The Public Administrator and Public Guardian as Conservator

Offi ce Work Flow The workload within the offi ce is associated with three services: PA functions, LPS and Probate Conservatorships and Representative Payee activities. Figure 1 illus- trates work fl ow and role responsibilities of employees associated with each service. a. Public Administrator Decedents are identifi ed to the PA by numerous agencies which include hospitals, the County Medical Examiner-Coroner, the Human Services Agency (HSA) and the courts. The PA’s offi ce prepares court documentation and a court investigation is performed to establish control of the assets and the body of the decedent. Ventura County Counsel acts as the attorney representing the PA to the court. The Assistant PA (Head of the Division) makes the initial attempt to contact any family of the decedent. A Deputy PA takes control of the assets of the individual, performs an inventory and appraisal of all assets and converts them into Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury cash. The Probate Referee provides an assessment of the non-fi nancial assets in order to establish an initial appraisal of the value of the estate. Final bills are paid and burial is arranged. If there is no family (of the deceased), the remainder of the estate (if there is any) is then passed to the State of California. The PA offi ce’s legal clerk aids in the preparation of court documentation and a PA offi ce fi scal clerk (through the in- house computer system), tracks the fl ow of funds and prepares the necessary fi nancial documents. b. LPS and Probate Conservatorships Pre-conservatorship Activities: The many administrative activities associated with LPS and Probate conservatorships are similar. These are illustrated in Figure 1. Potential conservatorships are identifi ed by one of three LPS hospitals in the County: St. Johns, Community Memorial or Ventura County Mental Health Department’s In-Patient Facility. Recommendations for conservatorship may also come from the Ventura County HSA’s Adult Protective Services or the courts. An investigative report is prepared and presented to support the court decision to establish a conservatorship. The conservatee, who is typically resident in one of the three hospitals, is then transferred to an appropriate facility. This facility might be a nursing home, a convalescent hospital, an institution for the mentally disabled, a board and care facility or an independent living facility. These facilities are located throughout Southern California, though in one instance one conservatee was as far away as Colorado. The Assistant PG (Division Head) and the intake Deputy PG, supported by legal and fi scal clerks, have the primary role in establishing the documentation of the conservatorship. The cases are then transitioned to one of the other Deputy PGs. Probate Conservatorship Activities: The County Counsel represents the PG to the court and the Ventura County Public Defender represents the individual at a hearing to determine whether a conservatorship will be established. The court approves the establishment of the conservatorship and re-establishes the renewal or review of the conservatorship on either a one-year (LPS) or two-year (Probate) cycle. The primary responsibility for managing the conservatorship lies with the Deputy PGs. They perform the Initial Inventory and Appraisal (in conjunction with a Probate Referee). The deputy converts most of the non-fi nancial assets to cash, which are placed in an account in the County Treasury. Some fi nancial assets may be kept in original investment accounts unless they are needed to pay expenses. Personal items are placed in a County warehouse. Tracking of individual accounts is established in the PA/PG computer system which is maintained by the fi scal clerks. The Deputy PG approves all recurring and nonrecurring bills and County checks are printed by the PA/PG system. These checks 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report are then brought to the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce for signing. Income for individuals from Social Security and other sources is received and deposited (in the name of the conservatee) into County accounts. The Deputy PG, an HSA Community Service worker, Ventura County Behavioral Health and the residence facility all monitor the health and personal needs of the conservatee. Occasionally, due to health or behavioral changes in a conservatee, a change in placement of the individual to another facility is necessary. Either the Behavioral Health Department or the residence facility may initiate these changes. Such placement changes are approved by the deputy and reviewed by the court and the Public Defender. The Community Service worker ensures that the conservatee is physically present (if medically possible) at an annual or semi-annual conservatorship hearing. c. Representative Payee Accounts At the request of the Behavioral Health Department, the PG establishes a revenue collection and bill paying support process for individuals who can live independently but are not able to handle their fi nances. Once an account is established in the PA/PG computer system, the Behavioral Health case manager reviews and approves bills that are processed by the PA/PG fi scal personnel. d. Caseload A Deputy PA, four Deputy PGs and a person assigned by the HSA (to handle special cases), manage the caseload of the division. The caseload breakdown is illustrated in Table 1. Table 1. Caseload of the Public Administrator / Public Guardian WORKLOAD ELEMENT NUMBER OF DEPUTIES NUMBER OF CLIENTS Public Administrator 1 153 Public Guardian-Conservatorships 4 376 Assigned Human Services Agency Staff 1 18 Representative Payee accounts N/A 319

Audit Review a. An interim audit performed in 1991 by the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce identifi ed defi ciencies in the separation of duties, controls and accountability over deposit and disbursement vouchers and safeguards against unauthorized disbursements. b. The latest audit by the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce of the PA/PG was performed in 1992. The report noted an area for improvement was internal controls for cash receipts and disbursements. c. There is no record of any thorough audit by the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce of any individual conservatee account. Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury

