct more investigations than potentially necessary. Emergency response protocols used by some counties provide more structured guides that link certain responses with certain outcomes. For example, a history of two or more previous referrals may lead to a guideline to conduct an immediate investigation unless the intake social worker can provide information that proves this would not be necessary. The tools available to assist social workers in making decisions of whether to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect or the evaluation of risk vary across the state. A study by the University of California at Berkeley found: 12 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools "Departments of Social Services are increasingly being challenged to determine which cases are reported to them are at the highest risk and most in need of services. One response to this challenge involves the development of screening procedures that distinguish levels of risk and need among cases that come to the attention of Child Welfare Services ... The employment of effective screening procedures ...can help not only to reduce disruptive legal intervention into families in situations when it is unwarranted, but also to insure procedural fairness - one-element of which involves consistency in the treatment received by similar cases. The systematic use of screening guidelines would help to promote consistency among decisions made by individual workers and among counties; it would also aid new workers in the field and offer workers and the state some degree of protection in an era of increased litigation. ,2 Some counties have chosen more structured guidelines such as the Structure Decision-Making (SDM) model, developed by the Children's Research Center of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, a non-profit organization. One of the components of SDM, the Response Priority Assessment, is a series of decision trees that guides the intake social worker on what the response should be for the various types of allegations ranging from physical abuse to general neglect. A system such as this would provide for a more consistent approach to determining the appropriate responses to initial reports of abuse and neglect in El Dorado County and would provide better documentation justifying the decision reached by the intake social worker. Emergency Response Protocol not being used in many cases To determine the Department's compliance with its Emergency Response protocol, 58 randomly selected cases were examined in CWS/CMS to verify that proper documentation existed in each case. Even though this protocol has limitations, it does provide some documentation of the decisions made and is required for every case by Department policy. Cases were selected largely from 2001 and included referrals which resulted in immediate investigations, investigations within 10 days, and cases that were evaluated out. It should be noted that the sample was randomly selected but was not designed to be statistically significant. A more authoritative examination would require significantly more time than was authorized for this project. As shown in Exhibit 2.1, out of the sample of 58 cases, Emergency Response protocol forms were only fully completed 50 percent of the time. Thus, although the policy manual clearly states that the form should be used as a guide to making initial intake decisions, half the time the information needed to do so was missing. Gilbert, Neil, Karski, Ruth, and Frame, Laura. The Emergency Response System: Screening and Assessment of Child Abuse Reports . School of Social Work, University of California Berkeley, 1997, pp.l-2. Harvey M. RoseAccountancy Corporation Source: CWS/CMS Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools Exhibit 2.1 Number of Completed Emergency Response Protocol Forms in Case Files As stated above, Department policies and procedures call for the Emergency Response Protocol form to be reviewed on CWS/CMS and approved by the Emergency Response supervisor for all cases which are evaluated out. The Emergency Response unit does an excellent job of reviewing the referrals that are evaluated out. Based on our review, supervisor approval was documented in every case where the decision was to evaluate out. As shown above, the response protocol forms are not complete 50 percent of the time. However, examination of the 25 cases where the decision was to evaluate out show that only two of those 25 referrals, or 8 percent, had incomplete Emergency Response protocol forms and were approved by the supervisor. Thus, in instances where supervisor approval is not required, social workers are more likely to not properly complete the Emergency Response protocol in CWS/CMS. In 47 of the 58 cases reviewed, the response proposed by the intake social worker was approved by the supervisor, even when a completed Emergency Response Protocol form was not entered in to CWS/CMS. Thus, our review suggests that the required Emergency Response Protocol form is not used to guide all intake decisions, in contradiction of Department policies and procedures. Additionally, it appears that this form is viewed by some social workers as a form that has to be filled out as an after thought and not as integral part of the decision-making process. . Management controls are needed to ensure that all workers are making appropriate decisions and documenting them consistent with Department policies. A regular process of reporting social worker compliance with department policies is needed as is periodic review of randomly selected case files by Department management to ensure that decisions are appropriate, properly justified and documented and in compliance with Department policies and procedures. Supervisors are reviewing a majority but not all decisions by the intake social worker. Based on the analysis above, we recommend the Department implement the Response Priority Assessment component of the Structured Decision-Making system. This assessment should be completed on every referral placed with CPS. Use of this tool would ensure greater consistency in social worker decisions about which cases to investigate and when. The Response Priority Assessment component of the Structured Decision-Making system provides social workers with a series of decision trees on which to base the initial response decision. This system will ensure that social workers systematically apply similar criteria to every case and provide consistency across social workers at the two DSS offices in El Dorado County. The 14 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Number of Forms Percent Complete Incomplete 29 50% 29 50% Total 58 100% SDM system provides a process to support, guide, and fully document assessments. One significant advantage of this system is that it brings accountability to decision-making and, based on the decision tree system, decisions require an explanation. Moreover, because the decisions are based on the decision tree system to guide the worker, consistency should increase. The Emergency Response Guidelines lacks guidance to guarantee consistency. Lack of a Formal Safety and Risk Assessment If the result of the intake worker's assessment is that an investigation should be conducted, the case is transferred to an investigative social worker. Under Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 309 and 16504, social workers must determine whether the children that are the subject of the allegations are in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse, and whether the children should be removed or can remain safely in their homes. The social worker also determines whether there are any services that can be provided that would allow the children to. safely remain in their homes. To document the basis for this decision, investigation social workers are required to complete an Investigative Narrative, a one-page form with ten fields, to document any risk factors contributing to the social worker's decision whether or not the child should be taken into protective custody. Currently, the Department does not have precise procedures requiring the use of the Investigative Narrative. CPS management reports that the Investigative Narrative serves as the Department's risk assessment tool. While the State of California requires only a written narrative, the Department has added ten fields to further explain the investigation. The ten fields in the Investigative Narrative that should be complete are: • Child's age, vulnerability, physical and/or mental abilities (includes perpetrator's access to child) Child's behavior Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools Brief Narrative of the Investigation (includes details of who, what, when and where) • Caretaker's Parenting skills/Knowledge (includes capacity for childcare; interaction with children, other caretakers; skill, knowledge; criminal behavior, mental health) • Strength / Weaknesses of Family support system (includes relationships, presence of parent substitute) • Caretaker's Substance / Alcohol Misuse • Environmental Condition of Home • Any services offered and result (includes directives/referrals given and family's response) 1 5 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Need for Emergency Services, if any Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools One problem with the Investigative Narrative risk assessment tool used by the Department to document investigations is that it does not offer a structured approach to guide the investigation social worker's assessment of risk into a decision. Instead, the form is primarily used by the Department's social workers to provide a description of their investigations. As such the documentation of why a child should be taken into protective custody is not as thorough or objective as it would be if a standardized risk assessment were in place. Without a formal safety and risk assessment the criteria social workers use to make removal decisions can vary significantly. Based on a questionnaire provided to social workers in CPS as part of this audit, 58 percent of social worker respondents disagreed with the statement that all social workers use the same criteria in deciding to remove children from their homes. Compounding the inadequacy of the Investigative Narrative as a risk assessment tool is that social workers are not properly using it. As shown in Exhibit 2.3, in 19 of the 27 cases reviewed where an in-person investigation took place, or 70.4 percent of all cases, the form is not properly completed. The definition of not properly completed is that the Investigative Narrative only contains a paragraph or two providing a description of the investigation rather than completion of all ten fields of information required on the form. Often, the paragraph narrative was only a few sentences in the cases reviewed. The Investigative Narrative was missing entirely in eight of the referrals examined. In these cases, it is impossible to retrace the steps of the social worker to determine the basis for the decision. For the eight cases where the Investigative Narrative was incomplete, a list of individuals contacted for the investigation by the social worker was provided in CWS/CMS, but this failed to provide beneficial information to determine how the social worker reached a decision. Exhibit 2.3 Use of Investigative Narrative by CPS Social Workers As shown in Exhibit 2.3, 11 of the 27 Investigative Narratives in CWS/CMS were improperly completed, by not having each of the ten fields documented. The quality of the narratives ranged from one sentence to a very detailed account of the investigation to one that simply referred to a list in CWS/CMS of individuals contacted for the investigation. As with cases that are evaluated 3 The sample number is 27 here because this is the next step in the child removal process. If the intake social worker determines that the referral does not meet the criteria of an in-person investigation that case is "evaluated out" and no further action is required by the Department of Social Services. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Number of Narratives Percent Each field complete 8 29.6% Fields Incomplete 11 40.7% Narrative not found 8 29.6% Total 273 100% Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools out after initial intake, prior to the Investigative Narrative being completed by the investigative social worker, the Emergency Response Supervisor must review and approve the document. Of the cases reviewed, only eleven of the Investigative Narratives, or 40.7 percent, were not properly filled out yet they were apparently approved by the supervisors anyway. However descriptive the narrative form may be, it is still an inadequate assessment of the safety and risk of the child. According to Department management, the Investigative Narrative is designed more to close an investigation, especially in cases where no petition will be filed, and is geared to move the case along. This creates the impression from management to line staff that the Investigative Narrative is a form required to be completed more as an after thought to move the case along, rather than a tool which assists social workers and is an integral part of the decision-making process. In one case reviewed, the Investigative Narrative included only a brief one paragraph review of the investigation. The decision was to open the case and offer Family Maintenance services. However, three days later the case was closed, and the case file indicates that the case was opened in error. While mistakes can occur in any system, the lack of precision in the Investigative Narrative means that mistakes like this will be more likely to occur. Use of a risk assessment tool with a structured assessment mechanism would significantly reduce the potential for opening a case in error or failing to open a case when the child should be removed from the home. Need for a more structured and consistent approach to case decisions Based on the case file review conducted for this audit, it is clear that formalized Safety and Risk assessments tools would assist the investigative social workers in their decision-making and ensure greater consistency in case decision-making. The Department should implement the Structured Decision-Making (SDM) Safety and Risk assessment components as a complement to CWS/CMS as a means to increase consistency of investigations. This system, or components of it, are currently in use in at least 15 other California counties. The Safety Assessment component of SDM is designed to be used by investigative social workers during the initial in-person investigation of abuse and neglect referrals to determine when a child should be taken into protective custody. The Safety Assessment form contains a simple checklist and a narrative to formalize the decision-making process in CPS. These assessments will ensure that CPS staff assesses all cases based on a standardized set of criteria. In some counties, full integration of the Structured Decision-Making tools and the CWS/CMS system are not fully realized. Until full integration, many counties have implemented a paper version of assessment tools to complement CWS/CMS. Santa Clara County uses a paper version of the Structured Decision-Making system. The risk assessment tool in Los Angeles County is a paper version to complement CWS/CMS. In both Counties, social workers manually complete the forms and keep the document in the hard case file. The Department of Social Services could implement a paper version of the Structured Decision Making tool and manually track the results of these assessment tools and maintain records in the hard case file, similar to Santa Clara County. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Inconsistency in After Hours Intake The After Hours process is as follows: Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools Section 16504 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) states the County must provide a 24- Hour intake hotline, where referrals can be made. CPS maintains After Hours hotlines and staff at both the Placerville and South Lake Tahoe offices. Currently the Department does not have dedicated staff to operate the After Hours intake at either office. Staffing for After Hours is made up of workers who either volunteer or are assigned on a non-voluntary rotating basis. According to the Memorandum of Understanding with the union, social workers who work After Hours are guaranteed a minimum of two hours pay, plus an additional $1.20 per hour on-call. Additionally, the Memorandum of Understanding states "On-Call duty" means that an employee is assigned to work outside their normal work week and must remain available to be contacted by telephone and be ready for immediate call-back. Thus, the social worker is not in the office, but is accessible by telephone and ready to respond should a situation arise. • The Department has a contract answering service that receives calls to the After Hours unit. At the beginning of the month CPS will send the answering services a monthly schedule of the social workers scheduled to work the After Hours shifts; and • When a referral is received by the answering service, the service will put the caller on hold and will either page or call the on-call After Hours social worker. At that point the social worker is connected to the reporter to begin the initial intake process. The After Hours intake process varies significantly from the intake process during normal business hours when CPS is fully staffed. For instance, in Placerville during normal business hours, the intake social worker will make the determination whether an in-person investigation is required, but they will not generally conduct the investigation. However, the After Hours intake social worker will not only make the decision whether to conduct an in-person investigation, but will actually perform the in-person investigation if an immediate response is required. Thus, when a social worker is conducting an immediate in-person investigation, the After Hours intake center does not have a social worker available to handle a second referral. According to the Emergency Response supervisor, those instances are rare, but they do happen. When these instances do occur, the answering service will take a message and the social worker will then call the reporter to begin the intake process on the second referral. According to the Department policies and procedures manual, when a child is removed from the home and placed in protective custody by After Hours staff, the written documentation of the incident should go to the Emergency Response Supervisor by 8:00 a.m. the next workday. The potential problem with this is that, without a supervisor checking the social worker's decision, a child could potentially be placed in protective custody or left in the home for as long as several days erroneously. 1 8 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools Additionally, unlike daytime hours, After Hours intake social workers have no direct supervision. During normal business hours, the intake social workers are positioned near the ER supervisor and can have consultation with their supervisor and fellow employees. However, social workers on After Hours duty work alone and do not have consultation with their supervisor. The social workers can call the supervisor if needed for informal consultation, but there is no guarantee that the supervisor will be available. When the supervisor is on vacation or unable to answer the phone the social worker is left to make these decisions on their own. Furthermore, during After Hours duty, social workers have no immediate access to CWS/CMS since the call is received at home. Although social workers have access to the Department building and CWS/CMS during After Hours, there is a delay to obtaining all relevant information regarding the case. This poses potential significant problems and violation of the Department's policy regarding factors to consider in determining if an in-person response is needed: "The decision whether. or not to make an in-person response for all other referrals shall be based on an assessment which shall include collateral contacts, a review of previous referrals and other relevant information to the extent such information or measures are necessary to conduct an assessment." Furthermore, the Department's "Child Protective Services Protocol" states that in-person investigation decisions by the intake social worker shall include a review of the child's "history and disposition of prior referrals." However, since the After Hours social worker does not have immediate access to previous referrals on CWS/CMS, the decision is made on only a partial picture. Additionally, the use of the Emergency Response Guidelines form in CWS/CMS is impossible for social workers to consistently answer correctly, since they do not have access to the past history of the child. Without access to CWS/CMS or paper files at the office, social workers cannot answer two of the eight questions that require further analysis. These questions are as follows: • Is this an open service case with DSS and is the current intervention adequately addressing the problem described in this allegation? • Does this report represent one in a series of previously investigated, unsubstantiated, or unfounded reports from the same party in which no new allegations or risk factors are revealed? Thus, when an After Hours social worker is making the decision to initiate an in-person investigation or not, the decision is made lacking historical information and without the ability to answer two of the key questions included in the Response Guidelines. In the sample of cases reviewed for this audit, instances were found where After Hours social workers received calls in which access to CWS/CMS might have changed the decision regarding if and how soon an in-person investigation should be conducted. We found instances where an After Hours referral had 10 previous referrals throughout the State of California. Based on the 4 Child Protective Services Policy Manual. El Dorado County Department of Social Services. 1992. pg. 9. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation To address the lack of historical and other information available to intake social workers for After Hours cases, CPS should implement a new category of a three-day response to give social workers more flexibility in making the in-person investigation decision. Unless it is obvious that an immediate investigation is needed, After Hours cases could be placed in this category rather than being evaluated out, pending access to CWS/CMS the next business day. This increased flexibility will come at no additional cost to the County. Additionally, CPS supervisors should be required to be on-call After Hours to provide consultation as needed to social workers. Taking these steps will ensure that After Hours decisions are consistent with the approach used during normal business days. Conclusion Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools current system these referrals would not have been known immediately by the intake social worker. Additionally, we found several After Hours cases where children had three referrals each. In particular, the child had three referrals and the response guideline protocol was incomplete. Information such as this could be critical to the decision made by the intake social worker. During normal business hours, the worker would have immediate full access to this information on CWS/CMS. The initial screening and investigation risk assessment tools required by the Department for social workers to use are not sufficiently structured to ensure consistency of decision-making by different workers and at both Department offices. Nor do the tools provide adequate documentation justifying decisions reached. Unfortunately, they are not used at all in some cases and are only partially completed in others. Even with their limitations, these required forms provide some documentation justifying the decisions reached by the social workers. Cases are being approved by supervisors without these required forms completed in apparent contradiction of Department policy. The Department of Social Services needs more management oversight of worker compliance with required procedures and spot checking of case files to ensure that case decisions are adequately documented and supported. To further improve the level of documentation and justification of decisions reached, the Department should implement use of Structured Decision- Making tools to determine what referrals receive further investigation, how soon a response is needed, and to help social workers conducting investigations to determine if there is further risk posed to the child and whether to remove the child or not. In only 50 percent of the cases reviewed were the current initial intake response forms complete. In a review of a sample of Investigative Narratives, over 70 percent were either incomplete or missing. Since social workers are not accurately completing the Department's existing screening and investigation tools, consistency of intake responses and the decisions by investigators within the Department cannot be tracked. There are substantial problems with the process, ranging from lack of CWS/CMS immediate access to check previous referrals to a lack of consultation from supervisors. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

F25: Overall, the management of the Jail appeared to be considerably above average.

