Mono County Grand Jury Final Report

Review the extensive documentation provided in the Complaint. Establish a time line of relevant events cited in the Complaint and identify possible discrepancies and inconsistencies.

Locate additional relevant documentation to a) develop a general understanding of the mission, planning, and procedures of the MCDSS and b) confirm or refute the allegations in the complaint.

Identify and interview individuals who might be able to provide additional information relevant to the validity of the allegations in the complaint. The Investigation: Mono County Department of Social Services (DSS) The mission of the Mono County Department of Social Services is to serve, aid, and protect needy and vulnerable children and adults residing in Mono County in ways that strengthen and preserve families, encourage personal responsibility, and foster independence. DSS includes several divisions that determine eligibility and human services in accordance with state and federal regulations: Child Welfare Services: Child Protective Services, including Prevention, Intervention, Placement, and Foster Care. Adult Protective Services (APS): In-Home Support Services and Conservator case work. Economic Assistance (Eligibility): Medi-Cal, County Medical Services Program, CalFresh, CalWORKs, and General Assistance. Employment and Training: Welfare to Work, Workforce Investment Act, and Career Services Centers in Mammoth and Walker. In addition, DSS manages the Mono County Senior Services Program, serves as the Public Conservator, and operates county wide emergency shelters. CalFresh The CalFresh program (formerly known as Food Stamps and federally as SNAP -- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), is designed to add to a family’s food budget to put healthy and nutritious food on the table. The program issues monthly benefits that can be used to buy food at markets and grocery stores. Most CalFresh households are subject to a gross income determination test. Medi-Cal 7 Medi-Cal provides health coverage for children, parents with deprived children, pregnant women, aged individuals and those who are blind or disabled according to Social Security rules. Each of these programs has different eligibility requirements. Eligibility for Medi-Cal is based on a number of factors, and may include a requirement for the recipient to pay a share of the cost for medical expenses. Economic Conditions During the time period addressed by the Complaint, a protracted downturn in the economy of Mono County was significantly impacting DSS. An article in the Mammoth Times in 2011, for example, noted that a “historic spike” in poverty occurred in Mammoth Lakes at the Mono County Department of Social Services in the spring of 2011 (Willoughby, Poverty rises in Mono County, Mammoth Times, September 23, 2011). While the norm had been approximately 15 people seeking relief daily, those numbers had risen as high as 90 per day. Interview with the DSS Director The Committee interviewed the Director of DSS on November 20, 2013. The Director provided the Committee with an overview of the services provided by DSS and some of the procedural details involved in processing applications for CalFresh and Medi-Cal benefits. The Director corroborated the negative effect of economic conditions during the time period at issue, noting that the workloads of DSS employees had generally increased significantly. The Director provided the Committee with copies of useful information concerning the operation of DSS, including extensive budgeting information that also detailed the functions of the department. The Committee learned from the Director that Complainant had filed additional complaints, involving essentially the same subject matter as the Grand Jury complaint, with two California state agencies (California Department of Social Services and Health and Human Services Agency). At the Committee’s request, after the interview the Director promptly provided the Committee with copies of the documents with which each of the state agencies resolved these complaints. Complaint Filed with California Department of Social Services Complainant requested a hearing with the California Department of Social Services on the grounds that Mono County and the assigned eligibility worker unfairly determined Complainant’s Medi-Cal share of cost. Responding to the request, an administrative law judge conducted a hearing on July 10, 2013. In a decision dated September 2, 2013, the judge examined the law and the facts in extensive detail, concluding that Mono County correctly determined the Medi-Cal share of cost. The judge dismissed the claim of unfair treatment, noting that the agency had no jurisdiction to address this claim. Complaint filed with State of California—Health and Human Services Agency, Department of Health Care Services. Complainant filed a complaint with the Department of Health Care Services, alleging race, sex and ethnicity discrimination by the DSS staff. In response, Mono County DSS conducted an internal investigation, then submitted a “Civil Rights Complaint Investigation Report” to the Department of Health Care Services on July 25, 2013. The DSS report concluded that the complaint was “unsustained” with respect to the Complainant being discriminated against on the basis of race, sex or ethnic group orientation. On August 9, 2013, an EEO Specialist at the Department of Health Care Services responded, approving closure of the complaint on the basis that there was no information to support Complainant’s allegations of disparate treatment. The decision of the California Department of Health Care Services, however, did not provide details regarding the findings. For this reason, the Committee asked the Director for, and was provided, a copy of the July 25, 2013 report. July 25, 2013 Mono County DSS Civil Rights Complaint Investigation Report The report showed that Complainant missed deadlines for required responses, which delayed actions by DSS. Although the primary cause of the delay was Complainant’s failure to timely respond, additional delay was also introduced at one point when the eligibility worker overlooked a response from Complainant. In mitigation, this was apparently primarily due to an overwhelming caseload, leading to a large number of items awaiting action by the eligibility worker. The report found that Complainant failed to provide substantive evidence to back up the claims of discrimination. Conclusion of Investigation After review of the Committee’s investigation by the full Grand Jury, a letter was mailed to Complainant on March 24, 2014, in which Complainant was informed that the Grand Jury had investigated the complaint. The letter identified the information that the Grand Jury had considered and noted that the Grand Jury had found no substantial evidence to corroborate the allegations in the complaint of discrimination, harassment, or irregularities in determining applicant eligibility for state or county benefits. The letter concluded by inviting Complainant to contact the Grand Jury if Complainant wished to provide any additional evidence to substantiate the allegations. The Grand Jury received no response from Complainant as of May 28, 2014. Findings and Recommendations: 1. Finding: Complainant did not provide any credible evidence to substantiate claims of discrimination and harassment by her DSS eligibility worker.

