📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Yolo County Grand Jury • 2016-2017

The Yolo County Health and Human Services Department

Published: June 30, 2017 6 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 13 findings

Favoritism, nepotism and preferential treatment of employees have adversely affected employee morale of the Elections Office, as cited in the County’s Special Review and from interviews with Elections Office staff. These practices by the EO involved hiring and promotion.

During the period reviewed, the EO created provisional or extra help positions to employ friends and relatives as cited in the County’s Special Review and by interviews with Elections Office staff.

The EO failed to observe County Code Section 2-6.44 (Nepotism Policy) by hiring immediate family members and determining salaries, promotions and assignments.

During the interview with the Manager of Internal Audit, it was noted that the County Board of Supervisors had failed to monitor and audit the Elections Division compliance with Federal and State Laws and County Codes and Policies and Procedures. 16 2016 – 2017 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT: INVESTIGATIONS YOLO COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE INDISCRETIONS & CULPABILITY

Yolo County HR manages harassment and ethics online training courses for all employees to comply with Federal and State laws. These outdated and repetitious trainings are found to be inadequate and ineffective.

The CAO conducts a 360-degree evaluation for all appointed Department heads. This evaluation process currently excludes elected officials.

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors has not provided supervision or monitoring of elected county officials as directed by the California State Government Code Section 25303.

The Assessor/Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters office has taken steps to implement a Corrective Action Plan in 2016 as directed by the County Auditor to the interim “appointed” Assessor/Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters as of April 29, 2016.

The Election office staff made purchases outside the County’s policies and procedures according to the Finance Procurement staff. It was noted that the purchases were made at the direction of the EO under a general rule of “if you need it, get it.”

F10

Electronic equipment, purchased by the Election staff, was not included in the General Service Department’s inventory. Tracking would have facilitated accountability, program updates, replacements and recyclability.

F11

Although Independent Living Skills classes are described as valuable and relevant by both Child Welfare staff and extended foster youth interviewed for this report, few youths over 18 actually attend the classes.

F12

Extended foster care youth gain valuable real-world experience in making and sticking to a budget when they are given the responsibility for managing their monthly foster care payment.

F13

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors needs to address and correct traffic safety issues along Yolo Avenue in Esparto for Esparto Unified District students accessing all campuses.

Recommendations 11

R1

Elected officials must follow County policies, procedures and practices in the execution of their duties and responsibilities.
R2
Page 82

made recommendations concerning the SCBA units. Yolo County and the Sheriff’s Office will continue to inspect the SCBAs on a regular basis and will remove inoperable units. The Sheriff’s 81 2016 - 2017 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2016 -2017 FINAL REPORT CONTINUITY REPORT FOR THE 2015-16 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY Office will continue to educate and train staff on the proper use and inspection of SCBAs. The Sheriff’s Office noted that one SCBA unit is designated “for training use only.” This unit will be clearly marked as such. R5 recommended the hiring or designation of a qualified health and safety officer/industrial hygienist to be responsible for the operation, equipment, and training of personnel, to ensure a comprehensive health and safety program. The Sheriff’s Office stated that Yolo County, Probation, and the Sheriff’s Office were in contract negotiations with the California Forensic Medical Group to provide medical/mental health services. A component of this contract is to hire a qualified health and safety officer. Yolo County and the Sheriff’s Office implemented R4 which asked for proper chemical storage, labeling and Safety Data Sheets and agreed with R7 which asked for medical records to be properly secured in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The County contracts with California Forensic Medical Group to provide medical/mental healthcare to inmates and will see that the contractor is held to strict HIPAA compliance. Yolo County and the Sheriff’s Office disagreed with two Recommendations, R3 and R6, stating that the Yolo County Detention’s dental facilities are routinely inspected and found to be in compliance with industry standards and that a June 24, 2016, Board of State and Community Corrections inspection found the Inmate Grievance policy and procedure to be in compliance. The respondents stated that these Recommendations are not warranted. Yolo Habitat Conservancy 2015-2016 Synopsis This report described the Grand Jury’s inspection of the Yolo Habitat Conservancy’s (YHC) 25- year-long effort to create a Habitat Conservancy Plan and the Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP or the plan). The plan is meant to accommodate continuing development within Yolo County while protecting the habitats of designated species. The YHC is an outgrowth of the Yolo Natural Heritage Program and, as of 2002, is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) consisting of voting members from the County of Yolo and the cities of Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and Woodland. The University of California Davis occupies a non-voting YHC board position. Estimated expenditures incurred toward development of a conservation plan are in the millions of dollars; however, to date, several draft plans have been prepared, but no plan has been finalized or adopted. During its investigation, the Grand Jury identified operational and fiscal inconsistencies negatively affecting the YHC. As a result of the investigation, the Grand Jury identified three Findings and two Recommendations. The Findings addressed the lack of an approved HCP/NCCP plan and that the YHC performance over the past 25 years does not justify the time and money spent. The Recommendations set timelines for submitting the HCP/NCCP plan for approval and asked for annual performance audits of the YHC to measure progress. 82 2016 - 2017 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2016 -2017 FINAL REPORT CONTINUITY REPORT FOR THE 2015-16 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY Recommendation Implementation Yolo County, the YHC, and four of the five voting JPA members responded to the two Grand Jury Recommendations, designated “R1” and “R2.” Grand Jury Recommendation R1 asked the YHC to submit the HCP/NCCP plan for approval by April 30, 2017. R2 asked the YHC to institute a program of annual performance audits by September 1, 2016. The YHC Board of Directors and Executive Director agreed to implement R1, but stated that R2 will not be implemented. Yolo County, speaking for The Board of Supervisors, agreed with R1 and stated that R2 will not be implemented. The City of Davis agreed, with reservations, to R1 and stated that R2 was not warranted. West Sacramento agreed with R1 and stated that R2 needed further analysis. The City of Winters did not respond to the Grand Jury’s Recommendations. The City of Woodland agreed with R1 and stated that R2 needed further analysis.
R3