F3.1: through F3.3 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations

F32: Although no official reorganization plan had been adopted to transfer radio and telephone operations out of DGS, Communications was informed in midyear that the Information Services Department would assist it in budget preparation for FY 2002- 2003. Likewise, Radio was informed in midyear that the Sheriff's Department would assist it in budget preparation for FY 2002-2003. This unofficial midyear plan has created a problem for the employees in these units because the lines of authority are no longer clearly defined. There is uncertainty about how these units will operate in different departments in the coming fiscal year.

F3.3: The Board of Supervisors receives very comprehensive, well organized reports on the status of the budget at mid-year but no further formal reports until they receive the proposed budget for the next fiscal year in June. As stewards of the County's financial resources, more regularly produced status reports and updates should be provided with less detail than the mid-year reports but with enough information to allow the Board to monitor performance and receive early warnings of potential fiscal problems. The County's financial information system allows for production of a wide variety of ad-hoc reports and analysis of expenditures and revenues accessible to all department managers. A monthly report to the Board showing actual expenditures and revenues by department, with a projection of the County's financial position at year end, could easily be produced and would facilitate more Board and public involvement in monitoring the County's fiscal status. It would eliminate surprise developments such as the increase from $12.5 to $21.5 million in fund balance available reported between the proposed and budget addenda for FY 2001-02. Information of this sort would also provide a basis for other questions and analyses of situations when revenues or expenditures are not at the level originally projected. The analysis of the proposed budget each year consumes many months of staff time but largely focuses on incremental appropriations requested by the departments or recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer but not the baseline budget. Oftentimes, savings can be realized in the baseline budget by improving the efficiency of operations, reorganizing or consolidating programs or increasing revenues. One of the most effective means of identifying opportunities for savings in the baseline budget is through departme ntal performance audits. The major points of public presentation and discussion about the County's budget are: 1) the mid-year budget report to the Board of Supervisors; 2) presentation of the proposed annual budget in June; 3) presentation of the addenda budget in August; and, 4) budget hearings in September. At all four points, a great deal of useful information is provided to the Board covering all departments, revenue sources and operational issues. The information is prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer and, in the past, discussion about the contents were largely between the Board and the Chief Administrative Officer and the Auditor-Controller. For the FY 2001-02 budget, the process was expanded when the Board of Supervisors requested that each department make a presentation about their budget and operations. The mid-year budget report provided in February 2002 contained discussion of projected fund balance, expenditures and revenues by department, a discussion of expected increases in health benefits costs, detailed revenue projections (summarizing projections prepared by the Auditor- Controller), capital project highlights, a discussion of the State budget, a regional economic forecast, salary projections for FY 2002-03, and departmental savings. It provides a good deal of information of interest to the Board of Supervisors, department managers and the public. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Timing of County Budget Review and Approval Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis The proposed budget document for the subsequent fiscal year is provided in June of each year and includes detailed revenue projections and proposed expenditures for each department. Information for each department is also presented including staffing detail, descriptions of all major programs operated by the department, workload indicators, actual revenues and expenditures for the previous two fiscal years and proposed revenues and expenditures by major programs or costs centers for all departments. An overview of the County's financial situation is presented including detailed revenue estimates for the budget year, changes in State and other funding sources, and roll ups of expenditure data by fund and functional areas. The third and final budget report prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer is provided in August. This report provides final revenue and expenditure estimates for the year after the State budget has been adopted and actual fund balances are known based on better and more complete prior year actual data. While all three reports provided to the Board of Supervisors include a substantial amount of useful information, there are no routinely produced reports between these three to keep the Board abreast of the overall fiscal situation of the County and to have early warnings of potential problems. Budget related items do come up at Board meetings if an individual department is requesting mid-year supplemental funding or if the supervisors request information on a particular department or a budget related topic. However, fiscal information is not otherwise routinely reported in a standardized report to the Board to allow for comparisons and trend analyses throughout the year. Department budget staff spend many months of the year going through their internal budget review and preparation processes and then explaining and defending their proposals to the Chief Administrative Office before they are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Then, for many departments, there are additional analyses and expenditure plans to be prepared between June and September as actual fund balance amounts become known, the State budget is adopted and other adjustments are made. The net result is a lengthy process consuming more than half the year and a budget mostly prepared six months earlier being reviewed by the Board of Supervisors in September. While the County is subject to State timing requirements governing the preparation and adoption of the budget, attempts should be made to complete more of the budget process in June so that fewer staff hours are consumed in duplicative efforts between June and September and so the budget reviewed and discussed by the Board of Supervisors is more current. A review of changes between the proposed and addenda budget for FY 2001-02 shows that budget appropriations increased by $23 million between June and September. Most of the change, or 77.3 percent, was in the General Fund and Roads Fund. Exhibit 3.1 presents the changes for all funds. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Source: Proposed and Addenda Budgets, FY 2002-03 The $9.5 million in Roads Fund monies was mostly from capital project carryovers and increases in estimated fund balance. For the General Fund, the increase was primarily generated from carryover fund balance, mostly due to a combination of capital project carryover, actual expenditures being less than budgeted, and actual revenues being more than budgeted the previous year. The fourth largest contributor to the increase, Accumulated Capital Outlay, was also the result of an increase in fund balance available compared to what was estimated in the proposed budget due to more projects being carried over from the previous year than anticipated in June. Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis By producing more detailed projections of revenues and expenditures throughout the year, particularly in the second half, and projecting year-end fund balance monthly, the County's estimates of carryover fund balance in June should become more accurate and closer to the amounts now not identified until September. With better tracking and reporting of capital project expenditures and timing, as recommended in Section 2 of this report, and monthly projections of year-end fund balance for the Roads and Accumulated Capital Outlay funds, the discrepancy between the June and September budget for capital project carryover funds should also be decreased. The net result of more accurate forecasting would be fewer changes between June and September and less work for all County staff in creating and analyzing a second budget document with numerous revisions for the September hearings. Though the State budget could be and probably will be changed to some extent between June and September, most of it should be known and in place by June based on the Governor's budget. County estimates of the budget in June should be reasonably accurate for most of the State funding received. The County should endeavor to reduce discrepancies between the two budgets 24 Harvey M. RoseAccountancy Corporation Exhibit 3.1 Changes between Proposed and Addenda Budget Fund By Fund, Proposed Budget FY 2001-02 Addenda Budget Difference Total Difference Roads Fund $31,856,908 $41,367,148 $9,510,240 41.2% General Fund 147,900,815 156,236,963 8,336,148 36.1% Health Department 17,128,851 19,719,350 2,590,499 11.2% Accumulated Capital Outlay 3,673,718 5,403,519 1,729,801 7.5% Mental Health Services 9,749,849 10,463,260 713,411 3.1% Tobacco Settlement 487,860 487,860 2.1% Road District 2,460,871 2,617,875 157,004 0.7% Community Services 7,986,053 8,026,027 39,974 0.2% Special Aviation 20,000 20,000 - 0.0% Fish & Game 5,000 5,000 - 0.0% EIR Development Fees 300,000 300,000 - 0.0% Erosion Control 4,918,455 4,413,840 (504,615) -2.2% TOTAL $226,000,520 $249,060,842 $23,060,322 100.0% Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis and complete most of the budget process in June, with only some minor changes to be approved in September. While production of the three budget reports that the Board now receives involves a substantial amount of work for the Chief Administrative Officer and department fiscal staffs, other regularly provided information between these three reports is needed. Current budget information is readily available on the County's Financial Management Information System (FAMIS) and could be produced without extensive staff work. Of key importance for a monthly report is: 1. Budgeted vs. actual expenditures and revenues by department and major revenue source 2. Explanations of major variances between budgeted and actual expenditures and revenues 3. Projected expenditures, revenues and fund balances, by fund, for year end 4. Key performance indicators This information would provide ongoing assessments of the County's fiscal situation and individual department performance and would serve as a supplement to the annual budget review and approval process by making the Board aware of issues affecting certain revenues or individual departments during the year. The Interim Chief Administrative Officer directed all department heads in April 2002 to undertake detailed re-computations of their estimated year- end Net County Costs to improve the forecast for FY 2002-03. Even though monthly reports at the early part of the year would generally not be too revealing with so little time passed since budget adoption, the Board should still receive these reports as they will serve as the foundation for subsequent reports during the year. As the year progresses, the Board may want to request other special reports with more detail on a certain department or revenue or an issue such as turnover or workers compensation claims if a particular department is experiencing a high rate of claims. The County needs to analyze its baseline programs and budgets Another type of information that would be useful to inform the annual budget process is evaluations or performance audits of individual departments and programs conducted throughout the year. This would provide the Board with more detail that could be used at budget time regarding all aspects of individual department operations and provide a stronger basis for decisions about baseline department funding levels. The budget review process assumes that a baseline level of funding will be provided for all departments. The discussion in the proposed budget regarding funding changes almost entirely deals with incremental funding levels, or additions to the base level of funding. As in most counties, the Chief Administrative Office's analysis of budget requests submitted by the departments is focused primarily on any increases to the baseline budget but generally does not question the existing level of funding. Comments in the proposed budget document focus on increases or changes in the budget and recommendations on what new positions or programs should be funded, if any. For the most part there is no discussion or recommendations to decrease funding of the baseline budget through improved efficiency and/or increased revenue. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis There is an implicit assumption in the budget review that existing allocation levels should not be changed. In fact in many instances changes could be made to department operations or business processes and costs reduced through efficiency improvements or revenues increased through improved collections or establishing fee levels that capture more of the costs actually being incurred. One way of identifying such changes is through detailed review of department operations through performance auditing. Performance auditing can briefly be described as a review of all aspects of a department's operations to determine if the department is operating in compliance with all applicable laws and as efficiently, effectively and economically as possible. Performance audits can be conducted by outside consultants or in-house staff. While regular conduct of performance audits might represent a new cost to the County, if new staff is hired or consultants are used,' over time audits should more than pay for themselves with cost savings and/or revenue increases for the departments reviewed. Another benefit would be improved service levels for the public by identifying improvements in business processes and methods of streamlining operations. El Dorado County engaged a consultant to conduct a performance audit of the Department of Transportation and is planning one soon for the Department of Social Services. Efforts such as these should be continued and expanded to include all other departments on a multi-year cycle. Performance audits should take place throughout the year but their recommendations could be used in the budget process by identifying areas where departments could operate more efficiently particularly in the base budget. For example, a recently conducted analysis of Sheriffs Department staffing conducted independent of their budget preparation process recommended adding more permanent positions to reduce overtime. An analysis of a department's management structure might reveal an opportunity to consolidate and reduce management positions based on an analysis of duties performed. An audit of user fees charged by the County might show that they are not fully recovering costs and should be adjusted accordingly. In some jurisdictions performance audits are conducted on an ongoing basis so that all departments are audited over a certain number of years. Other counties select audit topics annually based on an assessment of the risk or exposure of each department and the potential impact of realizing improvements in that department. Other jurisdictions conduct performance audits as the need arises. An ongoing performance audit program in El Dorado County would have multiple benefits including improved service levels, reduced costs of operations and making resources available for other purposes. The County should explore the possibility of conducting performance audits with existing audit staff through re- prioritization of their current duties. If this is possible, new costs would not be incurred. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

F34: Fleet Services is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, disposing of, and interdepartmental billing for all county-owned vehicles.

