dnarG ,arumihsoY lledniL

Conclusions 72

• CL1 Page 22
  The County may have prevented the occurrence of a significant overpayment discrepancy provided the appropriate quality controls were in place at the time. However, there is no evidence to support intentional impropriety. The complainant had equal opportunity to register concerns regarding the additional monies received. As such, attachment B of California Constitution, Article 16, Public Finance, and Section 6, previously referenced in this report, stands as the deciding factor in determining the complainant’s obligation to reimburse the County.
• CL2 Page 22
  The County has since required its employees, specifically in departments where the overpayments and underpayments occurred, to acknowledge by signature verification per Tulare County Section 125 Participation Form. This form outlines the terms and expectations for both County officials and employees pertaining to the deduction of premiums and/or fees from employee paychecks. CONCLUSION: The complainant is required to repay the county.
• CL3 Page 31
  For fiscal years 2010-2013, First 5 Tulare County Program Report Interpretations on the Local Annual Report were not consistent leading to errors in the Cost per Client.
• CL4 Page 39
  Due to variables in traffic and rider demand, it is not always possible to arrive as scheduled. As per transit staff, due to riders setting their schedules based on bus arrivals, riders may miss their bus if it arrives and leaves earlier than published schedule.
• CL5 Page 50
  Research indicates that the negative impacts of truancy falls on disadvantaged children disproportionately. This worsens the prtohbelier mSA toR TBu lCaroem Cmoiutntetey msceheotoinlsg isn. light of the socio-economic conditions existing throughout the County.
• CL6 Page 50
  Several schools the Grand Jury visited are in the process of completing their LCAP goals and action plans.
• CL7 Page 50
  One school district had a truant student that missed in excess of 300 days in a three year time period, grades 6R –3 8.. discretion to increase pressure on parents/guardians to fulfill their legal
• CL8 Page 106
  Presently, there are no food concessions or amusement rides within the park or museums.
• CL9 Page 14
  Tulare County BOS salaries are comparable to the other nine Southern San Joaquin Valley counties. Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Section 924.2 and 929). 9 CITY COUNCILS IN TULARE COUNTY BACKGROUND: The mission of a City Council is to provide policy direction for each incorporated municipality in Tulare County. As the elected legislative body of each city, the Council has the overall responsibility for fostering the health, safety and welfare of the City. The Council works to represent the interests of residents while ensuring the delivery of municipal services. By statute, the Council is responsible for the control of the City’s property, finances, and the appropriation of money. It also serves as the link between the citizens and the local government. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION: The 2014-2015 Tulare County Grand Jury expressed its interest in the functions and operations of the various City Councils within Tulare County. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: Members of the Grand Jury attended two City Council meetings at each of the eight cities in Tulare County. The meetings were observed and a questionnaire for each city was completed. The cities were: a. Dinuba b. Exeter c. Farmersville d. Lindsay e. Porterville f. Tulare g. Visalia h. Woodlake FACTS:
• CL10 Page 21
  The County did not notify the complainant of the accounting change at the time of its implementation with pay period dated 4/5/2011. The complainant received a memo regarding the infraction that included Repayment Agreement instructions dated 5/19/2014, over three years later. There was no acknowledgement of the overpayment discrepancy by either the County or the complainant during the interim period between 4/5/2011 and 5/19/2014.
• CL11 Page 16
  City councils meet at appointed times and places to conduct the business of each city according to a previously prepared agenda. Examples may include: appointments to committees; setting the budget; applications for grants; opening of bids from vendors of city services; pay increases for city employees, etc.
• CL12 Page 16
  Generally, each city must conduct these public sessions in accordance with the Brown Act.
• CL13 Page 16
  Members of the public cannot be compelled to sign in to either attend or to voice an opinion on the topic being discussed. These rights are further not limited to able-bodied persons as “reasonable accommodations” must be made by the city for the participation of the disabled.
• CL14 Page 16
  The City Council allows public participation in open meetings and offers opportunities for the public to comment on matters considered by the Council. City Councils are mandated to comply with the Brown Act when providing notice of forthcoming meetings.
• CL15 Page 16
  City Council Meetings provide a forum for people to address grievances that are within the scope of the council.
• CL16 Page 16
  The Brown Act calls for agendas and notices of regular meetings to be posted on websites and in various places within the city, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. The order of items on the agenda may be rearranged at a meeting by a vote of the Council.
• CL17 Page 16
  Council Packets are generally available not less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting. The packet usually contains the agenda, copies of legislation and background material which have been distributed to the council. These packets are available for public inspection at the council offices.