Finding: No evidence was found to substantiate Complainant’s claim that communications by DSS were in Spanish rather than English.

Finding: Complainant’s assertion that information about and documentation for the Medi- Cal program was withheld may have resulted from Complainant’s misunderstanding of DSS procedures intended to reduce duplication of materials (multiple languages used in form documents to mention availability of materials in other languages).

Finding: Food stamps were not improperly withheld from Complainant.

Finding: The current Director of DSS began serving in this position recently and was not the director during the time period on which the complaint was based.

Finding: Complainant’s failure to comply with reasonable DSS procedural requirements substantially contributed to the denial and termination of benefits that Complainant would have otherwise received in a timely manner.

Finding: DSS procedures failed to correlate documents received from applicants with the deadlines to which those incoming documents were responding. As a result, one of Complainant’s responses, because it was overdue, was overlooked by DSS for a period of time since it was not prioritized for handling before other submittals, which were responding to more recent deadlines. In mitigation, this deficiency in DDS procedures did not cause a problem until a major increase in DSS cases (due to economic conditions) caused eligibility workers at DSS to experience large increases in their workloads. Furthermore, the problem would not have occurred but for Complainant’s failure to submit the response at issue in a timely manner. Recommendation: As soon as DSS became aware of this problem, it revised its procedures to ensure that this problem did not occur in the future. For this reason, the Grand Jury finds no need to make any further recommendation.

Finding: The July 25, 2013 Mono County DSS internal investigation contained a number of factual errors and lacked adequate detail in some findings.