F4.1: through F4.4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations

F4.3: F4.4 The County budget includes two internal service funds; the risk management fund covers centralized County insurance costs and the fleet management fund covers the County's vehicle maintenance and replacement services. Internal service fund costs are not as predictable as operating departments because they rely on forecasts of future needs and variables such as the number of employees who will need health services or be injured on the job, the extent to which claims will be filed against the County and the number of vehicles that will need to be replaced. The budget for these two funds in FY 2001-02 is approximately $20.9 million and together the County maintains reserves for these two funds of another approximately $16 million. This level of expenditure and reserves represents a larger budget than most County departments. Key information on assumptions used for these funds is not fully disclosed in the proposed and addenda budget documents to assist the Board of Supervisors in determining the appropriate level of appropriations and reserves for these funds. The budget does not present actual expenditures for previous years or projections of expenditures for subsequent years. Without this information it is not easy to determine if appropriate funding and reserves are in place. If too much is budgeted and reserved, budget resources are tied up that could otherwise be used for other purposes. If too little is budgeted, the County may need to reduce expenditures elsewhere or use contingency funds to meet its insurance or fleet obligations. The Risk Management budget for FY 2001-02 includes reserves based on five year projections for the County's risk management fund. The basis for these projections should be provided to the Board of Supervisors, who should then adopt a County policy regarding appropriate reserve levels for each type of insurance. Historical and projected vehicle purchase expenditures are not presented in the budget. Such information would help the Board determine an appropriate level of funding and reserves for the County's vehicle replacement fund. Internal service funds are defined as funds used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies, on a cost reimbursement basis. El Dorado County has two such funds: 1) Risk Management and 2) Vehicle Replacement. The Risk Management fund is used to account for payments from all County departments to cover their share of the County's costs for general liability, employee health and workers' compensation insurance. The costs covered by the monies in this fund include claims payments, legal costs, insurance premiums for excess insurance', a third party administrator and staff and indirect costs of the County Risk Management Office. The County is self-insured but buys third party commercial insurance only for incidents above a certain dollar threshold. This helps prevent any dramatic swings in pay outs from year to year. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds The fleet management fund charges each department for the costs of maintaining and acquiring and maintaining the department's vehicles and heavy equipment. The charges also cover the costs of County fleet management staff and related indirect costs. Key budgetary decisions to be made for these internal service funds are: a) the level of appropriation to include in the budget to meet annual expenses; and, b) the level of reserves to include in the fund to cover known future liabilities. Charges to customer departments are based on appropriated annual expenditures and a proportionate share of reserves. Annual appropriations are needed to cover the operating costs for a single budget year. Reserves are established for internal service funds to cover known or expected costs beyond what is expected in the budget year. Particularly with insurance, costs can be paid over multiple years. Although costs can be estimated for a claim filed in the current year, the case may not actually be settled for several years out. The risk management fund reserve provides funds for these type of situations and for unexpected pay outs in the event that a large claim against the County is settled sooner than expected or an unpredicted unusually high employee disability payment has to be made in a single year. Commercial excess insurance is also purchased by the County to cover high cost unusual cases. Fleet management fund reserves might be used if a number of vehicles or heavy equipment unexpectedly need replacement in addition to what is expected in the County vehicle replacement schedule. Insurance expenditures are determined with input from actuaries who produce multi-year projections of likely future pay outs based on historical loss and expenditure data, known claims filed, demographics of the work force, changes in law and other contributing factors. For fleet management, maintenance and replacement costs can be projected based on existing fleet characteristics such as age and mileage plus any projected increases in fleet size or mix needed based on new or expanded programs or workload in the County. Risk Management Fund As mentioned above, El Dorado County's risk management fund is comprised of three components: 1) employee health insurance; 2) general liability; and 3) workers' compensation. Each represents a significant cost to the County but the budget document does not present details on the three components. Instead, the County risk management fund is presented in aggregate with no breakdown of how much of the total cost is attributable to each component. Total budgeted expenditures for FY 2001-02 were approximately $18.1 million for all components of the risk management program. This amount is separate from the reserves kept in the risk management fund to cover known and projected insurance liabilities in future years. The budget document does not report the approximately $12 million reserved for the risk management fund nor does it report how much of this is attributable to each of the three components of the fund. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Details on the risk management fund should be presented in the proposed budget for a number of reasons. First, it is important for the Board of Supervisors to know which costs are increasing, which are decreasing, and what, if anything, County management has done or can do to control these costs. For example, employee health insurance costs are expected to increase significantly in the next year, an issue that was widely discussed in the budget hearings for FY 2001-02, but it would be useful to present these costs in the context of overall health insurance costs, separate from general liability and worker's compensation costs. Increases in workers' compensation costs cannot always be controlled but a large increase may raise questions about the extent to which County management has implemented safety training programs for employees. Similarly, a rise in risk management costs should be reviewed to determine if certain exposures resulting in frequent claims have been effectively dealt with by management. The proposed budget document for FY 2001-02 presents information about the Risk Management office that is part of the Chief Administrative Office. The document presents revenues and costs for the Risk Management office, including County staff, claims payments and other administrative cost, as follows: Exhibit 4.1 Risk Management Revenues and Costs Presented in the Proposed FY 2001-02 Budget FY 1999-00 through FY 2001-02 As can be the Services and Supplies expenditure line items of $17.4 million for FY 2001-02 represents the bulk of risk management annual costs. Since this is such a large amount and is comprised of a number of different costs, more detail should be provided in the budget including 3 1 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Actual FY 1999-00 Approved FY 2000-01 CAO Recommended FY 2001-02 Revenues: Charges to Departments $12,764,911 $14,824,755 $17,194,416 Use of Money & Property 684,255 594,007 527,506 Fund Balance - 1,199,008 366,515 Other Sources 1,500 4,000 1,500 Miscellaneous 103,356 166,667 Total $13,554,022 $16,788,437 $ 18,089,937 Expenditures: Salaries & Benefits 378,356 415,759 427,897 Services & Supplies 13,914,111 16,165,149 17,427,744 Other Charges 159,663 207,531 231,094 Intrafund Transfers 2,390 3,200 Total $14,454,520 $16,788,439 $18,089,935 Section 4: Internal Service Funds how much is for claims payments, legal services, the third party administrator, excess insurance premiums, and other costs, for each of the three risk management fund components. Staffing for the office and workload indicators are presented in the proposed budget document as is a description of the office's programs and the Chief Administrative Officer's recommended changes in the budget. Determining Appropriate Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds The revenue discussion includes the statement that the fund will be relying less on fund balance than it has in the past for health and worker's compensation. The discussion reports that reserves for the General Liability program are greater than what is needed and that Worker's Compensation reserves are lower than needed according to an actuarial analysis performed for the County. The Chief Administrative Office reports that it has prepared a five year plan to achieve reserves at a 70 percent confidence level for both the General Liability and Worker's Compensation fund. The 70 percent confidence level is described as a reserve level that will statistically be sufficient or better in 70 percent of the cases and inadequate 30 percent of the time. While it is laudable that the budget discloses the imbalance in reserves found in the two funds and a plan to correct it, the discussion has some deficiencies from a public decision making perspective. First, the actual amount of reserves in the two fund components are not presented in the budget nor is the fiscal impact of adopting the 70 percent confidence level approach clearly laid out. Alternative reserve scenarios are not presented so that the Board could see the fiscal impact of choosing other approaches to funding reserves for these funds at the 70 percent confidence level. The choice of a lower reserve level, which would not prevent the County from meeting its current year claims payment obligations, could potentially mean millions of dollars available for other purposes in the budget. On the other hand, the Board of Supervisors may want to adopt a higher reserve level policy that would require increasing the charges paid by departments to increase reserve levels in the fund. To make an informed decision, the budget should include the following: o Current amounts in reserve, shown separately for Workers' Compensation, General Liability and Health Benefits u Three years of projected actual expenditures for the budget year and the next five to ten years, shown separately for Workers' Compensation, General Liability and Health Benefits u The amount needed to fund reserves at alternative confidence levels, covering the spectrum of possible approaches ranging from no reserves for future year expenses if a "pay as you go" policy is adopted, funding to cover the current year and some future costs, funding to cover the current year and some but not all projected future costs, and funding to cover the current year and all projected future costs. 3 2 Harvey M. RoseAccountancy Corporation Exhibit 4.2 Example of Information to Provide to the Board of Supervisors for Consideration of Alternative Insurance Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds 33 Section 4: Internal Service Funds Counties and public jurisdictions have varying policies on reserves. On one end of the spectrum, some counties and other public jurisdictions simply budget for their expected payments in the budget year. Others choose to maintain reserves to fully cover all known current and future liabilities and some counties choose a position between these two. The Board of Supervisors should be involved in deciding the level of reserves for each of these funds. To inform this decision, the budget document should include information in a table such as presented in the example in Exhibit 4.2: The County's financial statement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001 showed that the Risk Management fund had approximately $12.9 million in cash reserves for future costs. The liability for noncurrent insurance payments was reported in the financial statement as $11.9 million. In other words, there was enough cash in the fund to cover all known and projected pay outs for the current and future years that would have to be paid if the County suddenly went out of business and never received any more payments from its customer County departments. Since the likelihood of the County actually going out of business is quite small, the Board may want to consider a lesser reserve level. By presenting the projected pay outs for future years in the proposed budget, the Board would be better informed for deciding the optimal level of reserves. A summary of information that should be presented is shown in the following two exhibits. The numbers are for illustration purposes only and do not reflect the actual or projected expenses of El Dorado County. The information in Exhibit 4.3 would provide a snapshot of retained earnings, annual revenues, annual costs, and cash reserves on hand for the future and projected future liabilities, all in one table. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Confidence level Reserves required 000s Pa as you o None 20% $3,000 35% $3,500 50% $4,000 65% $4,500 70% $5,000 80% $5,500 100% $6,000 Exhibit 4.3 Example of cash reserve, revenue and expenditure information to be presented in the proposed General Liability and Workers' Compensation Fund budgets (in 000s) Note: Amounts shown are for illustration purposes only and are not actual El Dorado County amounts. Actual historical expenditures should be shown to provide information about typical annual expenditures, what is likely to be needed in future years and to help determine how much cash should be kept in reserve to meet those expenses. Exhibit 4.4 Example of payment data to be presented in budget for General Liability and Workers' Compensation Funds (in 000s) Section 4: Internal Service Funds Information such as that shown in Exhibit 4.4 should be presented to the Board of Supervisors to identify average annual expenditures in the past and as a basis for future projections. The historical numbers would have to be tied to some sort of appropriate index such as number of employees to determine an average cost per employee and then project forward based on expected increases in the County work force. Other variables should also be considered in the projections such as changes in County services that might result in changes in risk exposures. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation General Workers' Liability Compensation a Retained earnings: end of FY 00-01 $2,900 $3,600 b Revenues from charges to departments FY 01-02 3,700 4,200 c Total funds available (a+b) 6,600 7,800 • FY 01-02 Claims pay outs/legal costs, 2,000 2,600 - FY 01-02 Third party administrator costs 400 300 FY 01-02Excess insurance costs 1,500 1,000 FY 01-02 Staff and administrative costs 150 200 h Total costs FY 01-02 (d through g) 4,050 4,100 i Retained earnings: end of FY 01-02 c-h 2,550 3,700 J Cash reserves on hand 6,600 3,300 k Future Year Liabilities 6,500 4,200 Fiscal Year General Liability Workers' Compensation 1995-96 1,500 1,600 1996-97 1,700 1,500 1997-98 1,800 1,900 1998-99 2,000 1,900 1999-00 2,700 2,500 2000-01 2,500 2,700 Fleet Management Fund Section 4: Internal Service Funds Fleet management fund information in the budget document is less comprehensive than risk management fund information. The fleet management function is a function of the General Services Department and is included in that department's budget. Because the department covers so many functions, such as capital projects, communications, purchasing, airports and parks and grounds, and because the expenditure level is lower, the level of reporting is lower for fleet management than risk management. In spite of its smaller size, similar information should be presented in the budget as discussed for risk management. The budget document should include cash on reserve (approximately $3.7 million as of June 30, 2001), annual revenues and historical and five year projected fleet maintenance and replacement costs. Unlike insurance costs, the County would not have future vehicle maintenance and replacement obligations if it went out of business but some reserve level is appropriate to cover unanticipated expenses such as replacement of critically needed vehicles before their expected replacement dates due to accident or unplanned repair costs exceeding the vehicle's value. This information and reserve options would assist the Board of Supervisors in making decisions on funding levels and appropriate charges to customer departments for this fund.

F50: Administrators of Fleet Services and Airports must interface with federal and state transportation agencies regarding policies and operating requirements. These units in 52 DGS clearly have management issues and reporting responsibilities that are aligned with federal and state transportation matters. Fiscal and Administrative Services Findings

F5.1: through F5.4 El Dorado County Department of Social Services El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations

F5.3: F5.4 Communications with top management of the Department of Social Services is considered poor by many staff social workers and office assistants. Many staff members feel there is no forum to express their concerns and problems and to make suggestions for improvements. This is particularly true in the South Lake Tahoe office as visits and meetings with staff there by the CPS Program Manager and the Director and Deputy Director are infrequent. Regular forums with open communications between staff and managers should be employed as a mechanism for improving CPS processes and services and to improve staff morale. The CPS polices and procedures manuals are not up to date and omit some key areas of operations such as how the CWS/CMS computer system should be used for case intake and processing. Incomplete, out of date or missing policies and procedures could lead to inconsistencies in staff approaches to case work. Most staff surveyed reported that the Department's rules and regulations are not clear or consistently enforced. The manuals are now all hard copy paper documents and could be placed on the Department's computer system for easier updating and access by all staff. Many staff members believe that more and different types of training are needed to ensure greater consistency in approach by staff. A mentor program for new staff is one approach suggested by staff which Department management could implement on a pilot basis and assess its costs and benefits to see if it should be replicated throughout the CPS division. The Department does not have a formal written policy or formal reporting mechanism for client and family complaints. Such a policy is needed to ensure consistency in responses to complaints and to ensure that management is kept informed of all complaints and staff responses and correct ive actions. For staff and supervisors to perform in a manner that will lead to the consistent and desired outcomes for an organization, management must first clearly and accurately define policies and procedures. Second, management must communicate these policies and procedures to staff. Then, adequate resources and supports for staff to perform successfully must be provided. Finally, and most important, the organization must maintain a capacity to obtain feedback and measure and report the degree of success it has achieved in following the policies and to determine if the policies are effective. Deficiencies, in various forms, were identified in each of these elements at Child Protective Services. Communications The employee survey conducted for this audit showed that many CPS employees perceive communication between management and staff as a problem. Exhibit 5.1 shows the responses from social workers and office assistants to statements regarding communications within CPS. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 5. Communications As the Exhibit clearly shows, line staff feel there is a problem with communications in the Department, particularly with top management. Exhibit 5.1 Survey Responses Regarding Departmental Communication Source: Audit survey of CPS social worker and office assistant staff Only 16.7 percent of the survey respondents believe they have the ability to influence matters above them. Overall, 83.3 percent of office assistants and social workers felt they have little or no influence over Department matters. Further, 66.7 percent of the survey respondents believe that top management is not responsive to suggestions or concerns. Of greater concern is that half of all survey respondents, 50 percent, felt that Department management was not supportive in general of the Child Protective Services division and only 41.7 percent believe top management and CPS staff communications are very good. These perceptions are not conducive to high staff morale or a motivated work force. Child Protective Services management conducts staff meetings in Placerville bi-weekly. These meetings are attended by the CPS Program Manager, supervisors and line staff. A review of staff meeting minutes demonstrated that the CPS staff meetings are primarily a forum for management to update staff on new Department developments, changes in polices and related matters. The Department Director and Deputy Director do not attend these meetings. While CPS should be commended for its efforts to keep staff informed, the meeting minutes demonstrate that staff is not provided with an opportunity to express concerns and grievances or make suggestions for program improvements at these meetings. Department staff indicate that forums to provide such opportunities do not occur on a regular basis. Regular staff meetings with the CPS Program Manager, supervisors and staff do not take place at the South Lake Tahoe office as they do in Placerville. The managers based in Placerville may discuss issues and concerns with South Lake Tahoe supervisors, but there is minimal, if any, group communication and feedback between the Program Manager and South Lake Tahoe line staff. Without regular contact with management, many of the South Lake Tahoe staff feel they do not have a place to air grievances, complaints or make suggestions for improvements. One technique for improving communications between management and line staff would be to set aside time during the regularly scheduled meetings where employee concerns and suggestions can be freely expressed directly to upper management. As such, the Director of the Department 42 Harvey M. RoseAccountancy Corporation Agree Disagree Communications between Department's top 41.7% 58.3% staff and CPS staff are very good Top Management of the Department are very 50,0% 50.0% supportive of CPS Top Management of the Department is very 33.3% 66.7% responsive to suggestions from staff I can influence matters above me 16.7% 83.3% Section 5: Communications and/or the Deputy Director should attend these meetings which should take place on a regular basis in both the Placerville and South Lake Tahoe offices'. It is of equal importance that top management respond to issues, concerns, and suggestions on a timely basis. Many employees expressed frustration in their written comments on the audit survey over the lack of response from management toward their suggestions for improvements made in the past. Furthermore, employees often felt when a response came from management it was long after the employee suggestion was made if a response came at all. The Department should have strong support systems in place to provide workers with open forums to discuss and deal with dissatisfactions and frustrations, and suggestions for how to make constructive improvements. The forums should not become a series of sessions where workers continually complain about the Department but should be directed toward identifying and solving problems. The discussion above is not meant to imply that upper management should immediately implement any and all suggestions made by staff. But the process will be perceived as meaningless if management does not respond to staff suggestions and grievances within a reasonable amount of time, even if the decision is to not implement the staff suggestion. Responses to staff suggestions should be communicated directly to employees by upper management, including the Director, through as few layers as possible. By taking timely actions to address employee concerns, even if the actions are not what employees suggested, management would demonstrate responsiveness to staff concerns. Regularly communicating how and why decisions have been made to staff would also help improve morale. Updating the Policies and Procedures Manual Child Protective Services possesses extensive policies and procedures manuals that provide guidance to social workers and staff regarding Department operations. However, the manuals are lacking some key policies and procedures such as reference to the Department's CWS/CMS computer system and policies and procedures for office assistant support staff. Without documentation of all key areas of operations, the chances increase of certain activities being inconsistently applied throughout CPS. This current state of Department policies and procedures is consistent with findings of the FY 1999-2000 El Dorado Grand Jury which reported: The Grand Jury requested and received a copy of the El Dorado County CPS Policy and Procedures manuals. Analysis indicated that the manuals contained many outdated or undated documents, documents whose origin could not be determined, unsigned documents, and documents that referred to manual record keeping operations which had long since been replaced by computerized operations. This dilapidated state appeared to have been in existence for several A recommendation in Section 4 calls for routine visitation by the Program Manager to South Lake Tahoe so that upper management is represented at that office and to provide a means of resolving staff concerns and issues. One of the appropriate roles of this position would be conducting staff forums as described above. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 5: Communications years. In May, 2000, the Grand Jury observed that these manuals had been professionally updated. Further, it is noted that the Department of Social Services (DSS) has initiated other corrective actions, including initiation of periodic internal audits to ensure compliance with state requirements. The Department disagreed with the previous Grand Jury finding wholly, stating "first, the outdated manuals were state regulations that are outdated. Second, the professionally updated manuals were prepared by DSS." However, during our review of CPS policy manuals we found that some formal statements were outdated and appeared to be produced by the Department. Many of the policies that appear outdated involve some of the most important responsibilities facing the Department and social workers such as use of CWS/CMS in processing cases. The Department's policies and procedures regarding the overview of CPS appears to be dated 1992. The manual was written prior to the full implementation of CWS/CMS by the State. Thus, Department policies and procedures regarding the intake and screening process do not make any reference to CWS/CMS. As demonstrated in Section 2 of this report, documentation of intake processes could not always be found on CWS/CMS, indicating inconsistent application of Department policies and procedures. As discussed below in more detail, CPS does not have formal written policies regarding client complaints. Although, management provided a detailed oral description of how the client complaint process works, without a formal written policy in place regarding how to address concerns raised against the Department, responses to complaints have the potential to be inconsistently handled. Department management acknowledges these lapses in the policies and procedures, however, they do not feel it is necessary to rectify these deficiencies. Clerical staff perform a vital role within CPS but currently are working without any formal policies regarding their roles and duties. According to staff, an effort is underway to complete a formal clerical policies and procedures manual but it is not yet complete. Thus, clerical staff are not provided with a training manual when new to the job and must learn their duties primarily through on-the-job training without written materials to use as references. Samples, training and written policies are particularly important for the Department's court report procedures, which are very specific and must comply with the requirements of the State Welfare and Institutions Code. In some counties, clerical staff has specific written guidelines of their duties and responsibilities. In Los Angeles County, for example, a clerical policies and procedures manual deals with many issues similar to those faced by El Dorado County's clerical staff. For instance, Los Angeles County has specific policies and procedures regarding how to handle instances of a mail referral containing allegations of child abuse or neglect. Los Angeles County policies also include court procedures ranging from processing proof of service notices for Welfare and Institutions Code 366.26 hearings to entering Court results into CWS/CMS. The results of the employee survey for this audit demonstrate staff concerns regarding Department policies and procedures. Exhibit 5.2 presents responses from social workers and 44 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Exhibit 5.2 Survey Responses Regarding Department Rules and Regulations Source: Audit survey of CPS social worker and office assistant staff Section 5. Communications office assistants regarding Department policies and procedures and enforcement of these procedures. Nearly 8 out of 10 survey respondents, or 78 percent, stated that rules and regulations in the Department are not clear. Further, 82 percent of survey respondents stated that regulations are inconsistently enforced. This demonstrates a combination of incomplete written policies and procedures and/or lack of consistent implementation. One reason staff may feel policies and procedures are inconsistent and unclear is because the Department does not present them in a standardized format. At least three different formats are used to explain and illustrate current policies, each with different levels of information. By comparison, Los Angeles County has very formal policies and procedures regarding their entire Child Protective function all presented in a consistent format. Each policy is given a formal issue date, the employees the policy is applicable to, associated documents, and relevant Code sections. Additionally, each policy provides a detailed description of the adopted policy and provides a step-by-step detailed description for guidance of the procedure. For some of El Dorado County's CPS policies and procedures, the format includes subject, adoption date, revised date, reference and a detailed explanation of the policy and procedure. However, this format is the exception rather than the rule in the Department's written policies and procedures. A standardized format with the data elements listed above should be used for all procedures to provide staff with improved guidance and clarity in performing their job duties. Improvements to Department policies and procedures should include making the manual available on-line to ensure that all staff members have access to the most up-to-date versions of all policies and procedures and that they are applied consistently throughout CPS. In written responses to the audit questionnaire, numerous staff expressed concern that each staff member did not have their own copy of the manual. An on-line version would be particularly useful for ensuring that the South Lake Tahoe staff has access to any updates or revisions to Department policies and procedures. All staff should be oriented and trained on the use of the on-line policies and procedures manual as soon as it is fully updated. When new policies or procedures are implemented, supervisors should be directed to discuss the changes with all unit staff at unit meetings rather than distributing copies to staff. That way accountability for remaining current with management approved policies and procedures would rest with the supervisor, rather than the line staff person. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Question Agree Disagree Department rules and regulations are clear 22% 78% Department rules and regulations are consistently enforced 18% 82% Training Section S: Communications One example of a staff concern that could be addressed through the recommended staff forums is training. Throughout the audit process of interviewing line staff, supervisors and managers, concern about training was a common theme. Without exception, those that commented on employee training indicated that training is not done on a regular basis, and/or more training is needed but, for various reasons, is not taking place. Training is necessary to ensure supervisor, social workers and office assistants have the specialized skills and knowledge required to effectively provide the functions of CPS. Of the employees that responded to a survey conducted for this audit, 70 percent stated that not all CPS staff had received adequate training to perform their jobs. Many social workers believe that ongoing training was a key weakness in Child Protective Services. The main concern voiced by staff at all levels was that the training received by new employees of CPS was not sufficient given the complexity of the job. In discussions, some employees suggested that a mentoring program for new employees could provide new staff with a more useful hands-on training in the various functions performed by the Department. A staff forum for exchanging ideas and considering improvements in operations would be a place to discuss ideas such as this. Department management could then consider the costs and benefits of a mentoring program or other training enhancements and respond to staff within a specified time frame concerning whether or not the idea could be implemented. Key to management's decision should be an assessment of the costs and benefits of any proposals with benefits expressed in measurable terms such as reduced turnover, improved family outcomes, or reduced delays in processing cases. Client Complaints The Department does not have written policies and procedures regarding complaints filed against the CPS division or its social workers. Department management reports a single procedure for responding to all complaints filed against Child Protective Services. According to management, CPS requests that grievances be formally submitted to the Department in writing. Once a complaint is received, the Program Manager reports that she and the supervisor will develop a response and, in some cases, the complaint will be investigated. When the response is finalized, it is provided to the complainant in writing. The Program Manager and the supervisor responsible for the unit determine the final outcome. In response to a request by auditors for copies of documentation regarding complaints against any CPS social workers or CPS practices, the Department provided copies of seven complaints and all documentation prepared in response to the complaints, all of them dated from January to December 2001. The nature of the complaints against CPS included transfer of cases between two social workers, visitation complaints, placement complaints, and inadequate case plan therapy. One file contained a letter stating that the Department had failed to respond to an original complaint, sent 133 days earlier. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 5: Communications Several of the complaint files contained documentation of the follow-up investigation conducted by the Department in response to the initial complaint. The thoroughness of the investigation, based on the documentation provided, ranges from extremely detailed to very brief. One letter chronicles the specific details of the investigation and makes it clear the Department indeed investigated the grievance. However, the letters explaining the details of the follow-up investigation make it difficult to determine the Department's response. The Department should document and implement a formal consistent policy regarding how CPS responds and documents formal complaints. The Department should create a centralized, computerized database detailing the grievance and the response to said complaint. The computerized database should be accessible to County Counsel staff to conduct a periodic review to determine if the Department is handling complaints properly. A regularly produced summary report, such as quarterly, should be provided to the Department Director by the CPS Program Manager reporting the date of each complaint received, date the internal response was initiated, nature of internal response (e.g., full investigation, employee discipline, etc.), and date of written response to complainant. The Department should institute formal procedures governing when and how complaints are investigated, as follows: • The complainant shall make a formal complaint in writing and the Program Manager and/or unit supervisor shall have initial contact with the complainant within 10 working days; • The investigation and final decision shall be rendered by Child Protective Services within 10 working days once contact is made; • The final decision shall be signed off by the Director of Social Services or the Deputy Director of Social Services; and • The Department has the authority for formal disciplinary action if the investigation finds the staff violated State law or DSS policy. A benefit of this review process and a centralized database is that CPS will have access to documentation currently unavailable to determine any trends in grievances. The review and the database could provide a mechanism to implement further policy and procedure changes to minimize the number of complaints. Conclusion The employee survey conducted for this audit showed that communications between management and staff is not perceived positively by most Department employees. Specifically, most line staff believe upper management is unresponsive to their needs and that staff has no ability to influence matters above them within the Department. A widely held belief of CPS staff is that Department policies and procedures provide inadequate guidance for job tasks. Analysis of the Department's policies and procedures manual found that complete formal policies do not exist for some key aspects of CPS, such as grievances and clerical duties and responsibilities, and. that existing policies and procedures are presented inconsistently and without key information such as the date the policy became effective. Many of the existing policies are old 47 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 5: Communications and outdated. Our analysis found that child removal policies were written prior to the implementation of CWS/CMS, and the manual makes no reference to the program. Many employees expressed frustration at the level of training, especially relating to clerical support and new hires. Child Protective Services does not have written formal policies governing grievance procedures. Even where information was presented in the actions taken by the Department, the standard response or evidence of ample investigations could not be consistently documented.