Information System review a. The PA/PG offi ce utilizes a stand-alone information system whose software is leased from a private commercial business. It consists of a number of COBOL programs that run on a County-owned server. Modifi cation and maintenance of the software is performed by the commercial business as part of the lease. b. This system accepts billing and income data, prints checks and generates reports. Check data are passed to the County fi nancial management system as an interface mechanism using a single, miscellaneous vendor code. Due to the single, miscellaneous vendor code used by this interface, there is no practical way of cross checking accounts for duplicate payments to vendors. c. The PA/PG system is completely independent of the County fi nancial system, and its disbursements do not require the same approvals from the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce as other vendor payments require. d. There is no mechanism within the PA/PG system to check for duplicate payments. The County fi nancial system does have the capability to check for duplicate payments, but this function is not used in the PA/PG interface. e. Documentation of the system consists of a single binder which provides a description of the structure of the system and identifi es canned screens and reports. Detailed desk procedures are not included with the system documentation. f. The County person most knowledgeable in the operation of this system is a former employee who now works in another area. There is no one with special skills in data administration or systems administration currently assigned to the PA/PG Division. g. The software contractor is the defacto system administrator and has complete password authority over the PA/PG system. h. The small staff and heavy caseload preclude the development of other than a rudimentary knowledge of this computer system. i. The total of payments processed by the PA/PG system is illustrated in Table 2. j. There are several databases or fi le systems related to the conservatorship programs. In each of the database fi les surveyed there was resident information that was not current. 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report Table 2. Yearly Volume of Payments YEAR AMOUNT COMMENTS 1999 $9,844,742.97 2000 $12,148,809.73 2001 $13,440,058.91 2002 $12,678,848.86 As of 04/05/02 (3/4 fi scal year)

Property Review a. Personal belongings of nine out of the ten cases sampled were found in the locations as indicated in the “Warehouse Storage Log.” The belongings (identifi ed as “misc. pers. prop.”) of one conservatee were not found. b. Personal belongings of an additional nine individuals not listed on the “Warehouse Storage Log” were found in various locations. Two of these nine were part of the Grand Jury’s sample of thirty-seven cases being reviewed. Four of these nine were not listed on either the PG’s Conservator or PA’s Trust Fund listings. c. Personal belongings of conservatees stored in the same storage containers were segregated and not co-mingled with other conservatees’ personal property. d. One shotgun listed as being located in the warehouse safe was visually verifi ed in that location. e. Several pieces of miscellaneous jewelry belonging to one conservatee were annotated on the “Warehouse Storage Log” as being stored in the Administration Building large safe. The jewelry was not in the safe. Grand Jury members and the assigned Deputy PG reviewed the case fi le. There was documentation in the case fi le to indicate that the jewelry had been released to an ex-spouse. f. Photographs were not taken to show the condition of the property when received or any items of value that needed to be stored in County safes or the warehouse. g. There is no evidence to indicate that at least two County employees were present when personal property was acquired from a conservatee. h. Four procedural documents for warehouse storage and accounting were reviewed: 1. Assistant Public Administrator/Public Guardian Memo of 10 April 1979 2. Assistant Public Administrator/Public Guardian Memo of 19 April 1979 3. Assistant Public Administrator/Public Guardian Procedure of 2 July 1991 4. Assistant Public Administrator/Public Guardian Procedure of 3 February 1993 Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury The fi rst two memos contained very explicit instructions for handling of estate property and warehouse duties. At the time the documents were issued there was one individual solely responsible for the warehouse operations. Apparently, due to staff reductions, this responsibility was eventually distributed to all the deputies. The documents cited as 3 and 4 added new forms for ”Warehouse Storage and Removal” and “Inventory and Auction Recap” sheets for clients with estates. It was not clear whether these later documents elaborated on or superceded the former procedures.

Workload Comparison a. The median LPS and Probate conservatorship caseload per PG Deputy for a representative twenty-two California Counties was fi fty-fi ve cases per Deputy. In Ventura County the average LPS and Probate conservatorship caseload is ninety-four cases per PG Deputy. b. The median number of assigned PA/PG employees per 100,000 population for the twenty-two counties in the survey was 3.6 employees per 100,000 population. Ventura County has assigned 1.5 employees per 100,000 population. c. Other counties perform the PA/PG function using different organizational approaches, and the sample size is too small to warrant an attempt at a more complete statistical analysis.

