Fresno County Grand Jury • 2004-2005

The Fresno Co Unt Y Rand Jury

Published: June 23, 2005 71 pages Consolidated Report
Ver PDF original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F14, F30, F49

Findings 47 findings

F1 Page 17
The candidacy requirements for election to the FUSD Board (Trustees) established by the State Education Code 35107 are that you are at least 18 years of age, a registered voter, a resident of the school district and are not disqualified by the Constitution or laws of the State from holding a civil office.
F2 Page 17
The School Governing Trustees are elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the district’s schools.
F3 Page 17
The Superintendent works under the direction of the Trustees to fulfill their responsibilities which include: • establishing a long-term vision for the district • establishing and maintaining a basic organizational structure for the district, including employment of the Superintendent and adoption of policies, curriculum, the budget and the collective bargaining agreements 2 • ensuring accountability to the local community, including personnel, programmatic and fiscal accountability and service as a judicial and appeals body as needed • providing community leadership and advocacy at the local, state and national levels on behalf of children, district programs and public education.
F4 Page 18
FUSD is the fourth largest school district in the State with a student population of approximately 80,000 and an annual budget approaching one billion dollars.
F5 Page 18
Current FUSD Board membership consists of three former teachers, a retired college counselor, a college professor, a social service employee and an attorney.
F6 Page 18
Trustees have not always hired Superintendents with strong management skills.
F7 Page 18
FUSD has a lack of continuity in the Superintendent’s office with nine different Superintendents since 1984.
F8 Page 18
Fresno County Office of Education and FUSD offer orientation and information sessions for Trustee candidates providing them with district policies and information about school programs.
F9 Page 18
Attendance for School Board candidates is not mandatory at orientation and information sessions.
F10 Page 18
FUSD Board and staff members offer newly elected Trustees training and orientation sessions on the operation of the Board office, Community Relations, the Brown Act, Public Records Act and conflicts-of-interest.
F11 Page 18
Attendance for newly elected Trustees is not mandatory at training and orientation sessions.
F12 Page 18
Current Trustees indicate they do not receive adequate training and information concerning FUSD issues.
F13 Page 18
The California School Board Association holds an annual three-day conference and trade show for newly elected and other Trustees. Attendance for FUSD Trustees is funded and is not mandatory. 3 14. The Eli Broad Foundation offers an expense paid five-day institute for school trustees that covers a broad range of governance issues. The Broad Institute is available to all newly elected school trustees. Attendance is not mandatory.
F15 Page 19
Newly elected Trustees indicate the training on FUSD fiscal matters was only a one-hour session with the District’s Chief Financial Officer.
F16 Page 19
Board history indicates prior FUSD Boards made decisions that negatively impacted District fiscal solvency.
F17 Page 19
Previous Trustees did not act on repeated fiscal concerns documented and expressed by the Fresno County Office of Education.
F18 Page 19
Trustees: • receive Board Meeting packets the Friday prior to the Wednesday Board meetings • may contact district staff with any questions they might have regarding the information included in the Board packet • express their desire to have more information regarding district financial matters • indicate they would like to receive a line item budget.
F19 Page 19
Some Trustees: • do not review Board packets prior to scheduled meetings • have full-time jobs in addition to serving on the Board • work 20 hours or more per week on FUSD business.
F20 Page 19
Trustees receive compensation of $1,500 per month for service on the Board.
F21 Page 19
Trustees are eligible for health insurance benefits for themselves and their family and after four full terms or sixteen years of service are entitled to receive lifetime health benefits. CONCLUSIONS 1. Trustees have limited knowledge and training preparing them to understand and make decisions on fiscal matters.
F22 Page 25
Career Technical Education programs may reduce the dropout rate.
F23 Page 25
Most businesses in Fresno County do drug testing before hiring an employee and continue random drug testing.
F24 Page 25
Many citizens in Fresno County are unemployable because they are unable to pass a drug test. CONCLUSIONS 1. Lack of an adequately trained workforce directly impacts economic development in Fresno County.
F25 Page 53
Tertiary water from all water treatment plants be used.
F26 Page 53
Draw-down test (pump test) standards be raised to a minimum of 5 gallons per minute, not under pressure, for 48 hours.