F56: It is not clear why the Department 15 budgeted item of $250,000 for a "capital facilities programming and financing plan" did not appear in the narrative for the 53 DGS 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan. DGS has divisions of Real Property Planning and Administration and of Facilities Services, both of which should be (but have not been) fully informed and involved in the creation and execution of this "plan," referred to in previous Findings as "Facilities Master Plan." Real Property Planning and Administration Division Findings

F62: Management of county-owned and county-operated cemeteries has required increased staff time and record keeping. RPPA personnel are required to respond frequently, often on very short notice, to the public, concerned citizens, and mortuaries in order 54 to provide services and monitor compliance with state laws and county ordinances. They are required to be present at all interments in county cemeteries. Management of historic pioneer cemeteries has become a matter of public debate and concern.

F64: Section 205 of County Resolution 228-84 identifies those county employees who may potentially invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission.

F67: The Commission has authority to cause subpoenas duces tecum to be issued for matters within its lawful jurisdiction.

F68: The Commission is empowered only to affirm, modify or reverse decisions of the “appointing authority,” generally the department heads, in disciplinary actions.

F69: Findings and decisions of the Commission in disciplinary actions are final and binding, subject only to judicial review.

F71: On occasion, properly requested information has not been provided to the Commission in a timely manner.

F82: The 2002 Facility evaluation and inspection of Tahoe Manor has not yet been conducted.

Additional Recommendations 32

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The State should rebuild the 1965 buildings to bring the camp up to 2003 standards.

R2: The State should increase the size of the living areas and all other parts of the camp to accommodate the increased number of inmates.

R3: The State should insure that the public access areas of the camp meet ADA requirements.

R4: The State should replace the range hood.

R6: The El Dorado County District Attorney should investigate the conduct of the Sheriff described above. 9

R8: STAR volunteers should receive training in appropriate election campaign behavior and be held accountable to the same standards as the sworn deputies.

R11: Participating school districts should review student enrollment in ROP classes such as computer training to ascertain that all enrollees meet the criteria for ROP vocational instruction,

R18: The Board should take appropriate action to transfer Fleet Services and Airports from DGS back to DOT.

R22: The DGS Director, the CAO, and the Board, with the assistance of HRD, should initiate a thorough analysis of the compensation schedule for the authorized position of Airports Supervisor. 57

R23: The Board should revise policies and adopt ordinances, which clearly state which department -- DGS or DOT -- is responsible for and has primary jurisdiction over Airports.

R24: The Board should recognize and take appropriate action to remedy the County's lack of expertise in the area of cable television franchise fee negotiations and collection of fees.

R25: The Board should authorize immediately the full budget allocation which was requested by the RPPA to contract for property appraisals in the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor.

R28: The Board must establish new priorities in budget allocations for DGS staff recruitment, training, retention, and critical functions.

R30: The Commission’s budget should be separate from HRD’s budget, and members of the Commission should have input before the budgetary request is submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer.

R32: All information properly requested by the Commission relevant to a pending proceeding should be furnished to it expeditiously.

📋September 30, 2001 — Audit and Finance Committee Confirming Purchase Orders Reason for the Report During the course of its other

3 pages 5 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: Chapter 3.12 of the El Dorado County Charter documents Purchasing Procedures and is known as the County Purchasing Ordinance. This section of the County Charter provides in part: “3.12.020: The purpose of this chapter is to secure for the county taxpayers the advantages and economies which will result from centralized control over the purchase of supplies, materials, equipment and contractual services resulting from the application of modern, businesslike methods relative to government expenditures for such purchases. Further, this chapter is to adopt policies and procedures governing the purchase of supplies, equipment and contractual services by the county in accordance with the Government Code, section 54201 et seq. 3.12.060: The purchasing agent may, and where legally required to do so, shall, authorize in writing any county department to purchase renewable types of office supplies and materials in total amounts of four hundred ninety-nine and 99/100 dollars ($499.99) or less, utilizing the ‘direct’ purchase order form, independently of the county purchasing agent’s office; but such purchases shall be made in conformity with the applicable procedures. The purchasing agent may also rescind the authorization to purchase independently, by written notice to the county department unless otherwise prohibited by law. 3.12.070 A. Only department heads or their designated representatives may approve and sign direct purchase orders in total amounts of four hundred ninety-nine and 99/100 dollars ($499.99) or less. Department heads may delegate such authority by filing a written authorization therefor with the purchasing agent and the auditor-controller. … C. All departments shall strictly adhere to written purchasing procedures as they may be issued or amended from time to time by the purchasing agent or the board of supervisors.”

F4: There is no system in place to hold department heads accountable for failing to adhere to County Purchasing Ordinance Requirements.

F5: Purchasing practices that do not adhere to the County Purchasing Ordinance subject the County to risks of overspending and poor budget management.

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: Each department head should develop a system to hold subordinates exercising purchasing authority accountable for noncompliance with the County Purchasing Ordinance.

R3: The County Purchasing Ordinance should be amended to expressly prohibit the “splitting” of purchase orders. Responses Required for Findings

📋September 19, 2001 — Criminal Justice Committee El Dorado County Juvenile Hall Reason for the Report The California Penal Code requires

5 pages 25 findings 9 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 25 findings

F1: This Grand Jury agrees with 98/99 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings and

F2: This Grand Jury agrees with the 99/00 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings and

F3: This Grand Jury agrees with 00/01 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings and

F4: To the staff’s credit, they are trying to function in a very inadequate facility.

F5: Adequate space is not available for programs. For example, counselors are required to meet with wards in a corner of the general-purpose gym.

F6: The Juvenile Hall was designed for 20 wards; the count is typically over 40. Accordingly, all space (living, recreation, program, visiting, administration, food service) is undersized.

F7: The number of wards with mental problems continues to increase.

F8: The number of wards with drug abuse problems is also increasing.

F9: Juveniles who probably should be detained are not being detained because of lack of space. This problem exists in both the South Lake Tahoe and Placerville areas.

F10: There are no rooms to place wards in need of removal from the general population of the Juvenile Hall.

F11: There are some cleanliness issues. For example, the windows need washing, and the kitchen should be cleaner.

F12: Outside and inside recreation space is inadequate.

F13: Several thousand square feet of the facility are being utilized for community programs. This space is found on the lower level of the facility.

F14: The Ward Education Program is outstanding. The teachers have devised methods to individualize programs for wards and methods to interest them and reinforce learning.

F15: The Chief Probation Officer must request waivers from the State Board of Corrections’ Title 15 CCR requirements almost monthly because of the space and staffing problems.

F16: The current problems regarding the serious inadequacy of the facility have a long history of disclosure without having been corrected.

F17: The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission are aware of the problems at the Hall and are supportive in developing short-term solutions.

F18: The Probation Department has developed a plan, which the Board of Supervisors (BOS) has adopted, to correct the major juvenile bed deficiencies within the County. The elements of the plan are to: · Build a 40-bed Hall in South Lake Tahoe, the opening of which is anticipated in 2003; · Build a new 40-bed Hall, financing for which has been requested from the State Board of Corrections, next to the main jail in Placerville; and · Renovate the existing Hall to house only 20 wards, in accordance with the original design capacity.

F19: As the county population and its problems grow, the need to provide more juvenile beds and appropriate programs will certainly increase.

F20: Fire doors were propped open on the day of inspection. This was a violation of both Juvenile Hall procedure, and fire and life safety requirements.

F21: The Hall is constructed of non-flammable materials. Any fire, however, would create smoke conditions, which could cause serious harm to anyone in the facility. This potential problem is exacerbated because, within the facility, there are: · No smoke alarms; · No central fire alarm; · No air packs (portable, self-contained breathing apparatus); · No sprinklers; · No training for smoke conditions; and · No centrally controlled unlocking system (each room must be unlocked manually).

F22: The Probation Department staff checks the rooms every 15 minutes, conduct regular security/fire inspections, conduct monthly fire drills, and keep combustible load, such as paper products in wards’ rooms, to a minimum.

F23: In their last inspection reports, the Fire Marshal, the County Delinquency Commission, and the Board of Corrections did not report that the fire and life safety issues, found by this Grand Jury, were a problem. This Grand Jury chooses not to ignore those issues.

F24: Since 1997, there has been a Superior Court Order limiting the number of wards in Juvenile Hall to 40. Any deviation triggers reports to the Court. The Hall count of 40 is frequently exceeded each month.

F25: Renovating Juvenile Hall might mean that the State Board of Corrections would impose 2002 facility standards. The much greater risk, however, is doing nothing about these problems.

Additional Recommendations 9

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: A sprinkler system should be installed throughout Juvenile Hall.

R2: Air packs should be made available in Juvenile Hall.

R3: Smoke alarms should be appropriately installed in the control room.

R4: A central alarm system should be installed in the Control area of the Hall.

R5: Staff training in the use of air packs during smoke conditions should be conducted.

R6: A centrally controlled unlocking system should be installed in Juvenile Hall.

R7: The BOS should contract with a space management expert to review the current facility and make recommendations about better utilization of the space in the upper and lower levels.

R8: The BOS should continue to pursue the plan described in F18. If the State Board of Corrections decides not to provide funding for the plan this year, alternate sources of funds should be pursued and a request for funding should be made next year (2003).

📋September 05, 2001 — Audit and Finance Committee Fixed Assets Report Reason for the Report The Grand Jury elected to inquire into whether

2 pages 6 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: On September 5, 2001, miscellaneous property was observed in an unsecured alley behind County Administration Building B, adjacent to the Department of Veterans Services. The items appeared to be surplus and/or discarded equipment, including computer and radio equipment, shelving, bins and old furniture. The items remained in this area for several weeks.

F2: The existence and location of County assets is memorialized in the Inventory Report and listed by department only. The format of the report is not designed to contain information as to precise physical locations.

F3: Departments selected for the random audit were, at best, only able to locate inventory assets noted in the Inventory Report by reference to individual memory or hand- written notes on the Report.

F4: One audited department, with several locations, had particular problems locating items of inventory listed on the Inventory Report, which were housed at outlying department locations.

F5: The software program that produces the Inventory Report is not adequate to maintain complete records of fixed assets and inventory. The software does not allow departments to keep accurate records of items being surplused out of the departments or relocated within the departments.

F6: Departments audited by the Grand Jury do not have independent computer systems for tracking fixed assets or inventory within their individual departments.

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All equipment being surplused should be properly placed in a secured facility. Those items should not be allowed to accumulate in unsecured areas.

R2: The Department of Information Services, in conjunction with the user departments, should design and establish standardized procedures for the surplusing, locating, and relocating or discarding of equipment.

R3: The existing Inventory Report program should be modified, or a new computer program designed, to provide for systematic notations useful to individual departments in maintaining accurate and up-to-date fixed assets and inventory records.

August 22, 2001 — Social Services Committee El Dorado County Department of Social Services Citizen Complaints #01/02-c-019 and

13 pages 61 findings 18 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 61 findings

F1: After a lengthy period of public criticism, the Director of DSS resigned in December 2001 after five years of service in the position. The Deputy Director of DSS was appointed Acting Director by the Board of Supervisors (Board) in January 2002. The Deputy Director had served as Acting Director during a previous vacancy in the Director's position.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: In selecting a person to be Director of DSS, the Board should consider the ability to exercise strong management skills as the most important factor in the selection process.

F2: DSS is organized in three major divisions: County Aid Payments, State Aid Payments, and Administration. There are approximately 235 employees in DSS, and the annual budget is approximately $30M. DSS is one of the larger departments in the County, both in budget and number of staff.

F3: The division called Administration is divided into four sections: Eligibility Services, Fraud/Fair Hearing Services, Employment Services, and Social Services. This report primarily addresses concerns in Eligibility Services and Social Services.