Account Review Document Review: a. During the review of the thirty-seven case fi les selected from a PG/ Conservator, dated 09/24/01, it was discovered that three of the conservatees were deceased. The dates of death were ten months, fi ve months and four months prior to the date of the report. One person died during the case review. b. Several duplicate payments for a variety of services were discovered during the case fi le review. All were the result of vendors’ duplicate billing invoices. The documentation in the fi les indicated that for all except one of the duplicate payments either the County (in discovering the error) had cancelled the duplicate checks, or the vendor (in discovering the error) had simply returned the overpayment to the County. c. In the sample cases, the County used two different fi rms for tax return preparation. Each fi rm was used about equally. Only fourteen of the thirty-seven conservatees required a tax return because of the value of their estates, incomes or investments. The accuracy of the tax returns was not reviewed. There was a drastic difference in the appearance of the tax returns submitted by the two tax preparers. One set of returns was hand annotated, while the other was neatly and orderly prepared on a computer. The fees charged by the service with a professional 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report appearance were about half that of the fees of the one whose work was hand written. d. In two of the sample cases, duplicate tax returns were prepared for the same year by different tax return preparers. e. One of the conservatees owned a home when he came under the conservatorship of the PG. There was no documentation in the case fi le regarding any home furnishings. The house was sold six months after the conservatorship was established. The Court- required “Inventory and Appraisal” was submitted three months late. There was a paid invoice in the fi le indicating that a locksmith had been employed to open four safes belonging to the conservatee. It was determined that the locksmith did drill open four safes at the County warehouse. There was nothing in the case fi le to indicate the contents of the safes, the disposition of the safes or who was present when the safes were opened. f. One of the conservatees was receiving a substantial bi-weekly payroll check from his employer based on accrued sick and annual leave. Without notifi cation this bi-weekly amount had been reduced by nearly 50 percent in August 2001 (prior to the Grand Jury noticing the discrepancy in December 2001). There was no evidence in the case fi le that the employer had been contacted to question the sudden large pay reduction. A pay stub that was received from the employer showed that the employer had been given no change of address for the conservatee, though the individual had been under Conservatorship for eleven months. The Grand Jury contacted the conservatee’s supervisor to determine why the pay reduction had occurred. The Grand Jury learned that an error in the employer’s Payroll Department had brought about the incorrect reduction in pay to the conservatee. Subsequently, the mistake was rectifi ed and a check for the missing sick leave pay was deposited to the conservatee account. g. Each conservatee has at least two case folders containing documentation pertaining to their individual background, court documentation, history of paid invoices, copies of correspondence relating to all sources of income and a record of conversations held with the conservatee or about the conservatee. In the review of sample cases, it was noted that some folders contained a very comprehensive chronology of conversations held, and that in other case fi les the chronology appeared incomplete, not documented or there were very few telephone conversations on behalf of the conservatee. h. There were very few documents in the sample case reviews refl ecting accountability for the personal belongings and home furnishing of the clients. Although many of the conservatees are homeless and penniless, some conservatees have substantial investment assets as well as real property. Final Report 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury i. There was no photographic evidence of valuable belongings (i.e. jewelry, weapons) in the conservatees’ fi les or a signature trail identifying who took original possession of the property. Visits to Conservatees: j. Grand Jury members visited twenty-four of the thirty-seven conservatees selected for review at their place of residence. Two were at separate independent living locations in the County and the remainder were at various facilities in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. Nine were not personally visited because of scheduling diffi culties or because they were located at distant facilities. k. Only three of the facilities visited challenged Grand Jury members when they asked to review patient records. l. Most of the facilities were clean and the staff appeared to be conscientious in their care of and concern for their patients. Generally, the Board and Care facilities were older and some were showing wear and tear. m. At a facility located outside of Ventura County, the odor of cigarette smoke was detected by the Grand Jury members. At the same facility, a staff member was seen eating lunch in view of the patients and when asked by a patient when lunch would be served, the patient was told it would be served in half an hour. n. The Grand Jury was provided a “Placement List” dated 12/27/01 which listed conservatees and probate case clients by health care facility in which they were located. Three out of the sample of thirty-seven were not listed on the “Placement List”, and their location had to be ascertained from another database fi le or from the case fi les. o. The staff at the facilities contacted in Los Angeles County indicated that most contact by the PG Deputies was by telephone rather than on-site visits. p. A fourteen-year-old conservatee was transferred from a Ventura County facility to a facility in Colorado without the knowledge or approval of the PG. Conclusions General Offi ce C -1 The Public Administrator/Public Guardian is performing adequately in the guardianship of the persons under care, but due to an excessive workload, there are defi ciencies in the record keeping and procedures associated with the guardianship of the estate of the persons under care. (F-1d, Table 1, F- 3b, F-3h) C-2 Public Administrator and Public Guardian functions share similar duties for Inventory and Appraisal and property management. (F-1, Figure 1) 2001-2002 Ventura County Grand Jury Final Report C-3 Due to the large caseload for each deputy, individual attention to each of the conservatees is limited. Contact with some conservatees is by phone in many instances rather than face-to-face. This is especially the case with conservatees domiciled outside of the County of Ventura. This limitation precludes a quick response in identifi cation of defi ciencies in institutional care. (F-6m, F-6o) Audit Issues C-4 There is an excessive time between reviews by the Auditor-Controller’s Offi ce of the Public Guardian/Public Administrator. (F-2a, F-2b) C-5 Defi ciencies in internal controls exist within the Public Guardian’s Offi ce. (F-3d) C-6 The procedures for controlling the property of conservatees do not estab- lish proper controls, neither do they provide for an adequate audit trail. (F-4g, F-4h) Information System C-7 The staff is inadequately trained on the computer system. It appears that there is neither suffi cient training materials nor time for staff to develop an intricate knowledge of the computer system because of workload. (F-3e,