F27 Page 53
An immediate building moratorium be implemented until proven water sources are located, developed and preserved.
F28 Page 53
The County Residential Building Code require an on-demand hot water recirculating system be installed in all new residential construction.
F29 Page 53
The Fresno County Zoning Ordinances pertaining to water use be reviewed 36 TRAFFIC FLOW/CONGESTION INTRODUCTION Fresno is rapidly becoming a large urban city experiencing increasing traffic flow and congestion problems. The 2004/2005 Fresno County Grand Jury (FCGJ) interviewed experts in the field of traffic control and governmental leaders about these problems and possible solutions. The FCGJ strongly believes that it is time our city leaders address this problem before it becomes unmanageable. TRAFFIC FLOW/CONGESTION FINDINGS 1. There is considerable traffic congestion on the streets of Fresno near freeway intersections and during rush hours.
F31 Page 56
Require developers to mitigate traffic problems caused by their development projects.
F32 Page 56
Address current and future traffic flow and congestion problems on streets not included in the current synchronized traffic system program.
F33 Page 56
Install and upgrade technically advanced signals capable of being coordinated with those at other intersections.
F34 Page 56
Devise and implement a definitive plan for the completion of the TOC.
F35 Page 56
Request funding be provided by the Fresno City Council for the remaining phases of the synchronized traffic control system. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND DISTRICTS COMMITTEES INTRODUCTION The 2004/2005 Fresno County Grand Jury gathered information about the various City and County Boards, Commissions, and Districts. Past Grand Jury reports were also reviewed. Citizens’ complaints prompted this Committee to concentrate its time and efforts on the Lighting and Maintenance Districts of the City of Fresno. For many years an issue regarding common landscaping in some neighborhoods and the problem of keeping pace with the rising costs of needed maintenance has existed. To date no solution has emerged to accommodate those neighborhoods caught in the dilemma. Sprinklers are not working, weeds are not being sprayed or removed. Many complaints from the affected homeowners have resulted and continue to be a bone of contention because services paid for are not performed or not completed in a timely manner. Our goal has been to first sort out the various historical issues. Secondly, to make recommendations for the work and funding of these special maintenance districts to keep pace with the maintenance needs of the homeowners. MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS INTRODUCTION The City of Fresno annually collects over one million dollars from approximately 21,900 homeowners in designated neighborhoods for the maintenance of City owned common landscaping. Citizen complaints, as well as a recent Fresno Bee article, indicate gross mismanagement by the City of this landscape maintenance responsibility. The 2004/2005 Fresno County Grand Jury, after hearing testimony from City leaders, and Public Works and Parks Department officials, believe a review of the issues related to this problem is warranted. FINDINGS A. Fresno has two landscaping maintenance districts – Landscaping, Lighting and Maintenance District 1 (LLMD#1) and Community Facilities District 2 (CFD#2): • California State laws empower cities to form these districts • These districts are located throughout the city, totaling 160.8 acres of common landscaping • The homeowners in these districts pay a special yearly maintenance fee that is included in the County property tax statement • Most homes and businesses in the city are not located in the districts B. Landscaping, Lighting and Maintenance District 1 (LLMD#1): • Was implemented in 1983 and stopped adding new tracts in 1997 • Consists of 145 tracts, totaling 78.8 acres of common landscaping • Is an assessment district in which the fee is fixed at 19 cents per square foot of common landscaping • Has no practical means for increasing the fee as maintenance costs rise C. Community Facilities District 2 (CFD#2): • Implemented in 1997, consists of 131 tracts, totaling 82.0 acres of common landscaping 41 • A tax district initiated by Proposition 218 that has a current annual fee of 22.4 cents per square foot • This fee can be adjusted by and annual escalator clause • The City Council approves annexation of new tracts to this district D. The City Parks and Recreation Department was responsible for maintaining the landscape districts until August 2, 2004: • Retained the monies collected from LLMD#1 and CFD#2 in separate accounts • Did not track money spent for specific housing tracts • Claimed maintenance was performed “once a month,” but, in reality, it was done “once every ninety days” or longer • Poor quality of maintenance in LLMD#1 led to numerous homeowner complaints about improper watering and failure to remove and replace dead trees and shrubs • Twenty-three maintenance workers were to be available every week; vacancies often reduced this number to as few as eighteen • Tree Fresno, and sometimes jail inmates, provided additional labor until one year ago • Additionally, maintenance workers were required to maintain all median