F4: Eligibility Services staff receive applications and determine eligibility for programs such as CalWORKs, Medi-Cal, County Medical Services Program (CMSP), General Assistance (GA), and Non-Assistance Food Stamps (NAFS). Continuing cases are monitored, and when appropriate, eligibility is recalculated in response to changes in the client(s) circumstances, as mandated by State and federal regulations.

F5: According to the 2001/2002 Budget/Workplan, the section of DSS called Social Services is comprised of seven programs: In Home Support, Adult Protective Services, Child Protective Services, Adoptions, Foster Care Licensing, Family Preservation Planning, and the Child Abuse Prevention Grant. In practice, the DSS internal organization chart is different from the chart in the 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan.

F6: According to the DSS organization chart, there are four Program Managers, one Staff Services Manager, one Administrative Services Officer, and one Chief Welfare Investigator for the following programs: · Adult & Child Protective Service is headed by a Program Manager with supervisors assigned for each of these units: · CPS Emergency Response Unit; · CPS On-going Unit; · CPS South Lake Tahoe Unit; · Adoptions Unit; and · Adult Protective Services Unit, which includes Homemaker Services. · Staff Services is headed by a Staff Services Manager with supervisors assigned to the following units: · Accountant/Auditor (2 units); and · Clerical. · Administrative Services -- Placerville -- is headed by one Program Manager in charge of four units. · Administrative Services -- South Lake Tahoe -- is headed by one Administrative Services Officer. · Eligibility Services, called Income Maintenance in the DSS organizational chart, is headed by one Program Manager in charge of nine units. Six units are in Placerville and three units are in South Lake Tahoe. · Special Investigations, also called Fraud/Fair Hearing Services, is headed by a Chief Welfare Investigator. There are two units, one in Placerville and one in South Lake Tahoe. · Employment Services is headed by a Program Manager for four units. In Placerville, two units are headed by Employment and Training Supervisors and one unit is headed by a Social Services Supervisor. In South Lake Tahoe, there is one unit headed by an Employment and Training Supervisor.

F7: The structure described in F5 in the 2001/2002 Budget/Workplan and the structure described in F6, which is the DSS organization chart, are mutually inconsistent.

F8: Social Services staff members perform the following functions: · Investigate allegations of abuse to children and adults; · Provide prevention services to families whose children are in danger of removal from their own homes; · Offer reunification services to families whose children have been removed; and · Obtain In-Home Support Services (IHSS) to low income adults who have long term or terminal disabilities and who would require placement in board and care or nursing homes if in-home services were not available.

F9: All positions in DSS are filled from eligibility lists established by a State-sanctioned, quasi-public, non-profit, independent authority called Cooperative Personnel Services, usually referred to as the "Merit System." The Merit System screens applicants, handles testing, and maintains eligibility lists for many job categories. Job openings in DSS are posted on County bulletin boards and web sites; positions are not filled in DSS, however, without the candidate's eligibility having been determined by the Merit System.

F10: The County's Department of Human Resources (HRD) assists DSS in handling disciplinary actions.

F11: DSS employees are supposed to be reviewed and given annual performance appraisals according to Merit System standards, which may differ from the County's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement with Local No. 1.

F12: Typically, DSS management employees have not received annual performance appraisals during the past five years. After the Grand Jury made initial inquiries, however, at least one Program Manager received an "annual” performance appraisal for a four-year period in one performance evaluation dated in December 2001.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Managers and supervisors in DSS should be given annual performance evaluations. Such a practice should be established and observed rigorously for all employees in DSS.

F13: DSS policies are written in the form of Program Directives. Each Program Directive explains the rules and allowances for a specific program. Program Directives are revised periodically, but they are not followed consistently and are misinterpreted by untrained employees and the general public.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: DSS administrators and managers should consider contracting with a Consultant that specializes in quality reviews for Program Directives.

F14: Program Directives, for example, establish eligibility criteria and are used to instruct Eligibility Workers how to determine what claims meet the requirements for financial assistance. Management of CPS

F15: The Director and Deputy Director of DSS have not been attentive to the administration and management of CPS, according to the complaints received and the documents reviewed by the Grand Jury.

F16: The Deputy Director is responsible for administration of employee performance evaluations, according to the Merit System job description for that position. Annual performance evaluations have not been completed for CPS management employees or staff.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Managers and supervisors in DSS should be given annual performance evaluations. Such a practice should be established and observed rigorously for all employees in DSS.

F17: The Program Manager for CPS does not provide consistent support, training, or discipline for all CPS employees. Inappropriate decisions by the Program Manager, based on contentious personal relationships, were supported by the Director and Deputy Director of DSS. These decisions resulted in discriminatory actions against individual CPS employees. These actions were documented and have created serious morale problems, job terminations, and litigation for the County.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: DSS administrators should consider rotation of Program Managers and Supervisors to address the need for substantive management changes in CPS.

F18: The Supervisor for the Adoptions Unit is the assigned supervisor for the office assistance staff in CPS. This Supervisor does not have recent office administration experience and is not required to devote sufficient time to Office Assistants (OA) supervision functions, such as: · Perform clerical duties as a "back-up" when needed; · Supervise all OA responsibilities; · Conduct on-going training for new and continuing employees; · Evaluate probationary OA’s on a monthly basis with goals and objectives; · Gather information from OA’s on problems and solutions; · Respond immediately to stated needs and requests; and · Offer employees immediate access to supervision with an “open door” policy.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: DSS should request and the Board should authorize a position for an Office Assistance Supervisor in CPS, similar to the Office Assistance Supervisor position in Staff Services, to train and supervise OA’s.

F19: The Adoptions Unit had vacancies in two positions for caseworkers, and those vacancies required the Adoptions Supervisor's time and attention, leaving inadequate time for the management and training of CPS Office Assistants.

F20: According to the 2001/2002 Budget/Workplan, positions are authorized for 12 Office Assistants III (OA III) and 27.5 Office Assistants II (OA II) in DSS. As of August, 2001, DSS has assigned these positions as follows: · Adult & Child Protective Services -- four OA III's and two OA II's; · Staff Services -- two OA III's and nine OA II's; · Administrative Services, Placerville -- two OA III's and two OA II's; · Administrative Services, South Lake Tahoe -- two OA III's and nine OA II's; · Income Maintenance -- three OA II's; · Special Investigations -- one OA III; and · Employment Services -- three OA II's.

F21: As of August 2001, CPS had filled positions for three OA III's and three OA II's. All of the OA III and two of the OA II positions provided administrative and clerical support for between 16 and 22 Social Workers in the Emergency Response Unit, the On-going Unit, and the Adoptions Unit. One OA II position was assigned to provide administrative and clerical support for the Adult Protective Services Unit.

F22: Job descriptions for CPS OA III and OA II positions are set forth by the Merit System, not the County. Candidates for OA III and OA II positions are tested and screened by the Merit System. A list of the top five candidates for a position is submitted to the County. DSS selects the candidates to be interviewed from this list. In the event that none of the first five candidates is selected, a new list of the next five top candidates is submitted to the County. The process is highly competitive.

F23: The OA I position is an entry-level position, and there is not an authorized OA I position in the CPS unit.

F24: The OA II job description requires the employee to perform general and specialized activities, obtain information related to confidential department records, perform initial applicant screening in the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) computer program, and perform related work as required. In practice, in order to meet Court calendar requirements and state and federal regulations, this work is highly technical and time-sensitive.

F25: The OA III job description requires the employee, under general supervision, to do the following: · Perform highly responsible, specialized and technical office support functions; · Explain rules, policies and operations related to records, programs and services; · Serve as a lead worker and provide training and assignments to office support staff; and · Perform initial applicant screening and initiate cases in the SAWS system.

F26: According to the County MOU with Local No. 1, a supervisor is required to have an initial interview with the probationary employee immediately and give the employee information on rules and procedures for the job. The supervisor is required to enter the information on the form provided by the department, and the probationer is supposed to receive a copy of the completed form. The original form is to be filed in the employee's personnel file.

F27: Members of the Grand Jury reviewed personnel files for two probationary employees and did not find documents reporting initial interviews in their files.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: DSS and the Board should require compliance with the County’s MOU agreement and enforce the agreed upon procedure for reviewing performance of probationary employees on a monthly basis.

F28: The County MOU with Local No. 1 stipulates that monthly reviews will be documented for probationary employees with written copies of monthly reviews sent to HRD. Records of these required monthly reviews were not found in the personnel files of these two probationary employees.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: DSS and the Board should require compliance with the County’s MOU agreement and enforce the agreed upon procedure for reviewing performance of probationary employees on a monthly basis.

F29: The only documents found by members of the Grand Jury were identified as six month performance evaluations for two probationary employees. It was noted that one "six month evaluation" was dated much later than the sixth month of one employee's 12-month probationary period. Both performance evaluations were "satisfactory." One of the "satisfactory" performance evaluations was completed two weeks before the probationary employee was terminated.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: DSS and the Board should require compliance with the County’s MOU agreement and enforce the agreed upon procedure for reviewing performance of probationary employees on a monthly basis.

F30: Both of these probationary employees were terminated after completing eleven months of the 12-month probationary period. Probationary employees can be dismissed "without cause."

F31: Several employees in DSS wrote letters to the Program Manager of CPS, the Adoptions Unit Supervisor, and the Director of HRD indicating strong disagreement with the dismissals of these two probationary employees. They received no responses.

F32: Exit interviews were not conducted for the terminated probationary employees. Typically, exit interviews are not conducted at DSS by the CPS supervisors, the program managers, or the Deputy Director.

F33: Local No. 1 did not investigate these terminations or take action. Probationary employees are represented by Local No. 1, according to the County’s MOU.

F34: Most performance evaluations are marked “meets standards.” Therefore, an evaluation reporting “meets standards” means the probationary employee meets requirements for job performance. If a monthly face-to-face review does not take place, the assumption is job performance "meets standards."

F35: Terminations of these probationary OA’s, who were “meeting standards” in 2001, left the CPS unit with insufficient clerical support to perform required functions for the Court. These terminations also created a significant delay in processing six-month foster home re-certifications. Timely payment of foster care claims did not occur because of delayed re-certifications.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: DSS should request and the Board should authorize an increase in the OA staff positions in CPS to provide adequate support for Social Workers.

F36: The CPS supervisor for OA’s did not anticipate, assign, and manage clerical work loads properly. Social Workers with heavy caseloads in CPS were required to perform clerical functions because of the re-occurring OA vacancies. New probationary OA’s were not yet trained or proficient in their duties at the time they were placed in their positions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: DSS should request and the Board should authorize an increase in the OA staff positions in CPS to provide adequate support for Social Workers.

F37: OA’s in CPS do not receive formal training, except for a few days at a workshop in Sacramento on a state-wide computer program called Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS). By intent, new OA's are sent to this workshop as soon as workshop schedules permit, but in practice, the clerical supervisor dictates if and when the workload at CPS will allow new OA's to attend CWS/CMS training. Frequently, OA’s do not attend this CWS/CMS training early in their probation periods.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: CPS should require OA’s to attend CWS/CMS training within one month of their employment and placement in OA positions.

F38: The small amount of training OA's receive in CPS is "on the job training" (OJT) without structure. Typically, OJT is provided informally by other OA's and Social Workers when they have the time and inclination. The organizational "duty chart" for CPS, however, identifies specific duties for each of the OA II and OA III employees. The chart does not indicate whether or not there are any overlapping duties or cross- training responsibilities for OA's. The chart does not specify line responsibilities for filling the duties of vacant positions, performing functions for absent OA 's, or training for OA III positions.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: CPS should develop and implement a formal OJT plan with a qualified instructor to conduct ongoing training for new and experienced OA’s.

F39: According to the CPS "duty chart," one of the OA II positions supports three units in CPS by performing 11 assigned duties and five temporary duties. The other OA II position has five assigned duties and three temporary duties. These additional temporary assignments create an unbalanced workload for OA staff because they must perform their assigned duties. Apparently, these temporary duties, such as phone duty, Court calendar, supply orders, facility requests, entering Minutes orders, and responding to Probation and School Attendance Review Board (SARB) requests, are assigned because of inadequate staffing.

F40: One of the three OA III positions supports three units in CPS by performing eight assigned duties and two temporary duties. The second OA III has five assigned duties and two temporary duties. The third OA III is assigned duties for CWS/CMS and deals with complex placement changes and problems, high-risk placements, and complicated issues. This third position has additional responsibilities for on-going computer training for staff, program reports, developing and updating forms and templates, solving computer problems, maintaining printers, and checking laptop computers in and out for Social Workers.

F41: The OA II's and OA III's in CPS are supervised by the Adoptions Unit Supervisor, a Social Worker. By comparison, the nine OA II's and two OA III's in Staff Services are supervised by an Office Assistance Supervisor (OAS).

Related Recommendations (1)

F42: CPS staff has a critical need for more computers with ISAWS/SAWS access and Zip drives. This computer equipment was requested by staff in previous years. This need has not been met. For reasons unknown to the Grand Jury, the management declined to pursue the requests of staff.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: DSS should provide enough computers to meet adequately the job requirements for OA’s needing access to SAWS. This is a priority in the Program Manager’s 2002- 2003 budget request and should be authorized by the Board.

F43: OA’s, who do not have computers with dedicated access to SAWS, can be "bumped" from a computer while in the process of data input and file clearing when an Eligibility Worker needs the same computer. The Eligibility Worker's job duties take precedence over the OA’s duties.

Related Recommendations (1)

F44: Storage of confidential records is inadequate. Many sensitive records are stored in and near the DSS mailroom, and they are not secure. A secure new file storage system costing $30,000 was in the budget for DSS for the past two years, and because of the budget cycle and delays in placing purchase orders, the new storage system was not installed.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: DSS should expedite the purchase and installation of a secure new filing system.

F45: Because of the open floor plan and cubicle arrangement of DSS work spaces, there is little privacy or security in individual work cubicles for CPS staff. Employees from other departments appear to have easy access to the offices of DSS employees.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: DSS should immediately address security and privacy issues in the building and not allow unauthorized County employees or other persons access to work areas.

F46: Social Workers in CPS have not been treated in a fair, equitable manner by the CPS Program Manager. Some have been directed to spend personal funds on County business. Some have been denied vacation requests, personal bereavement leaves, and tuition reimbursement without adequate explanation. Some have been given notices for work schedule changes with less than the required two pay periods notice. Some have been asked and expected to perform multiple additional duties without payment of overtime or adjustments of schedules and caseloads.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: DSS should establish a Director’s “hotline” to receive reports, which could be made anonymously, on unfair and inequitable treatment.

R16: The Director of DSS should create a fair and equitable system for reimbursements for all employees entitled to tuition payments for approved higher education courses and degrees.

F47: Some CPS Social Workers have been instructed to ignore requirements for monthly visitations with children in foster care, contradicting the policies of the County DSS and state and federal program requirements.

F48: The State DSS audits stated that the County DSS was out of compliance in 1998, 1999, and 2000. DSS was required to submit a corrective action plan. The Grand Jury Final Report for 1999/2000 noted these compliance issues in DSS, and they have not been resolved. Staff Services -- Audit and Accounting Functions

F49: During the past three years, the DSS Director made repeated promises to the County Auditor that DSS would correct errors in processing payment claims for clients and vendors. In 2001, however, the County Auditor rejected 20% of the claims submitted for payment in one month. This was the highest percentage of rejected claims in any one month in 2001.

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: The Board should hold the Director of DSS directly accountable for claims rejected by the County Auditor's office. Program Directives should be followed. Responses Required to Findings

F50: The County Auditor assigned Administrative Technicians the responsibility for initial claims review for DSS. They have returned a tremendous number of claims to DSS for correction of errors in the past three years. This has resulted in late payments for clients and vendors. Some vendors have declined to do business with the County as a result of late payments.

Related Recommendations (1)

R18: The Board should hold the Director of DSS directly accountable for claims rejected by the County Auditor's office. Program Directives should be followed. Responses Required to Findings

F51: In reports to the Grand Jury from DSS, the number of rejected claims listed by DSS differs significantly from the number of rejected claims in the County Auditor's records.

F52: DSS employees in Staff Services are responsible for processing claims within the department when they receive them from the program units. Some units leave claims in "pending files" or in-baskets, file them incorrectly, or generally misplace them. Sometimes, months pass before a claim is handled by the responsible DSS employee and then forwarded to the County Auditor's staff. DSS managers acknowledge full responsibility for errors in processing claims, which cause payment delays.

Related Recommendations (2)

R17: The Director should hold subordinates accountable for holding claims, vouchers and invoices longer than required for processing, and the Director should initiate disciplinary action for managers and supervisors who refuse to comply with Program Directives.

R18: The Board should hold the Director of DSS directly accountable for claims rejected by the County Auditor's office. Program Directives should be followed. Responses Required to Findings

F53: Claims are prepared by automated processing methods and equipment in DSS and then forwarded to the County Auditor's office. In recent months, DSS prepared 62 hand-typed claims, which would normally be done only in cases of emergency. 75% of the hand-typed claims appeared to be made out to vendors that do on-going business with the County and are only emergencies because of lack of timely processing. Income Maintenance (Eligibility Services)

F54: CalWORKs is a County-administered, State-funded program which assists welfare recipients to remain in, return to, or enter the work force. Responsibility for administering the CalWORKs program is assigned to the Income Maintenance (Eligibility Services) division of DSS.