He feels the office is working very satisfactorily, although he would like to add one more staff member as an office manager. He confirmed the information provided by the Assistant Assessor. He said the mapping effort is moving ahead very well and that the change to the new GIS format will allow the entire county to be mapped, then narrowed and made accessible for particular purposes, such as emergency services and public works. The Assessor said there are no backlogs now, except for 1,600 mining claims and certificated air carrier appeals. The mining claims, which have never been evaluated before, are now being prioritized. The air carrier appeals (two commercial airlines) are tied up in litigation. Also, two current large appeals are expected to be resolved in the next fiscal year. There are a few private residences and business properties also awaiting completion. All current reassessments should be finished by the end of June, according to the Assessor. He confirmed that all transfers of ownership, as well as all appeals, are being accomplished in the field. Both in house and outside formal structured training is being provided. Those appraisers with advanced certification are receiving 12 hours of annual training; those without the certification are receiving 24 hours. There are also monthly evaluations to ascertain if any additional training is needed. All appraisers are currently up to date in training. He also noted that there are some conflicts and personality differences in the office that continue. The staff gets the work accomplished, but they need to work more effectively as a unit, rather than in two separate groups. A County Supervisor was also interviewed and his testimony mirrored that of the appointed Assessor and the Assistant Assessor. 2014 Findings: 1. The Assessor’s Office appears to be working more efficiently since the last report. Assessments, appeals and reassessments are current, with the exception of the mining claims. The mapping situation has been resolved to the satisfaction of those interviewed, and the conflicts and tension among staffers, if not gone, appear to have eased. 2014 Recommendation: 2. The Grand Jury commends the progress that has been made and encourages the Assessor’s Office to continue with improvements in the future. 35 .04 Case #1314.05 Introduction and Background: The Continuity Committees are standing committees which do follow up of cases from previous years. In the 2013/2014 Grand Jury report, there are two Continuity Committee reports. This follow up report covers selected findings from Case #1213.04, which specifically dealt with the orientation and basic training of County employees, and the documentation of that training. The Method: The committee contacted the new County Administrative Officer (AO), scheduled an appointment to meet with him and the HR staff interviewed the previous year, and noted the items in the report to be discussed. The committee met with the AO, the Officer Manager, and the Personnel Technician who provides orientation training to all employees. The AO provided the committee with a written summary of the County 2014 Follow Up for each Finding in the report which contained a recommendation for improvement, with two attachments. The findings, recommendations, County Response, and the County 2014 Follow Up statements for each finding are noted below. 2013/14 Committee Report: 2. 2012/13 Finding: Mono County has written personnel and PC policies on the internet which have been in effect and available for many years; although some of the posted documents have been superseded. 2012/13 Recommendation: The County should review the policies posted on the County web site and make sure that they are the most current versions. All older versions should be removed. 2012/13 County Response: The County agrees with the finding and has implemented the recommendation. Documents on the County website are undergoing review to ensure they are the current version. County 2014 Follow Up: The website has been updated and only includes current policies. 8. 2012/13 Finding: Documentation of orientation training attendance is informal and appears incomplete. Of the eighteen employees randomly chosen, only three were on the orientation training list. Two of the three did not have a notation that they had attended orientation training, and the third had a question mark (?) in that column. 2012/13 Recommendation: As a minimum, have each employee sign an acknowledgement form that they have reviewed the orientation book, and file this in the 36 personnel file. An alternative might be to have the training sign-in sheet submitted to the Office Manager for entry into the electronic data base. 2012/13 County Response: The County agrees with the finding and will implement the recommendation alternative which is most effective, as soon as reasonably practicable. County 2014 Follow Up: The County has implemented a sign-in sheet at new employee orientation; the HR Generalist supplies this completed sheet to the Office manager for entry into the electronic database. A sample is attached. 9. 2012/13 Finding: Of the eighteen employees randomly chosen, the employee personnel file spreadsheet showed that the most effective record of training was the IT acknowledgement form (fourteen out of eighteen employees); some long-term employees had two of these forms. Next most consistent was the “Disaster Services” acknowledgement for a majority of employees. All but one permanent employee file held the acknowledgement form for the “Personnel Rules” packet, and the MOU packet for employees covered by a union contract. 2012/13 Recommendation: Continue and expand use of acknowledgement forms. 2012/13 County Response: The County agrees with the finding and will implement the recommendation as soon as reasonably practicable. County 2014 Follow Up: HR has continued to provide acknowledgement forms to new hires on their first day; this includes the acknowledgement forms for: IT Policy, applicable MOU and Personnel System for each new hire. In addition, the AO noted that additional appropriate acknowledgement forms are being instituted for new employees, “going forward in time”, and also noted that more electronic forms, such as time sheets and personnel forms are also being instituted electronically, rather than in the manual personnel records. 10. 2012/13 Finding: Of the eighteen employees randomly chosen, the electronic training database showed that six employees had no training noted. Two of these were new- hires of less than one year, but others were longer term employees. The majority were not permanent employees, and the database went back to 2007 or earlier, incorporating earlier training records. 