islands with various buffer zones, bicycle paths, and temporary ponding basins E. The City Council approved transfer of the maintenance districts to Public Works Department on August 2, 2004. Given these new responsibilities, the Public Works Department has: • Established special accounts for each tract with all costs specifically documented • Required workers to document work performed and hours worked • Planned to have a detailed audit of each tract performed and provide a projection of future costs • Included the transfer of the Parks and Recreation maintenance crew • Contracted for four crews from the local Conservation Corps 42 F. According to a report to City Council by the interim directors of Parks and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department on September 11, 2004: • The lack of an escalator clause in the LLMD#1 has resulted in annual revenues approximately $100,000 less than the cost of providing services • A special election complying with Proposition 218, requiring a two-thirds majority of favorable ballots is necessary to increase the annual assessment in LLMD#1 • The ballot should include a provision for an automatic escalator similar to CFD#2 • The cost to conduct the election is estimated at $60,000, and requires holding special hearings and mailing ballots to 14,900 property owners by certified mail G. According to legal and political opinions, landscape setbacks of the tracts in LLMD#1 are public right-of-ways and the increased maintenance costs could be included as a budget item and paid out of City’s General Fund. CONCLUSIONS A. The City of Fresno has two landscaping and lighting maintenance districts; an assessment district, LLMD#1, with no practical provisions for increasing fees; and a tax district, CFD#2, with the ability to raise taxes to meet rising maintenance costs. B. Rising labor and supply costs, coupled with poor management and cost accounting by Parks and Recreation Department resulted in many years of deteriorating maintenance. The City has defaulted in its responsibility to maintain the districts. C. In response to poor maintenance, the City Council approved transfer of the management of LLMD#1 and CFD#2 districts to the Public Works Department on August 2, 2004. D. The Public Works Department has reorganized accounting functions to analyze actual expenses incurred in each housing tract in the districts and correlate this information with revenues received. With this audit, the Public Works Department will be able to provide a detailed cost projection. E. CFD#2 costs are subject to increase. The fixed assessment in LLMD#1 will have to be supplemented either by a special election or monies from the General Fund.
F36 Page 62
Use General Fund monies to being neglected tracts in the maintenance districts up to required standards, including the replacement of defective watering systems, dead trees and shrubs.
F37 Page 62
Budget General Fund monies to cover future revenue shortfalls in LLMD#1, using cost projections of the Public Works Department as a guide.
F38 Page 62
Review the faulty management and accounting practices employed by the Parks and Recreation Department in dealing with the maintenance districts to provide insight into other maintenance practices needing revision in that department.
F39 Page 62
Evaluate the feasibility of privatizing the maintenance of LLMD#1 and CFD#2 districts. INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW COMMITTEE REPORT The Law Committee of the 2004/2005 Fresno County Grand Jury investigated several areas of interest and letters from citizens of cities within Fresno County. The areas considered for investigation included: • Continued investigation of I.H.S.S. fraud • Numerous complaints from incarcerated individuals in Fresno County Jails • Coalinga City Management • Other Cities within Fresno County In the course of its investigation, the Law Committee interviewed: • Department heads in Fresno County agencies • City Officials from various cities in Fresno County including: Coalinga Firebaugh Kingsburg Orange Cove Mendota Committee members toured the I.H.S.S. offices and the Fresno County Jail. A number of complaints from citizens incarcerated in various prison systems were given to the Law Committee for their consideration. It was decided that several issues were beyond the purview of the Grand Jury. Some complaints were referred to the proper agencies for further consideration. After investigating complaints and concerns brought to the committee’s attention, it was decided to focus our investigation on the I.H.S.S. Personal Care Services program. This report does not reflect changes in the law or events that transpired after completion of the investigation. THE IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The 2004/2005 Fresno County Grand Jury, at the suggestion of the 2003/2004 Grand Jury, continued the investigation of fraud in the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program. IHSS implemented many of the recommendations made by last year’s Grand Jury, but the opportunity for fraud to be committed still is prevalent. This year’s investigation focused on the Personal Care Services Program (PCSP). The PCSP began in 1994 and is funded with 51% Federal, 32% State and 17% County funds. Until recently the Residual Program does not