F55: DSS annually submits a plan to the State DSS outlining expenditures required for the CalWORKs program in the County. The plan does not include details, such as limits for individual recipients, or how much an individual may receive as allowances for clothes, tools, travel, and meals.

F56: The State DSS does not have specific policies regarding the amounts that can be spent for: · Transportation, including car repairs, taxis, bus fares, or private carriers; · Personal hygiene, such as hair cuts; or · Temporary board and care.

F57: The State DSS audits the County's CalWORKs program expenditures, but this audit is not performed annually.

F58: Eligibility Workers and contract employees without sufficient training in issuing spending vouchers for DSS have permitted clients in the CalWORKs program to have personal vehicles repaired without three repair estimates. Program Directive ES PD 9, , requires three repair estimates.

Related Recommendations (1)

R14: Eligibility Workers should follow the Program Directives without exception when approving payment claims and vouchers for clients and vendors.

F59: On several occasions in 2001, Eligibility Workers approved excessive vehicle repairs for CalWORKs clients within a period of four months, even though the costs of those repairs exceeded the Blue Book values of the clients' vehicles. These expenditures appeared to be excessive and unjustified.

Related Recommendations (2)

R14: Eligibility Workers should follow the Program Directives without exception when approving payment claims and vouchers for clients and vendors.

R15: Program Managers should review claims carefully and should be sensitive to excessive costs for services provided to CalWORKs clients.

F60: A contract employee assigned to the Eligibility Services program allowed the expenditure of $135 for hair styling for one client with the justification that the allowance was important in assisting the client in maintaining self-esteem and a current job placement. The $135 expenditure appeared to be excessive.

Related Recommendations (1)

R15: Program Managers should review claims carefully and should be sensitive to excessive costs for services provided to CalWORKs clients.

F61: Within the six months preceding the resignation of the DSS Director in December 2001, the Board of Supervisors expressed grave concerns about the repeated appearances of poor judgment on the part of DSS employees and the lack of administrative and management controls in DSS.

August 16, 2001 — Special Districts Committee Cameron Estates Community Services District Citizen Complaint #01/02-c-003

3 pages 8 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: Empowered services of the District are road and easement maintenance, definition of riding trails, CC&R enforcement, architectural control, water, fire and police protection, public recreation and parks. Currently provided services are road maintenance and CC&R enforcement.

F2: On August 16, 2001, members of the Grand Jury attended a district meeting where a violation of the provisions of the Brown Act pertaining to closed sessions was observed. The closed session was not properly noticed or agendized. There was no report out following the session.

F3: The California Special Districts Association, a statewide organization, offers continuing education to all members of special districts boards.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: The CECSD should join the California Special Districts Association and avail itself of the education provided by that organization about how to legally and effectively administer the business of the District. The cost of membership should be considered a necessary administrative expense. The web address is www.csda.net. Responses Required for Findings

F4: Based upon investigation of Board of Directors agenda and meeting minutes, nothing irregular was found regarding the District’s roadwork bidding or awarding process.

F5: The District is in violation of California Government Code § 61240(a), in that a General Manager has not been appointed. A District Secretary, however, has been appointed in compliance with California Government Code § 61240(b).

F6: The complaint alleges misappropriation of funds by the District. The District “donated” $300 to the church where District meetings are held. The Board considered that expenditure to be an administrative cost in lieu of rent. Additionally $100 was spent on a combination community picnic and District meeting. Neither of these incidents constituted a misappropriation of funds.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: Cameron Estates Community Services District should refrain from referring to payments for the use of church premises as “donations”.

F7: The Grand Jury has no jurisdiction to dissolve an existing Community Services District, as requested by the complainant.

F8: The remaining complaint items are old and the Grand Jury chose not to address them.

📋August 15, 2001 — Criminal Justice Committee El Dorado County Jail, South Lake Tahoe Reason for the Report The California Penal Code

3 pages 16 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 16 findings

F1: All areas of the jail were exceptionally clean.

F2: The jail is generally well maintained – painting, equipment, appliances, etc.

F3: Staff was well groomed and cooperative.

F4: When arrestees are received and booked, the process is taped.

F5: Personal visits are restricted to immediate family members; the visits are non-contact.

F6: Staff training appears to be adequate.

F7: Every security position has written orders, which are reviewed by the assigned correctional officer, and are signed and dated by that officer.

F8: Non-lethal weapons, such as gas, are stored in a locked room – only staff have access. Within the room, the non-lethal weapons are in a locked locker – only the Jail Commander and the Sergeants have keys. Note: The 00/01 Grand Jury found a problem with weapons storage. The problem has been corrected.

F9: Staffing appears adequate considering the type of facility, construction, and numbers and kinds of inmates: · 1 Lieutenant · 6 Sergeants · 26 Correctional Officers · 7 Sheriff’s Assistants · 1 Aide Note: Only the Lieutenant is a peace officer. Therefore, the Sergeants and Correctional Officers cannot use lethal weapons (i.e. guns).

F10: The medical program is provided by a contract company – RN on days, LVN at night, and an MD always on call.

F11: Programs such as AA, Narcotics Anonymous, and Anger Management are provided to inmates by volunteers from the community.

F12: Inmate appeals an discipline are handled appropriately as prescribed by the Board of Corrections, Title 15, California Code of Regulations.

F13: No “musty odor” was noticed. The 00/01 Grand Jury Report documented a “musty odor” especially in the access area.

F14: All members of the Grand Jury were impressed by the knowledge, dedication, and high level of interest of the Jail Commander.

F15: Cracks in the concrete were observed in various parts of the jail. Of special concern were the cracks found in the kitchen.

F16: The ADA pedestrian ramp located in the front of the jail is cracked and buckling. This is an obvious safety issue. Approval was granted to fix the ramp in 1998 and no action has been taken.

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The cracks in the concrete found in various parts of the jail need to be repaired, especially the one in the kitchen.

R2: The ADA pedestrian ramp located in front of the jail should be removed, redesigned and replaced. In addition, a canopy should be placed over it so in the winter ice and snow are not a problem. This project has been authorized and approved since 1998, however has still not been started. This creates a hazard for all who need to use the ramp and a potential liability for the county. It is strongly recommended that this project be completed before winter of 2001-2002.

R3: The County Purchasing Ordinance should be amended to expressly prohibit the “splitting” of purchase orders.

August 01, 2001 — Education Committee Golden Ridge School, Juvenile Hall Reason for the Report The Education Committee was concerned

11 pages 31 findings 11 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 31 findings

F1: The Grand Jury agrees with the 2000/2001 Grand Jury’s Recommendation that the Principal and County Superintendent of Schools be consulted when the County reviews plans for the new Juvenile Hall in Placerville.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: Education staff should be consulted as plans are developed for the new Hall in Placerville.

F2: There are two rooms being utilized for education.

F3: Those rooms are crowded with students, furniture, equipment, computers, files and bookcases filled with books.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: More space should be provided for education programs in the present Hall.

F4: Each student has an individually assigned workstation.

F5: Computers are available. Thirty percent of a class can be assigned to a computer at any one time.

F6: Both boys and girls are detained at the Hall. Typically, classes consist of 10 boys and 3 girls.

F7: Many of the students have the following traits in common: · Have attended many schools; · Are deficient in basic academic skills; · Do not know how to learn; · Have low maturity levels and cannot sit still in class for long periods of time; · Have substance abuse problems; · Come from dysfunctional families; · Have been in the Hall more than once; and · Their time in the Hall varies from several days to several months.

F8: The educational program consists of the following: · Individualized assessments when the wards are first assigned to the program; · Individualized plans based on personal needs and school resources; · Classes emphasizing both academic and social skills; · Tokens for rewards granted for correct behavior; · Consistent discipline; · No ‘social promotions’; and · Compulsory attendance.

F9: The teachers are motivated and innovative. Because of their seniority, they could be assigned to any teaching positions in the El Dorado County Office of Education. They choose to remain at the Hall.

F10: The teachers find ways to “make do” with the resources available.

F11: There is a high level of cooperation between the probation and education staffs.

F12: Policy 4111 does not require the publication or advertisement of vacant ROP positions for certificated personnel, nor does it mention the most common current venues for recruitment efforts, the ROP and EDCOE websites on the Internet, among others.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: Participating school districts should establish written policies requiring the publication of vacant positions and advertising for applicants for ROP instructor positions.

F13: Policy 4116, Personnel - Certificated, Probation, states: "According to the provisions of Education Code, Section 44910, all teachers employed by the ROP shall be termed designated subject certificated staff and shall not require permanent status."

F14: EDUHSD policy on advertising vacancies is not in writing, but EDUHSD’s practice is to advertise all ROP vacancies in addition to posting vacant positions within the school district. District teachers do not usually qualify for ROP instructor positions, however, because they do not have recent work experience in the applicable profession, skill or trade.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: Participating school districts should establish written policies requiring the publication of vacant positions and advertising for applicants for ROP instructor positions.

F15: Purchase order records at EDUHSD were examined to identify newspaper advertisements of vacant ROP positions. Paid purchase orders for advertisements in a local Placerville newspaper for approximately 10 ROP instructor positions were identified for the period between September 22, 2000, and January 30, 2001. According to paid purchase order records, no advertisements for vacant ROP positions for an entire fiscal year were placed in a more widely circulated Sacramento newspaper between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2001.

F16: EDUHSD does not keep a file of actual newspaper clippings of advertisements for vacant ROP positions (or for regular curriculum positions) to match the printed job descriptions attached to purchase orders, even though past practice indicates that they have been advertised. Without such clippings, EDUHSD has no proof that the advertisement was published.

Related Recommendations (1)

F17: Recruitment of ROP instructors for vacant positions often takes place by informal networking among ROP administrators at regional meetings and competitions.

F18: The ROP JPA and EDUHSD do not keep formal contact lists of eligible and qualified ROP instructors who have indicated their interest in applying for vacant ROP teaching positions in specific schools or school districts. It is the practice of EDUHSD not to accept applications for ROP positions unless they have been posted or advertised. The complainant mistakenly believed that a position that was vacant and had been filled by EDUHSD without advertisement was an ROP instructor's position for an ROP class. In fact, that class was not an ROP class for that semester, although it had been an ROP class in previous years. At the time of the vacancy, the class was being offered as an elective in the regular secondary school curriculum.

F19: The ROP JPA and EDUHSD do not have a review or appeal process, formal or informal, for applicants who are not selected for vacant ROP teaching positions and who believe they are as qualified or more qualified than the person(s) selected.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The ROP JPA and participating school districts should consider establishing a formal review process for applicants who have not been offered contracts as ROP instructors and who wish to be reconsidered for ROP instructor positions.

F20: Some full time teachers who have both General Education credentials and ROP certifications are assigned to teaching positions in ROP classes because school districts have not been able to fill their teaching schedules with regular curriculum classes. Most ROP instructors, however, are given part-time contract assignments for one or two classes because they work at other full time occupations.

F21: The student screening process for ROP classes is not rigorous. Some students are allowed to take ROP classes because of scheduling problems or as "elective classes" with the understanding that they will be "introduced" to the subject matter as a "survey course" to determine whether or not they are interested in that vocation, profession, skill or trade. This practice contradicts the intent of the original state legislation, which established ROP programs to provide advanced vocational training to serious students who are seeking career training.

Related Recommendations (3)

R7: The ROP JPA should require participating school districts to clarify the distinctions between admissions requirements for ROP classes and admissions requirements for regular elective classes. Students should be screened accordingly.

R8: The ROP JPA should monitor more strictly school district screening of students who enroll in ROP classes to ensure that all ROP students meet the criteria for ROP vocational instruction.

R11: Participating school districts should review student enrollment in ROP classes such as computer training to ascertain that all enrollees meet the criteria for ROP vocational instruction,

F22: It is important for the ROP JPA and participating school districts to maintain ROP enrollments and to increase ROP revenues. For example, by offering ROP classes in computer training to adults of all ages, including retired persons without job prospects or career plans, school districts circumvent the intent of state ROP legislation to augment the work force with well-trained, job-oriented, and career-minded graduates.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: Participating school districts should review student enrollment in ROP classes such as computer training to ascertain that all enrollees meet the criteria for ROP vocational instruction,

F23: ROP JPA Board members select the Board’s officers every year in March. JPA Board representation depends on the three participating school district boards, who select assignments from their own board memberships. The JPA Board meets once each quarter, and its members serve as liaisons with the school district boards they represent.

F24: Almost no criteria are established for the selection of the three ROP JPA Board members, all of whom represent the participating school districts. The only criteria for those board members are that they (i) be registered to vote, (ii) reside in the school district they represent, (iii) be elected or appointed to one of the participating school boards, and (iv) be selected by their participating school district boards to sit on the ROP JPA Board. There are no attendance requirements.

F25: JPA Board members are almost entirely dependent on the information, research and guidance provided by EDCOE administrative and management personnel, as well as the Executive Committee composed of the EDCOE Superintendent and the Superintendents of the participating school districts.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: The ROP JPA Board should address the issue of absenteeism by board members. Teleconferencing and/or video conferencing should be used to conduct business when a board member is unable to attend regular meetings in person because of weather, work, travel, or other reasons.

R5: The ROP JPA Board should schedule regular board meetings more than four times a year.

Related Recommendations (1)

R6: The ROP JPA Board should initiate policy discussions with participating school districts to clarify the appropriateness of using ROP when the identical class can be provided either in ROP or in Adult Education programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

📋July 17, 2001 — Criminal Justice Committee El Dorado County Jail, Placerville Reason for the Report The California Penal Code requires

4 pages 25 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 25 findings

F1: This Grand Jury notes the concerns of the 98/99 Grand Jury. Those concerns have apparently been addressed. One of the major concerns then was that the inmate count was high and increasing. It is now considerably lower. We concur that the facility is well managed with a minimum of problems.

F2: This Grand Jury agrees with the 1999/2000 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings. · The housing units were clean and the noise level was low. · The kitchen and dining areas were clean and orderly, and the food adequate. · The infirmary was in good shape. · The Inmate Welfare Fund is adequate, providing telephones, the library and visiting amenities for families, e.g. vending machines, toys for the children, and athletic equipment, etc. · Inmates may get some training in the kitchen.

F3: This Grand Jury agrees with the 2000/2001 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings: · The laundry and shower areas were clean. · The medical room was clean, and well organized, with licensed medical staff on duty 24/7. · Some cleanliness problems still exist in loading dock area.

F4: The Jail has 243 beds.

F5: On January 15, 2002, there were 161 inmates: 133 men and 28 women. The jail was, therefore, at 66% of capacity with over 80 beds available.

F6: The Jail is relatively new and is in very good condition.

F7: When the Jail was constructed, it was designed for additional housing units to be built in the future. The Jail has an oversized booking area and kitchen anticipating future expansion.

F8: The Jail was under a Federal Court Order to maintain the jail population at or below the 243-inmate capacity.

F9: The Jail is staffed by 2 Lieutenants, 7 Sergeants, and 51 Correctional Officers.

F10: The Jail was designed to be a "direct supervision" jail, and is staffed and supervised so that inmates are in direct contact with staff.

F11: The inmates were well groomed and their clothing was clean.

F12: Medical needs are met through a contract with a private medical services company.

F13: The Jail is inspected by management monthly and other times as necessary.

F14: There is an effective inmate grievance policy.

F15: Upon arrival, inmates receive an orientation of procedures and policies, and are given a copy of the rules.

F16: The Jail looks and smells clean and is well ventilated.

F17: The voluntary jail education program had 34 students on the day the Committee toured. There is a teacher and several volunteers. Students may complete a GED or complete high school courses.

F18: The Jail has an exceptional library, both in numbers of books and kinds of materials available including a law library.

F19: Inmates assigned to the kitchen may receive training in culinary arts.

F20: Some trusted inmates are assigned to jobs in the jail, e.g. janitorial, laundry, clerical, painting, and repairing, etc.

F21: Male and female inmates are assigned to separate work duties.

F22: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and a variety of religious programs are provided by volunteers from the community.

F23: The booking area appeared cluttered.

F24: The loading dock was not clean.

F25: Overall, the management of the Jail appeared to be considerably above average.

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: During January 2002, over 80 beds were available. The County, therefore, should rent jail beds to defray the daily expenses associated with managing a facility of this size. Potential renters are the Federal Marshal, Immigration Department, neighboring counties, and the State Department of Corrections (for detained parolees).

R2: The booking area should be better organized.

R3: The loading dock should be clean.

June 27, 2001 — Government & Administration Committee Communication of Board of Supervisors' Directives Reason for the Report

3 pages 10 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: Members of the Grand Jury received written memoranda in June 2001 and April 2002 from the Registrar of Voters in El Dorado County (County) with instructions for filing "conflict of interest" disclosure forms. Reference was made in the memoranda to Board Resolution #25-98 as the County's "Conflict of Interest Code." The members assumed that the information which had been given to them was correct, that Resolution #25-98 was currently operative, and that they were required by that Conflict of Interest Code to file Form 700 -- Statement of Economic Interest. That information was not correct.