2012/13 Recommendation: Incorporate orientation training records into this database, as the orientation training is a complete and detailed overview of County policies and procedures and is required for each County employee. 2012/13 County Response: The County agrees with the finding and will implement the recommendation as soon as reasonably practicable. County 2014 Follow Up: (Same response as #8) The County has implemented a sign-in sheet at new employee orientation; the HR Generalist supplies this completed sheet to the Office manager for entry into the electronic database. A sample is attached. 37 11. 2012/13 Finding: Documentation of employee training is incomplete and fragmented. While appropriate training may be taking place, the current record keeping does not clearly demonstrate which employees have or have not completed required training on County policies and procedures. 2012/13 Recommendation: The Grand Jury recommends that all employee training be documented in a single searchable electronic file. The file should be audited annually to assure that all required policy and procedure training has been offered and completed. This file should cover new and existing employees, “At-Will” and temporary employees, and elected and appointed officials and should include initial training and required updates to training. 2012/13 County Response: The County agrees with the finding and will implement the recommendation as soon as reasonably practicable. County 2014 Follow Up: All of the training that is provided or supported by the CAO/Risk Management Department is documented and included in the electronic database. Department specific training documentation stays within the department. The AO further explained, as a part of the 2014 Follow Up, the reason why department-specific training is not a part of the CAO/Risk Management electronic database, even though the Orientation Training and other basic training such as computer use, disaster training, safety and personnel policies are included in it. The CAO/Risk Management electronic database is required by Trindel, a JPA (Joint Parties Agreement) self-funded Insurance Company consisting of eleven rural counties. Trindel functions as a county’s “watchdog”, and encourages good behavior by offering lower premiums to those counties whose training records and policies are well documented and established. The various levels and separation of training documentation was not made clear in last year’s committee report, even though it was noted that, for example, the Sheriff’s Department kept all of its own personnel files. The AO explained that for a number of departments, such as the Sheriff’s Department, Social Services, Mental Health, Probation, Public Health and others, specific State licensing and certification is required, in addition to confidentiality requirements of each department. Because the State has its own electronic database which it monitors, departments submit their training records directly to the State, and also maintain it within the departmental training records. Therefore, while employees of those departments will have “basic training” reflected in the County’s electronic database which is monitored by Trindel, their personnel files containing additional training and licensing are often protected for reasons of confidentiality, and maintained separately in each department. 38 (b) requires that the Grand Jury annually inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county. To comply with that requirement, six members of the 2013-2014 Grand Jury toured the Bridgeport Jail (the “Jail”) and interviewed the Mono County Sheriff (the “Sheriff”). In addition, the Grand Jurors toured the Probation Department facility in Bridgeport (the “Probation Department”), and interviewed the Chief Probation Officer. Prior to enactment of AB109 in October of 2011, non-serious felons sentenced for more than one year would be incarcerated in the State penitentiary system. These inmates are now housed in the Jail as a result of AB 109. The State continues to incarcerate offenders who commit serious, violent, or sexual crimes. Housing long-term non-serious felon inmates has increased the workload for both the Jail and the Probation Department, although both departments receive some funding as a result of the law. An AB 109 grant allowed the Sheriff’s Department to replace its aging dispatch equipment. Jail Tour: The focus of the 2013/14 Grand Jury’s jail and probation department tour was an inquiry and follow-up to last year’s in-depth tour and written report. The Grand Jurors again met with the Sheriff, then toured the jail with the Sheriff and Sergeant. After having lunch with the Sheriff and the Sergeant, they met with two inmates and interviewed each individually. Each inmate had been in a State facility previously. The female inmate had been in Chowchilla State Prison, and was happy to be in the Bridgeport Jail, as her family lives in Bridgeport and she has the opportunity to see them each week. She stated that the Jail was much more “low key” than state prison, the officers try their best to be courteous, but they are “by the rules”. When asked what she would like to see, she stated that she would like more time for counseling. A counselor comes each Friday, but the session is very short, often 15 minutes. She has also taken advantage of AA counselors, who visit on Sunday. When asked how often she got outside work duties, she stated that it was very limited for the women inmates, less than once per several months, and that they also did not usually get their three hours per week in the recreation “cage”. She stated that both were probably due to the lack of female officers. She said that the inmates’ handbook was helpful in understanding the rules. The male inmate was not from Mono County, and although he is a “trustee” and works in the kitchen, serves food, and also works in the laundry, he is lonely and misses his family and friends in San Diego. He has been on the inmate work program for eight months, and feels that there should be more “straight ground rules” for all, stating that “some work more than others”. He also said that the guards here were better than in San Diego, where “you hated them”. The Bridgeport Jail is much smaller and more monotonous, according to him. Follow-ups from 12/13 Grand Jury tour: 39 1. 