receive federal funds. A person receiving care in the PCSP must qualify for Medi-Cal and have a debilitating condition that will last for more than twelve months or is terminal. The IHSS program is designed to be a cost effective way to avoid out-of-home placement. It is designed to provide domestic and personal care services to the aged, blind or disabled persons who cannot otherwise perform these services for themselves and who cannot remain safely in their own homes unless such services are provided. The focus of the program is personal care services. The PCSP is a vital program in IHSS and provides valuable services. However, it has inherent problems which need addressing. One of the most important is that the social workers are overloaded with an average of 300 cases assigned to each. August 1, 2004 both the state and federal government passed the Independence Plus Waiver (IPW). The IPW allows for federal financial participation for the vast majority of IHSS Residual Program recipients who had been previously denied this funding. Currently there are 9,995 active providers and 11,839 active recipients in the PCSP program. The recipient is the employer of record and may hire a relative, friend or anyone of his/her choosing. This opens the door for fraud to be committed by the provider, the recipient or collusion between the two parties. In July 2003, a fraud investigation unit was created in the District Attorney’s Office, consisting of one prosecutor and two investigators. Since its inception, it has had 401 referrals for investigation with 166 investigations completed. Of these, 113 cases were referred for prosecution with 60 convictions for restitution. This department of the District Attorney’s Office will pay for itself with the monies it is able to recover in restitution from those convicted of fraud. It is a valuable asset to the county. FINDINGS A. Fresno County utilizes the Individual Provider mode of delivering services in the IHSS. B. An expanded program that includes all of the domestic services provided in the former Residual Care Program (RP), the PCSP includes personal care services. Some services provided include: • Sweeping, dishwashing, changing bed linens • Meal preparation, laundry, grocery shopping • Paramedical services ordered by a licensed health care professional • Non-medical personal care • Assistance with transportation • Protective supervision C. Services IHSS does not pay for: • 24-Hour care and supervision • Routine outdoor work or gardening • Clean-up after pets, visitors and family members • Moving or lifting heavy furniture, etc. • Mileage D. Until the formation of the IPW, RP services could be domestic only and performed only by a parent of a minor child or a spouse. PCSP services could not be domestic only nor performed by the parent of a minor child or a spouse E. With the passage of the IPW, the PCSP will now cover domestic services only and/or protective supervision services only when these services are not provided by a parent of a minor child or a spouse. F. There are numerous serious problems with the PCSP program which need addressing. • The number of hours worked by providers; as reported on the time card, cannot be verified by IHSS • Social worker approved services performed by the provider cannot be verified • Providers and recipients may not fully understand the consequences of fraud 47 • IHSS time cards do not address fraud and its consequences • There is no county registry of providers or recipients convicted of fraud • Providers convicted of fraud are removed from the program, whereas recipients are allowed to remain in the program with no consequences • There has been limited training of social workers to detect fraud • The commission of fraud is still unchecked in the PCSP within IHSS system G. Since its inception in July 2003, the newly formed fraud unit in the District Attorney’s Office has had 401 cases referred for investigation for fraud, with 166 cases completed. Of these, 113 cases were referred for prosecution resulting in 60 convictions for restitution. H. In this same time frame: • There has been an estimated $713,219 in losses resulting from fraud • $432,205 has been ordered to be paid in restitution I. There are only two investigators assigned to handle IHSS fraud. J. Investigators lack adequate surveillance equipment. K. The first training session for social workers to better detect fraud, held in March of this year, had an immediate result of 85 cases being referred to the fraud unit of the District Attorney’s Office. L. The doctor’s referral/evaluation form does not address the specific needs of the recipient. M. There are 55 social workers in the PCSP. Of these, 42 are assigned to monitor the 11,839 recipients and 13 social workers are assigned to intake services. N. Social workers are only required to visit assigned recipients once a year according to state regulations. O. Social worker’s ability to make unannounced visits is limited by a heavy caseload P. The cost of providing in-home services is projected to increase 21% annually in Fresno County. Q. The statewide cost of IHSS for PCSP’s initial year (1993/1994) was $232 million. The cost for PCSP in 2003/2004 was $1.4 billion. R. The cost in Fresno County for the first six months of the current fiscal year was budgeted for $52 million and the actual money spent was $63 million. An increase of 21% over budget. S. Fresno County authorities estimate that fraud is committed by 30% to 35% of the recipients/providers in the program. T. Providers are not required to be trained to meet the specific needs of the recipient. U. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors established the Public Authority in 2002, in accordance with Assembly Bill 1682 passed in 1999. The purpose of the Public Authority is to: • Serve as the provider’s employer of record for wage negotiations and benefits • Furnish a provider registry • Offer provider and recipient access to training • Perform provider background checks V. Recipients are not required to use Public Authority trained providers. Providers are not required to be registered with the Public Authority. W. Recipients select and employ the provider of their choice, making them the employer of record. X. There are approximately 10,000 IHSS providers in Fresno County with less than 10% having been hired through the Public Authority process. Y. The State of California’s primary function is to disburse payments to the providers for services rendered. Z. According to IHSS statistics, over 60% of care providers are relatives. AA. Neither the State of California nor Fresno County require criminal background checks for providers. BB. The Public Authority is the only entity that performs background checks on providers, and does so without State funding. CC. A medical doctor’s statement of the medical and/or physical needs of a recipient is not required for a social worker’s assessment of the recipient. DD. Many of the recommendations made by the 2003/2004 Fresno County Grand Jury, relative to fraud, were not adopted by Fresno County on the premise that they were not required by the State of California. CONCLUSIONS A. The use of timecards in the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program lacks adequate oversight and leads to fraud. B. IHSS forms, including time cards, are not specific to enable the detection of fraud. C. There is no admonition on the time cards relative to the consequences of fraud. D. Social workers only recently have received training to better detect fraud. E. The first training session for social workers to detect fraud had immediate positive results with 85 referrals being made to the fraud unit. F. Providers and recipients need to be given training addressing fraud and its consequences. G. Until tighter controls are implemented in the PCSP, fraud will continue at the expense of the taxpayers. H. Social worker’s heavy caseloads limit their ability to visit recipients more than once each year and to properly monitor recipients continuing and changing needs. I. Social workers are limited in their ability to make unannounced visits to recipients. J. There is an insufficient number of fraud investigators assigned to the IHSS. K. Fraud investigators lack sufficient surveillance equipment to carry out fraud investigations. L. The commission of fraud continues to be prevalent in Fresno County. M. Specialized training of care providers is not required by State law and County ordinance. N. Recipients are not required to employ Public Authority trained providers. O. The State of California and Fresno County does not require background checks of providers. P. The Public Authority is the only public entity that requires and provides criminal background checks on all registered providers. Q. There needs to be a County master registry of IHSS providers or recipients convicted of fraud. R. The medical doctor’s referral/evaluation form needs to address the specific needs of the recipient to be performed by the provider. S. The fraud unit in the District Attorney’s Office is a valuable tool that will begin to pay for itself and the monies recovered in restitution.
F40 Page 70
In-Home Supportive Services time cards be revised to indicate each specific service provided.
F41 Page 70
Time cards include an admonishment citing the penalties for committing fraud and perjury.
F42 Page 70
Fresno County establish an approved list of physicians who would make medical evaluations of recipients.
F43 Page 70
A standard medical form be created to provide detailed information to be used by the social workers for evaluation of the recipient’s needs.
F44 Page 70
Only a medical doctor sign and approve the medical assessment form of the recipient.
F45 Page 70
The District Attorney’s Fraud Unit continue ongoing training for social workers to detect and report fraud.
F46 Page 70
The fraud investigation staff in the District Attorney’s office be increased.
F47 Page 70
In-Home Supportive Services officials investigate the increasing costs of the program in Fresno County.
F48 Page 70
Require providers to utilize the Public Authority training programs. 51 49. Fresno County establish and maintain a master registry of all providers and recipients convicted of In-Home Supportive Services fraud.
F50 Page 71
In-Home Supportive Services continue to encourage the State Legislature to improve and tighten controls on the program statewide.

Recommendations 5

Conclusions 44

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Fresno County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office
Fresno County District Attorney Elected County Office