All authorized County purchased equipment shall be issued with an inventory tag. All electronic equipment shall be purchased through the General Services department and inventoried annually.
R4

The CAO and HR Director shall review and revise the County’s mandated training requirements and compliance with the State of California Public Services Entities as directed by the AB 1234 timeline. 17 2016 – 2017 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT: INVESTIGATIONS YOLO COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICE INDISCRETIONS & CULPABILITY
R5

The Departments of Administration and Financial Services along with the Department of Human Resources shall create a standardized training for County Policies and Procedures to ensure all administrators, supervisors, directors, and department heads, elected or appointed, are familiarized with current Federal and State laws and County government policies and procedures. An annual review of all new policies and procedures shall be conducted for elected officials and all employees, and records ensuring compliance shall be kept.
R6

The Department of Financial Services shall provide training to all accounting personnel in policies and procedures related to accounts payable and receivable and all department contracts.
R7

The Department of Financial Services shall create records to ensure compliance of the employees who are required to attend training in financial practices.
R8

The Department of Human Resources shall ensure that all job titles within the County Assessor/Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters office have job descriptions and that all current and future employees have titles complete with job descriptions and responsibilities. The Elections Office, in collaboration with HR, shall review and revise the evaluation standards used for all current and future job classifications to establish a fair and objective set of guidelines.
R9

The Department of Human Resources shall annually review hiring practices to eliminate instances of nepotism within all departments to ensure that ethical standards are maintained and that a procedural firewall exists between familial related employees. This annual review shall be presented to the Board of Supervisors with findings and recommendations no later than December 1, 2018, and each following year.
R10

By December 1, 2018, HR shall review and update the Harassment and Ethics online training programs and implement a training program that includes classroom (in-person) training.
R11

Prior to the 2017 evaluations, the CAO shall revise and extend the current 360-degree evaluation process to include all elected officials and department heads.

Conclusions 2

CL1

Extended Foster Care smooths the pathway to adulthood for Yolo County foster youth ages 18-21. Extended Foster Care youth attend school, are employed, manage their own money, and engage in practical activities geared toward independent living. By allowing the youth to exit out of and re- enter care, these young people experience the natural consequences of choices and decisions without losing needed support. The continued time in care gives program participants breathing room to gain important decision-making skills, benefit from positive adult relationships, and increase self-sufficiency. Three years have passed since the Extended Foster Care program was expanded to age 21. The fact that almost all Yolo County foster youth have opted to stay in the system is a testament to the law and to the professionalism and dedication of the program’s social workers and probation officers. Upon turning 18, these vulnerable young people are less likely to face futures of economic instability, educational deficits, homelessness, and mental health issues. To the question, “Has Extended Foster Care improved the outcomes for youth participating in the program?” The Yolo County Grand Jury answers, “Yes.” 45 2016 – 2017 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT: INVESTIGATIONS CALIFORNIA CONNECTIONS TO SUCCESS ACT: A BETTER BRIDGE TO ADULTHOOD FOR YOLO COUNTY’S FOSTER YOUTH
CL2

In response to the Findings and Recommendations published in the 2015-2016 Grand Jury Final Report, this summary of responses documents the comments received and the measures taken by the investigated parties and governing bodies. Agency and individual comments were timely and thorough in observance of statutory requirements and were in the spirit of cooperation with the Grand Jury. Of the 18 Recommendations contained within the 2015-2016 Report, 11 will be implemented, two were already implemented, two will not be implemented, two were deemed not to be warranted, and one required further analysis. The negative responses stated the underlying reason(s) for the agency’s or individual’s non-implementation of the Recommendation. The potential benefit of the implemented recommendations demonstrates that the Yolo County Grand Jury continues to serve as a useful agent for positive change. BIBLIOGRAPHY 2015-2016 Yolo County Grand Jury Final Report, June 30, 2015: http://www.yolocounty.org/business/community/grand-jury/yolo-county-grand-jury-reports Responses to 2015-2016 Yolo County Grand Jury Reports (also posted on the web page above)  Yolo County Response to “The Yolo County Health and Human Services Department: Personnel Practices”  Yolo County Response to “Wild Wings County Service Area: Management and Service Concerns”  Yolo County Response to “Yolo County Sheriff’s Office Detention Facility Review” 83 2016 - 2017 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2016 -2017 FINAL REPORT CONTINUITY REPORT FOR THE 2015-16 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY  Office of the Yolo County Sheriff Response to “Yolo County Sheriff’s Office Detention Facility Review”  Yolo County Response to “Yolo Habitat Conservancy: A Never-Ending Story”  Yolo Habitat Conservancy Response to “Yolo Habitat Conservancy: A Never- Ending Story”  City of Davis Response to “Yolo Habitat Conservancy: A Never-Ending Story”  City of West Sacramento Response to “Yolo Habitat Conservancy: A Never-Ending Story”  City of Woodland Response to “Yolo Habitat Conservancy: A Never-Ending Story” Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. 84 2016 - 2017 YOLO COUNTY GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT APPENDIX: RESPONSES TO THE 2016 -2017 FINAL REPORT APPENDIX RESPONSES TO THE 2016 - 2017 FINAL REPORT

No Responses Found 1

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

Yolo County County