12/13 Finding: The Grand Jury found that the Jail and Juvenile Hall are clean and well maintained. Both operations have budgetary limitations but are working well within those limitations. Given the physical limitations and understaffing of the Jail, it seems to be very well run. The prisoners seem to be treated humanely. The Sheriff and Sergeant were professional, helpful and were rightfully proud of their operation. 12/13 Recommendations: None 13/14 Finding: The Grand Jurors found no change from 12/13 concerning the condition of the Jail and treatment of the prisoners. The comments from the two inmates who were interviewed, show that no matter how well Mono County operates its jail, not everyone will be happy. 2. 12/13 Finding: The Grand Jury found that AB 109 has not yet seriously impacted the functions of the Jail. Staff, however, predict that the number of full-time prisoners will increase to 15 by the end of this year. There is a concern about mixing career criminals with those who have merely slipped up and the Grand Jury found that this problem will only become more extreme as the Jail houses more long-term inmates. 12/13 Recommendation: The County should be planning ahead to determine a viable solution to housing long-term inmates as a result of AB 109. 13/14 Finding: The Grand Jurors found no change from 12/13, other than there are now 4 women, at least two of whom are long-term inmates. The jail’s capacity is 48, with occupancy ranging between 33-36, including 8 male long-term inmates. 3. 12/13 Finding: The Grand Jury found that the Voluntary Work Assignment program is valuable to both inmates and the community, yet the amount of time that inmates can volunteer in this program is limited due to current staffing levels. 12/13 Recommendation: The Voluntary Work Assignments program (community service) is excellent and serves a useful purpose to society and gives inmates a sense of purpose. The outdoor work is healthy, both mentally and physically. With additional staff, the program could be expanded to 7 days a week and the Grand Jury recommends that additional staff be hired for this purpose. 13/14 Finding: The Grand Jurors found that one additional staff has been hired with AB109 (CCP) funding. Generally, 2 days per week are spent in the North County, and two days per week in the south county. It appears that the women inmates do not have as much opportunity to participate in this program, likely because of the small number of women inmates and lack of women officers. 4. 12/13 Finding: The Grand Jury found that there are only two cook staff members and when one is sick or on vacation, the other staff person must work additional and/or consecutive days to ensure that the inmates are fed. 12/13 Recommendation: A third cook, possibly as a part-time position if feasible, should be hired to allow the 2 current cooks regular time-off and to fill-in during emergencies. 40 13/14 Finding: The Grand Jurors found no change from 12/13. 5. 12/13 Finding: The Grand Jury found that during non-business hours, the Jail and Dispatch operations have limited staff which could pose a concern for both inmates and Jail employees. The Grand Jury found that minimum Jail staffing of two persons on a shift at one time seems low, especially when one of the staff is the 911 operator and dispatcher. 12/13 Recommendation: The Grand Jury recommends that a minimum staffing standard should be established and adhered to as a matter of safety for both inmates and Jail employees. Additional staff should be hired. 13/14 Finding: The Grand Jurors found no change from 12/13. During the day other personnel are often present or available, but during evening hours it is rare that anyone else is present other than one dispatcher and one jailer. The dispatcher cannot leave that post to serve as a backup, which presents a very serious safety issue for the jailer. Two recent assault incidents (not during the evening) emphasized the critical importance of having at least one extra person available to assist. 6. 12/13 Finding: the Grand Jury learned that the 911 Dispatch system and the prison electronic controls systems are reaching the end of their life expectancy. The Board of Supervisors is aware of the need to replace these systems; however, replacement funding has not yet been implemented. 12/13 Recommendation: The 911 Dispatch and Computer Control System replacement will have to be addressed soon and will be a significant cost to the County. As a result, the Grand Jury recommends that the County should be budgeting now and planning ahead for this eventuality. 13/14 Finding: The Grand Jurors found that the dispatch and computer control system have been completely replaced, with funding from AB109 (CCP), and the new equipment is a big improvement. 7. 12/13 Finding: The Grand Jury found that the lack of physical and mental recreation and classroom learning opportunities for the inmates needs to be mitigated, especially with the recent addition of long-term prisoners. The Jail, as it now stands, does not have available space for classrooms and the exterior exercise yard is small and depressing. The 3-5 hours of outside exercise per week is insufficient. 12/13 Recommendation: The Grand Jury therefore recommends funding for a classroom for inmates and outside additional space for outdoor programs, and plus an expansion of the existing Jail (or, ideally, a new facility). 13/14 Findings: The Grand Jurors found the following: • The exercise yard has not changed, and while some inmates have more outside time now due to the expanded work program, those who do not participate in this program have only the State-required minimum 3 hours per week available to them in the exercise yard. The women may not have that much time, according to the female inmate, possibly because of the lack of women officers available to provide oversight. 41 • A work order is in progress to move the current Emergency Operations Center (EOC) from its current location (dining room) in the old Jail to a facility located nearby. Once this is completed, current planning is to convert the current EOC into a classroom training facility for inmates, with costs as yet unknown to do the remodeling. 13/14 Recommendation: • Explore additional ways of adding books to the library • Explore ways of adding training opportunities, using prisoners’ skills whenever possible. Additional 13/14 findings and recommendations by the Grand Jurors: 1. Counseling One of the prisoners interviewed said that prisoners get very little counseling (approximately 15 minutes per week) to help them learn how to properly deal with life and avoid the mistakes that landed them in prison, once they are released.