F2: Board Resolution #25-98 was adopted in February 1998. It identified the position of Grand Juror as a "designated position," requiring the filing with the County by Grand Jurors of Conflict of Interest disclosure forms.

F3: Board Resolution #25-98 was superseded in February 2001 by Board Resolution #036-2001. Board Resolution #036-2001 deleted all reference to the position of Grand Juror, and thus abolished the County's requirement that Grand Jurors file Conflict of Interest disclosure forms.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board, the County Counsel and/or the County Registrar of Voters should formally advise the Court Executive Officer and/or the Presiding Judge of the El Dorado County Unified Superior and Municipal Courts that the County is no longer requiring Grand Jurors to file Conflict of Interest disclosure forms, and that the Court may wish to make inquiry into the question of whether it should impose such a requirement.

F4: The Grand Jury is informed and believes that the reason for that deletion was the County's recognition of the transfer of jurisdiction over the Courts from County control to State control, pursuant to the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, which became effective on January 1, 2001.

F5: Nevertheless, for reasons unknown to this Grand Jury, the members of this Grand Jury were advised by the Registrar of Voters, in June 2001 and again in April 2002, that they were required to file Conflict of Interest disclosure forms with the County.

Related Recommendations (1)

F6: After the transfer of authority over the Courts from County jurisdiction to State jurisdiction, there does not appear to have been any corresponding state legislation or regulation requiring the filing of Conflict of Interest disclosure forms or statements by members of Grand Juries.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The El Dorado County Counsel and/or the County's Registrar of Voters should request, from the Attorney General of the State of California and/or Legal Counsel to the Fair Political Practices Commission of the State of California, a definitive opinion as to the disclosure obligations, if any, of members of Grand Juries.

F7: This Grand Jury has not received any instruction from the Superior Court on the subject of whether Grand Jurors are or are not required to file Conflict of Interest disclosure statements, and if so, on what forms and with whom.

Related Recommendations (1)

F8: Because of the shortness of time, this Grand Jury has not investigated the policy and practice of communicating Resolutions to the affected departments heads, recipients, and the public.

F9: The County's Conflict of Interest Code is not published on the County's website, www.co.el-dorado.ca.gov. That website contains the County's Ordinance Codes, but does not contain the Resolutions adopted by the Board if they do not adopt or amend specific Ordinances, even though some and perhaps many of those Resolutions contain information that impose requirements and directives upon county employees and members of the public.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Board should establish a procedure by which all of its Resolutions which impose duties and obligations upon either the County's employees or members of the public are (i) disseminated to the County Department Heads responsible for compliance with those duties and obligations, and (ii) published on the County's website and (not or) otherwise disseminated to the public.

R2: The County's Conflict of Interest Code should be published on the County's website.

F10: The County's Ordinance Code, as it appears on the County's website, is not updated on an ongoing basis. Frequently, it has not been updated for periods in excess of a year; it was last updated on January 23, 2001. This fact causes members of the public who rely upon the County's website for information to be misinformed with regard to any county rules, regulations and requirements which may have been adopted subsequent to the updating of the website.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The County's Ordinance Code should be updated on the County's website not less frequently than every three months.

April 24, 2001 — Mental Health Committee El Dorado County Department of Mental Health Citizen Complaint #01/02-c-018

15 pages 82 findings 17 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 82 findings

F1: The DMH is organized to deliver services through five program divisions and two administrative divisions. The program divisions are Adult Day Treatment, Adult Services, Children's Services, Mental Health Clinical Services, and the Psychiatric Health Facility (PHF) in Placerville, referred to as the PUFF unit. There are two administrative divisions: 1) Central Administration, and 2) Administration of State Hospital and Institute for Mental Disease (IMD) beds.

F2: DMH has approximately 99 employees in the County. The department is housed in four separate locations: three in Placerville and one in South Lake Tahoe.

F3: The position of Deputy Director of DMH was authorized and budgeted in 2000 and filled in January 2001. The Deputy Director has no line authority in the organizational structure of the Department and does not conduct performance evaluations. Program manager’s report directly to the Director. The Deputy Director functions as a coordinator. His job description is non-specific. It appears that the Deputy Director's primary responsibilities are to: · Promote the use of Inter Trac for electronic records; · Improve coordination and communication between the administrative staff in Placerville and the management staff in the Clinic; · Work on the budget and fiscal policy issues; and · Implement improvements in mental health services at Juvenile Hall in Placerville and the anticipated South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Hall.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Deputy Director should have line-authority over program managers in DMH. This should be included in the job description for the position.

R2: The DMH Director and the Board should authorize a new position, Assistant Director, for DMH. The title of Program Manager at the Clinic should be eliminated, and the Assistant Director should be given full authority and responsibility for Clinic programs and facility operations in the South Lake Tahoe area of the County.

F4: The DMH budget for 2001/2002 is approximately $9.75 million, which includes $345,581.00 from the County's General Fund. This General Fund contribution is at the same level of support the Department has received from the County's General Fund (Department 15) during the previous two fiscal years.

F5: The General Fund contribution of $345,581.00 to the Department provides a $30,000.00 match required by the State of California (State) for mental health services and $315,581.00, primarily for approximately 10 children who require high levels of mental health services in foster care and psychiatric facilities where costs range from $3,000.00 to $12,000.00 per month per child.

F6: The $315,581.00 contribution is referred to as an "overmatch" in the 2001/2002 Budget/Workplan (P. 237) because the County is not required by the State to provide this additional financial support for the County's mental health programs.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The Board should direct the CAO to eliminate the use of the word "overmatch" from budget documents because it implies that the County has no responsibility to provide services to the mentally ill in the County if those services must be provided with discretionary revenues from the General Fund (Department 15).

F7: According to the 2001/2002 Budget/Workplan (P. 238), which was approved by the Board of Supervisors (Board) in September 2001, “beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2002/2003 the County will reduce its overmatch by 50%” until in FY 2003/2004 “the County match will include only the required $30,000.00.”

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: The Board has been informed of critical unmet needs in services and facilities for the severely and chronically mentally ill at South Lake Tahoe and the Western Slope of the County. If funding for mental health services is to be a low priority of the Board, as evidenced by the planned elimination of discretionary General Fund support for DMH, the Board should publicly acknowledge that policy in open discussion and written policy directives. It should not be buried in a few small paragraphs in a several hundred-page Budget/Workplan.

R6: The Board should prepare an agenda to introduce a full discussion of the County's responsibility for mental health services to all clients on an equitable and adequate basis.

F8: The Interim Chief Administrative Officer (ICAO) recommended the elimination of the "overmatch" over a two year period based on estimated increases in Sales Tax Realignment revenue for the Department. Sales tax growth projections are calculated by the County's Auditor Controller.

F9: The ICAO's recommendation to eliminate the "overmatch" and the Board's approval of that recommendation by adopting the 2001/2002 Budget/Workplan, also make the assumption that the County's claims for reimbursement of state-mandated services will be paid according to the requirements of Senate Bill 90 (SB90). The Department received these reimbursement funds for the first time during FY 2001/2002 for mental health related SB90 mandated services. Most of these reimbursement funds were used to relocate the Adult Day Program in Placerville to a new facility on Mallard Lane, a move that was long overdue.

F10: The State of California and the "claiming counties" have not resolved all of the disputes arising from the interpretation of SB90's requirements and State-mandated services. The State could discontinue reimbursing claims at any time, especially given the State's current budget crisis.

F11: The Board's allocation of discretionary revenues from the General Fund is a clear indication to the public of the Board's priorities for projects and programs. In adopting the 2001/2002 Budget/Workplan, the Board neither agendized nor discussed a policy decision to eliminate discretionary General Fund support for mental health programs in the County. Nevertheless, except for the County's mandated "match" of $30,000.00, such an elimination will be accomplished no later than FY 2003/2004.

Related Recommendations (2)

R6: The Board should prepare an agenda to introduce a full discussion of the County's responsibility for mental health services to all clients on an equitable and adequate basis.

F12: DMH uses Inter Trac, a computer software tracking system. Inter Trac software is used by every county mental health department in the State. It is primarily a management tool, utilized to record contact information, collect and transmit data, and compile statistical reports. The County obtained 40 licenses with the original software vendor agreement several years ago and pays $50.00 per license per year.

F13: Inter Trac is currently being used by 72 licensed therapists in DMH, including the PHF unit. Administrative and management personnel can review the number and quality of therapist/client contacts on a regular basis to improve service and to identify discrepancies in the delivery of services. The use of Inter Trac has improved the efficiency of case management. It makes transmittal of records and coordination of services for clients transferring between counties or from the Clinic to Placerville (and vice versa) much easier and faster. This is particularly important in providing crisis intervention services for clients in South Lake Tahoe who are transported to the PHF unit in Placerville. South Lake Tahoe Mental Health Clinic (Clinic)

F14: The Clinic has been allocated 36 positions out of the 99 total authorized positions in DMH.

F15: The Clinic, under the South Lake Tahoe Mental Health Program Manager, is organized in seven units: one administrative services unit, one accounting services unit, and five program delivery units,

F16: The Clinic's Administrative Services unit has three authorized positions: Mental Health Program Manager, Administrative Assistant, and Medical Records Technician.

F17: The Clinic's Accounting Services unit has two authorized positions for a Senior Fiscal Assistant and a Fiscal Assistant II.

F18: The Clinic's Medication Services unit consists of two Consulting Psychiatrists, one specializing in adult services and the other in children's services.

F19: The Clinic program for Adult Emergency (Crisis Services) and Adult Mental Health Services is managed by a Mental Health Program Coordinator II and staffed by two Mental Health Clinicians (one position is vacant) and a Psychiatric Case Manager. Two interns assist this unit.

F20: Adult and Emergency Services is responsible for providing: · Psychiatric emergency services, 24/7, for all client emergencies, including children, and new emergency calls; · Mental health services, assessment, and counseling for adults; · Case management services to assist clients with obtaining other services as needed; · Medication services for clients; · Coordination of services in liaison with 10 other agencies in the community; · Recruitment, supervision, and training of extra-help staff; and · Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first aid training for staff.

F21: As of December 2001, Adult and Emergency Services provided services to 150 clients on a regular basis. In addition to providing services to regular clients, Adult and Emergency Services staff must respond quickly to mental health crisis calls. For example, the unit had 142 crises and triage assessments in September 2001 and 120 crises and triage assessments in October 2001.

F22: The Adult and Emergency Services staff handle crisis line calls on weekdays during regular business hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.. Contract employees handle after hour’s calls between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. weekdays and on a 24-hour basis on all weekends and holidays.

F23: After regular business hours, crisis calls are routed through an answering service, where information is collected and forwarded by pager to one contract employee who has been scheduled as the crisis worker for that shift. That crisis worker must then call the answering service back, and then call the person reporting the emergency. Each of these steps requires time and creates delays in the communication process.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: DMH should improve the crisis-line for Adult and Emergency Services by: · Eliminating the answering service and pager referral system and instituting a system similar to the 911 emergency call system with operators trained in crisis services; and · Providing funds sufficient for trained contract employees to have enough back up to respond to more than one emergency call at a time.

F24: Because of the response time, the mental condition of callers experiencing mental health crises and/or threatening suicide is aggravated by delays inherent in the procedure described in the preceding Finding.

Related Recommendations (1)

F25: Typical response time ranges from five to 10 minutes when the after-hours crisis worker responds by telephone to the pager. This type of crisis line response procedure is not adequate, particularly in comparison to the immediate response to 911 calls by trained dispatchers.

Related Recommendations (1)

F26: There is an extremely high turnover in crisis workers employed as contract employees. Training is ongoing because of the nature of the work. Crisis workers must have Bachelor of Arts degrees in mental health or a related field. Work experience is not required.

F27: Contract employees are paid on a standby basis at a rate of $1.20 per hour to carry a pager. They are paid $16.49 per hour if they have to respond to a call. Their time starts at the time they respond to the pager. This payment system is not adequate to recruit and to retain trained contract employees for crisis call responses.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: DMH should make it a budget priority to provide a pay scale for crisis workers after hours so that the Clinic can retain trained crisis workers.

F28: Prior to 1992, the Adult and Emergency Services unit operated a three-shift system with a professional crisis team of two employees on duty on all shifts. Funding cuts resulting from establishment of the State's Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) eliminated the professionally staffed shift system.

F29: The elimination of the three-shift schedule was a budgetary decision. The original procedure was very effective because it significantly reduced response time for a client in crisis.

F30: The Adult and Emergency Services unit must rely on the rest of the Clinic staff in other units as back up for crisis intervention. This means that the Clinic staff does crisis work at night and on weekends, in addition to providing mental health services to their regular clients during normal business hours.

Related Recommendations (1)

F31: The requirement for immediate response in crisis situations makes it imperative that crisis workers live in the South Lake Tahoe area. Salaries for crisis workers are inadequate because of the cost of living in South Lake Tahoe. This makes recruitment and retention of trained crisis workers very difficult.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The DMH Director, the CAO, and the Board should establish new written standards and policies based on published data, to recognize the higher costs of housing, transportation, relocation and other pertinent factors, to adjust salary schedules for employees in South Lake Tahoe. Those standards and policies should provide incentives to attract new qualified employees and to retain employees at South Lake Tahoe.

F32: The Adult Day Rehabilitation and Case Management Unit (Adult Day Treatment) for the severely and chronically mentally ill is managed by a Mental Health Program Coordinator I at the Clinic. This position is filled currently by a new probationary employee. The unit is staffed by a Mental Health Worker II, a Psychiatric Technician II, and a Mental Health Clinician I. The position of Psychiatric Technician II is also filled by a new probationary employee, and the position of Mental Health Clinician I is vacant.

F33: Adult Day Treatment is an organized daily program that provides therapeutic activities for severely and chronically mentally ill adults who are at risk of hospitalization. This program is conducted at the Clinic site in a room space of less than 400 square feet. The space is inadequate for the current number of participants - 15 to 17 clients and three staff members. Based on current needs and interest, the program could serve up to 15 additional clients each day if adequate space were available. Requests for and attempts to find space for this program have been ongoing for at least four years.

Related Recommendations (2)

R14: The Adult Day Treatment hours should be extended to match program hours in Placerville. The Adult Day Treatment program should encourage volunteers and "consumers" (clients who are compensated for providing peer counseling services) to use their skills by offering clients instructional programs for personal development.

R15: The Adult Day Treatment staff should investigate programs in other counties for new ideas to be used at the Clinic.

F34: According to DMH policy, the Clinic cannot have a petty cash fund on site for staff to use in paying small expenses for Adult Day Treatment, i.e., parking and admission fees at local recreation sites, activities and excursions. The unavailability of a petty cash fund greatly limits participation in Adult Day Treatment.

Related Recommendations (1)

R12: DMH should revise its policy and allow the Clinic to use a petty cash fund. This would give the Adult Day Treatment staff flexibility in conducting activities scheduled for participants, without the need to cancel planned activities because of complicated reimbursement procedures or the lack of a few dollars for admission fees.

F35: Adult Day Treatment has a rehabilitation schedule of planned socialization activities for clients who would otherwise be isolated and non-communicative. They meet four afternoons each week, Monday through Thursday, and are encouraged to participate in the following activities: · Peer support which promotes communal activity; · Community awareness, current events, and resources; · Yoga and range of motion exercises; · Meal preparation; · Bowling and active recreation pursuits; · Outings to the library, parks, and recreation areas; and · Excursions to Carson City and Reno.

F36: Clients are not participating in some of the "hands-on" experiences described as objectives of Adult Day Treatment activities. For example, clients do not prepare meals, even though these activities are on the schedule, because kitchen facilities are inadequate.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: The Adult Day Treatment program should provide more varied daily activities with hands-on experiences in cooking, crafts, art, computer use, gardening and painting, similar to those provided at the county facility in Placerville.

F37: The Adult Day Treatment program at the Clinic does not have enough staff, space, or funding to provide mental health services to the increasing number of clients.

Related Recommendations (2)

R15: The Adult Day Treatment staff should investigate programs in other counties for new ideas to be used at the Clinic.

F38: The Tahoe Opportunity Project (TOP), a state grant-funded program, provides services to mentally ill homeless adults, those who are in danger of becoming homeless, and those who are incarcerated. TOP is managed by a Mental Health Program Coordinator II with a staff of seven. The Coordinator's position is vacant.

F39: TOP provides these clients with food, clothing, and shelter and helps them obtain treatment for mental health problems, substance abuse, and medical conditions. A psychiatrist at the Clinic provides services to TOP clients up to a maximum of 5 hours per client.

F40: TOP receives state grant funds of $800,000 annually. The TOP program, led by the Clinic, is a collaborative effort by public agencies, such as the County's Departments of Public Health, Community Services, and Veterans Services, as well as private, non-profit agencies, including the Sierra Recovery Center, Barton Memorial Hospital, and the Family Resource Center.

F41: TOP recently leased a transition house in South Lake Tahoe, which has five beds and is supervised by a TOP staff member and a live-in house manager. This house serves as a transition site for clients needing a more intensive residential treatment environment before advancing to higher levels of self-sufficiency and independent living. Fifteen clients have used the house since it was leased.

F42: Children's Mental Health, Day Rehabilitation (Children's Day Treatment) and Primary Intervention Services are managed by a Mental Health Program Coordinator II at the Clinic. This unit is staffed by four Mental Health Clinicians, a Mental Health Social Work Intern, a Parent Partner, and four Primary Intervention Aides.

F43: Children's Day Treatment does not have a dedicated 24-hour crisis line. Resources such as respite care, licensed foster homes, and group care facilities are inadequate.

F44: The Clinic has a critical shortage of space for children's services. There is no partitioned space in the waiting room/reception area to separate adult clients from families and children. There is no privacy, play area, or counseling room dedicated to children's use. A play therapy room was recently converted to office space for staff.

F45: The Clinic does not have enough authorized positions for clinical staff to meet the treatment needs of seriously mentally ill children in the South Lake Tahoe area. Clinic Facilities

F46: The Clinic is operating in inadequate space of 3,475 square feet. Some of the major concerns are: · Some clients, including children and adults with mental and physical problems, have difficulty negotiating the elevator and the narrow, dark stairway to the Clinic location on the second floor. · There are 36 authorized positions that must share small offices, leaving little privacy for confidentiality between staff and clients. · 300 clients access this facility (not counting parents and others). · The cramped, inadequate space negatively impacts programs. For example, the Adult Day Treatment program has a small room for up to 17 clients and three staff members, limiting important activities and the ability to increase the number of participating clients. · Record storage space is totally inadequate. Some confidential records are stored in the hallway.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The Board should provide adequate facilities for the Clinic to accommodate programs, staffing and services. It was unconscionable for the Board to use discretionary funds for Community Enhancement Projects, like the grant of $100,000.00 for the South Lake Tahoe Animal Shelter, while failing to provide adequate space for treatment of the severely and chronically mentally ill clients of the Clinic who are the least able members of our community to fend for themselves.

F47: There are serious fire/life safety issues in the Clinic facility: · Because the Clinic is on the second floor, evacuation would be difficult for everyone, especially mentally impaired clients, in the event of an emergency. The number of clients who access the Clinic is excessive for the square footage. · The building is constructed of wood, and the “combustible load” (all those things that would burn easily) is great. · The building does not have fire sprinklers, smoke detectors, a central fire alarm system, air packs, or an automatic external defibrillator (AED). · Fire drills, including emergency evacuations, are not routinely conducted.

Related Recommendations (1)

F48: The space for Adult Day Treatment is inadequate. For example: · There is one kitchen sink, one stove without a ventilation hood, one small refrigerator/freezer, limited food preparation/counter space, and limited cabinet space to store kitchen supplies. · The activity space is combined with the food preparation space and storage for supplies to serve meals is located in the hallway. · The space is too small for an activity room, and there is not a separate group conference room. · There is not a private access to Day Treatment staff offices; the only access is through the activity room.

Related Recommendations (1)

F49: The County requires property owners to make tenant improvements before the County will enter into any lease. This requirement makes leasing new property almost impossible, given the limited amount of available lease space in South Lake Tahoe.

F50: The City of South Lake Tahoe has not been helpful in providing "fast track" services to enable the County to meet the City’s requirements for new Adult Day Treatment space. In addition, the Tahoe Regional Planning Authority (TRPA) restricts sites where Clinic services like the Adult Day Treatment program can be located.

F51: Repeated promises by Clinic staff that the Adult Day Treatment program would be relocated to a more adequate space have not been fulfilled. This has created credibility problems among clients, their families, and staff members.

F52: The Department of General Services (DGS) and its Real Property Planning and Administration (RPPA) division historically have not responded in a timely manner to opportunities to acquire new lease space for the Clinic and its programs.

F53: After more than four years of unsuccessful attempts to find adequate space for the Adult Day Treatment program, the County has made arrangements to move both the TOP and Adult Day Treatment programs into adequate space by relocating other county offices from existing county-leased facilities in South Lake Tahoe. The move is scheduled for July 2002. Personnel and Staffing

F54: The Department Director is responsible for performance evaluations for the Deputy Director and Program Managers. Some Program Managers have not had formal performance evaluations in more than 10 years.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The DMH Director should require annual performance evaluations for all employees at every level.

F55: The Deputy Director has not had a formal performance evaluation since being appointed to the position in January 2001.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The DMH Director should require annual performance evaluations for all employees at every level.

F56: The Deputy Director does not have line authority to conduct formal performance evaluations for program managers or coordinators.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The Deputy Director should have line-authority over program managers in DMH. This should be included in the job description for the position.

F57: Probationary employees in supervisory positions are conducting performance evaluations of probationary employees. It is unclear whether or not they have the experience or training to conduct such evaluations. The County provides no formal training for that purpose.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The DMH Director, with the assistance of the Department of Human Resources, should provide training programs for new supervisors and managers to enable them to undertake and complete performance evaluations with accuracy and consistency.

F58: Performance evaluations do not always reflect the actual performance of employees because DMH does not require its managers and coordinators to do so.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The DMH Director should require annual performance evaluations for all employees at every level.

F59: There is a lack of communication among the administrators, managers, coordinators and staff of DMH.

F60: DMH does not always include or involve the South Lake Tahoe Mental Health Clinic Program Manager in decisions relating to programs, budgets, and staffing. Managers have not always been advised or consulted on changes in their own programs and staffing before changes are announced.

Related Recommendations (1)

F61: Staff turnover in the Clinic is high. There were four clinical positions vacant in the past year. These vacancies cause staffing and service delivery problems because positions remain vacant for months. Some of the reasons include: · An acute shortage of psychiatrists exists, not only in South Lake Tahoe, but throughout the State of California. · The high cost of housing in South Lake Tahoe makes it difficult to recruit employees to live in that area. · A salary differential of only $175.00 per month for employees in South Lake Tahoe does not cover the additional cost of housing and transportation. · The County does not pay relocation expenses for new employees. · The required one-year probationary period is an impediment to recruiting prospective new employees for positions in South Lake Tahoe. · Contract employees have no permanent employee status or representation in bargaining units in the County.

Related Recommendations (2)

R17: A management audit of DMH should be conducted to determine the reasons for disparities in workloads and productivity levels between the Clinic and Placerville.

F62: The Clinic's professional staff have private practices and are allowed to use management leave and supervisory leave as compensatory time off to conduct their practices during normal weekday business hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.. These practices conflict with the scheduling of work and caseloads for other employees.

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: A management audit of DMH should be conducted to determine the reasons for disparities in workloads and productivity levels between the Clinic and Placerville.

F63: There is an abuse of sick leave at the Clinic.

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: A management audit of DMH should be conducted to determine the reasons for disparities in workloads and productivity levels between the Clinic and Placerville.

F64: Because of improper management, and for other reasons, employees work through normal breaks and lunch periods.

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: A management audit of DMH should be conducted to determine the reasons for disparities in workloads and productivity levels between the Clinic and Placerville.

F65: Policies regarding work and duty hours are not enforced. Employees are allowed to work at home without accounting for their time, and employees are not always recording work beyond the normal eight hours, for which they are entitled to be paid overtime.

Related Recommendations (1)

R17: A management audit of DMH should be conducted to determine the reasons for disparities in workloads and productivity levels between the Clinic and Placerville.

F66: The Clinic has higher staffing ratios and receives a greater proportion of DMH’s budget, relative to caseloads and costs of services, than the Western Slope.

F67: Since the position of Deputy Director of DMH was filled in January 2001, the Clinic has received substantially more on-site administrative and management support because of the Clinic's high priority and the interest level of the Deputy Director. Community Resources

F68: There is currently one volunteer to assist at the Clinic. Privacy issues preclude active volunteer recruitment and participation in mental health programs with clients. Tahoe Cares, a coalition of non-profit community and religious organizations, provides informal support on a case-by-case basis as requested by the TOP Program Coordinator.

F69: The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) is an active organization in the South Lake Tahoe area, and the NAMI representative works to assure that the laws regarding mental health are being implemented. NAMI also is involved in educating family members of patients regarding the legal rights of the mentally ill.

F70: The El Dorado County Mental Health Commission at South Lake Tahoe meets monthly to address issues concerning mental health services, such as programs, facilities, staffing, funding and resources.

F71: Barton Memorial Hospital is a private, non-profit, accredited medical facility which contracts with the County to provide emergency service to mentally impaired persons. Crisis workers from the Clinic evaluate patients in the emergency room to determine immediate needs, assist with diagnoses, and provide referrals for treatment.

F72: Barton Memorial Hospital has no psychiatric beds and does not admit patients diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses unless they also have medical conditions that warrant hospitalization. The hospital is not equipped to diagnose or treat mentally ill patients or provide mental health services. There is no psychiatrist on staff.

Related Recommendations (1)

R16: DMH should evaluate other facilities in the Lake Tahoe area which have the capability of providing the residential care services needed by clients of the Clinic, for potential contract purposes.

F80: The annual licensing review and evaluation of Tahoe Manor by the State Department of Social Services, called a Facility Evaluation Report and dated April 2000, identified four deficiencies: · Medications were not stored, locked, labeled, and dispersed according to regulations. · Medications were being set up more than 24 hours in advance. · Hazardous areas in the laundry room were accessible to residents. · Staffing was not sufficient to meet state licensing standards.

F82: The 2002 Facility evaluation and inspection of Tahoe Manor has not yet been conducted.

Special Districts Committee Golden West Community Services District Citizen Complaints #01/02-c-020 and #01/02-c-024

6 pages 28 findings 13 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 28 findings

F1: The GWCSD was established November 3, 1983 for the following purpose: “Opening, widening, extending, straightening, and surfacing, in whole or part, of any street in such district as authorized in subdivision (j) of section 61600 of Government Code and the construction and improvement of bridges, culverts, curbs, gutters, drains and works incidental to the purposes set forth in subdivision (j) as authorized in subdivision (k) of 61600 of the Government Code.”

F2: According to LAFCO records, GWCSD bylaws were adopted in 1992. The GWCSD Board President was unable to locate or produce a copy of any bylaws for a long time.

Related Recommendations (1)

R9: The GWCSD Board of Directors should adopt and/or revise a set of District bylaws and should make them available to residents of the District.

F3: Finally, the President of GWCSD supplied two different versions of “Rules and Procedures” with three different times and locations of regular designated meetings. Both of those documents were not consistent with a verbally noticed time and location announced at a January 12, 2002 general community meeting.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The GWCSD Board of Directors should take necessary steps to become more accomplished in the procedures for conducting meetings.

F4: Neither version of the “Rules and Procedures” shows an adoption date and have no distinction of which has precedence.

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The GWCSD Board of Directors should take necessary steps to become more accomplished in the procedures for conducting meetings.

F5: A five-member Board of Directors elected by the residents of the District for four- year periods govern the GWCSD. The terms of office are staggered every two years to provide continuity of the Board. The last contested District election with names on the ballot was held November 1993.

F6: When District positions are scheduled for election, the Elections Department sends a notice to the District, at its current address, and to the local newspaper for publication of the positions which are scheduled for election. It is the District’s responsibility to post notice of the positions to be filled in a public, regularly known, location within the District.

F7: In the November 2001 election, the two members who remained on the board prior to the District’s loss of a quorum ran for four-year terms. The other members, who had been most recently appointed, ran for two-year terms. Because no sixth person ran, no names were listed on the ballot.

Related Recommendations (1)

R7: The GWCSD Board of Directors and residents should contact the El Dorado County Elections Department to initiate a ballot by mail. The cost of this process is considerably less than a general ballot election.

F8: Annual District assessments are $120.00 per developed or undeveloped parcel. This amount has not been increased since the District was formed.

F9: The District is under-funded. This lack of funds results in an inability to maintain the roads. That inability creates dissension among Board members and District residents.

Related Recommendations (2)

R1: The GWCSD residents should file a request with the El Dorado County Elections Office for an election of a new Board of Directors.

R6: The GWCSD Board of Directors and residents should consider increasing District assessments to meet increasing costs.

F10: For the last two or three years, GWCSD Board members apparently did not have or reference copies of the Brown Act. They demonstrated little apparent knowledge of its scope, content or application.

Related Recommendations (2)

R4: The GWCSD Board of Directors should become educated on all provisions of the Brown Act and should comply with them.

R12: The GWCSD should join the California Special Districts Association and avail itself of the education provided by that organization about how to legally and effectively administer the business of the District. The cost of membership should be considered a necessary administrative expense. The web address is www.csda.net.

F11: The California Special Districts Associations, a statewide organization, offers continuing education to all members of special districts boards.

F12: In May 2001, three members of the GWCSD Board resigned, leaving the Board without a quorum. A majority of the authorized number of directors is required for a quorum. The Board must have a quorum to conduct the business of the District.

F13: At an informational community-wide meeting on June 9, 2001, the President of the Board of Directors (the only Board member present) announced the existence of a Road Advisory Committee consisting of four members. At least two of those members were not told of, and were unaware of, their membership on this Committee.

F14: By July 26, 2001, composition of the GWCSD Board of Directors was returned to five members. To provide a quorum, one member was appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Subsequently, the GWCSD Board of Directors appointed two additional members.

F15: On September 14, 2001, a District resident submitted a letter to the Board, pursuant to California Government Code §54960.1(b), demanding that the Board cure or correct various actions which the Board had committed in violation of the Brown Act.

F16: Pursuant to California Government Code §54960.1(c)(2), the letter also demanded (i) that the cure or correction be accomplished within 30 days, (ii) that the Board inform the demanding party in writing of its corrective action or of its decision not to cure or correct the challenged actions, and (iii) to be informed as to what actions would be taken by the Board to assure that it would comply with the Brown Act in the future. The Board did not respond to the demanding party.

F17: On December 5, 2001, the same District resident made a second letter of demand requesting certain GWCSD documents. A number of requested documents were never received by the demanding party. This constituted a violation of the California Public Records Act.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The GWCSD Board of Directors should promptly respond to requests made by residents for information.

F18: On December 10, 2001, another district resident made a demand, for the fourth time, for GWCSD documents that were not previously provided. This constituted a violation of the California Public Records Act.

Related Recommendations (1)

R8: The GWCSD Board of Directors should promptly respond to requests made by residents for information.

F19: Two Grand Jury members attended a GWCSD Board meeting on March 14, 2002. The meeting was generally conducted in accordance with the Brown Act. Agenda item 6C was presented by the Road Manager for general public discussion, but it was neither acted upon nor continued. Also, a motion to officially close the meeting was never made.

F20: A second incident of resignation occurred in March 2002. Three members of the Board of Directors resigned, leaving the GWCSD Board bereft of a quorum for the second time within a year. As of the end of April 2002 there were still only two Board members. The remaining Board members were informed by the Department of Elections that any business conducted by the remaining Directors will be a violation of the Brown Act.

Related Recommendations (1)

R13: In light of the continuing activities by the two remaining GWCSD Board of Directors, the Grand Jury strongly recommends that the El Dorado County District Attorney investigate and consider prosecution of violations of the law by the GWCSD Board of Directors. Responses Required for Findings

F21: The GWCSD Board of Directors has had a Phase 1 road maintenance plan under consideration for over a year. Lack of understanding, poor communication and personal bad feelings have resulted in lack of action on a road bid package during the term of the current Board President.

F22: Confusion and unrest regarding a schedule for road maintenance has existed within the GWCSD Board of Directors for two years. As a result, little roadwork has been done. This is attributed primarily to the unyielding and contentious attitude of the current Board President.

F23: The current President of the GWCSD has violated many provisions of the Brown Act, subjecting the District to possible legal consequences.

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The GWCSD Board of Directors should become educated on all provisions of the Brown Act and should comply with them.

F24: Special GWCSD Board meetings have been held at various Board members’ homes rather than in public places, with little prior notice and during normal business hours. This practice has made it difficult and uncomfortable for District residents to attend, and has effectively circumvented the intent of the Brown Act.

Related Recommendations (1)

R10: The GWCSD Board of Directors should conduct all meetings, properly noticed, at a public meeting place.

F25: The GWCSD does not publish a directory for residents of the District.

Related Recommendations (1)

R3: The GWCSD Board of Directors should provide an annual District directory to all GWCSD residents.

F26: The GWCSD does not publish a District newsletter of any kind.

Related Recommendations (1)

R2: In order to improve District relations and communications, the GWCSD Board of Directors should publish a newsletter on a regular schedule.

F27: In violation of California Government Code §61240, the GWCSD has neither a General Manager nor a Secretary who are not members of the Board.

Related Recommendations (1)

R11: To comply with California Government Code §61240, the GWCSD Board of Directors should take action to incorporate the positions of General Manager and Secretary into their operating structure.

F28: Unless and until a quorum is established, any business conducted by the District would be in violation of the Brown Act. Not withstanding that fact, however, the two remaining board members are continuing to do business and act upon road repair issues without a quorum.

Related Recommendations (1)

* 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.

Additional documents

Documents found alongside this year's reports — not grand jury reports or responses.