• CL18 Page 16
  The various City Councils meet each month as follows: Incorporated City & Location Meeting Schedule Dinuba – 405 East El Monte Way 2nd and 4th Tuesday @ 6:00 pm Exeter – 137 North F Street 2nd and 4th Tuesday @ 7:00 pm Farmersville – 909 West Visalia Road 2 nd and 4th Monday @ 7:00 pm Lindsay – 251 Honolulu Street 2nd and 4th Tuesday @ 6:00 pm Porterville – 291 Main Street 1st and 3rd Tuesday @ 6:30 pm Tulare – 491 North M Street in City Library 1st and 3rd Tuesday @ 7:00 pm Visalia – 707 West Acequia Avenue 1st and 3rd Monday @ 7:00 pm Woodlake – 350 North Valencia Blvd 2nd and 4th Monday @ 6:30 pm 11 Session" rather than "Regular as those for Regular Sessions. Regular Session certify the record and ve
• CL19 Page 17
  Special Meetings – In order to comply with the Open Door law, the Clerk notifies the Council and the press of Special Meetings by mail, phone, or by personal delivery at least 24 hours before the meeting. However, if the meeting is held because of an emergency, notice to the media must be given at the same time and in the same manner as it is given to the Council. The agenda will state “Special Session” rather than “Regular Session” and the minutes are kept in the same manner as those for Regular Sessions.
• CL20 Page 17
  Executive Meetings – Executive Sessions are an exception to the general rule that all meetings are open to the public. The Open Door statute allows these closed meetings in a few specific instances where privacy serves the public interest - i.e. to discuss pending litigation, selecting a site for a project, personnel matters, etc. The requirements for notification of Executive Sessions are generally the same as for Special Sessions, except that the notice must cite the statutory basis for holding the closed meeting. The Council must also keep a record of the meeting and at the next Regular Session certify the record and verify that no matters other than those enumerated in the notice were discussed.
• CL21 Page 17
  City councils have broad powers to write ordinances in any area that does not impinge upon county ordinances, state or federal laws and regulations.
• CL22 Page 17
  Ordinance – An ordinance is a municipal law that continues in effect until repealed. Two readings are required prior to an ordinance being approved. The first reading occurs when an ordinance is introduced by staff, with background and reason for recommendation. The staff brings the ordinance back to council for adoption at a second meeting. The ordinance takes effect after 30 days once adopted.
• CL23 Page 17
  Resolution – A resolution differs from an ordinance. It is non-legislative action, less formal, and deals with special or temporary matters, usually relating to a statement of policy regarding the administrative business of the city.
• CL24 Page 17
  Meetings are generally conducted in the following order (if applicable, order of closed sessions may vary): a. Call to Order b. Public Comment c. Consent Calendar d. Regular Session e. Adjournment
• CL25 Page 17
  A critical duty for the city council is to select and hire the top administrators for the city, such as the city manager, chief of police, etc.
• CL26 Page 17
  City staff assist City Council members in identifying and qualifying candidates for employment, preparing for meetings, drafting resolutions, ordinances, and regulations. 12
• CL27 Page 18
  The following chart is a summary by the Grand Jury of their visits to each of the seven incorporated City Council meetings: eight incorporated City Council meetings: 13 yasdniL yasdniL ellivsremraF ellivsremraF retexE retexE abuniD abuniD noitacoL 51/42/20 41/42/80 51/32/20 41/52/80 51/42/20 41/82/01 41/32/90 41/62/80 etaD gniteeM 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 oN deriuqeR draoB fo srebmeM 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 3 draoB fo oN ni srebmeM ecnadnettA seY seY seY seY seY seY oN oN gniteem diD emit no trats seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY adnegA ot elbaliava seednetta lla seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY ereht saW cilbuP tnemmoC emiT dooG yltsoM dooG yreV & lanoisseforP dexaleR dexaleR yldneirF lanoisseforP dexaleR fo ronaemeD ekil-ssenisuB draoB srebmeM seY yltsoM seY seY seY seY seY seY draoB saW lbaegdelwonk e seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY draoB saW ot suoetruoc enoyreve llA ta toN seY oN seY seY oN seY oN esu draoB diD senohporcim seY seY seY oN seY seY seY oN draoB diD eht ot kcits adnegA seY oN oN seY oN oN oN oN draoB diD ecudortni no ton smeti adnegA eht 14 ellivretroP ellivretroP noitacoL 41/61/90 41/20/90 etaD gniteeM 5 5 oN deriuqeR draoB fo srebmeM 3 3 draoB fo oN ni srebmeM ecnadnettA oN seY gniteem diD emit no trats seY seY adnegA ot elbaliava seednetta lla seY seY ereht saW cilbuP tnemmoC emiT lanoisseforP lanoisseforP fo ronaemeD draoB srebmeM yllareneG yllareneG draoB saW lbaegdelwonk e yltsoM yltsoM draoB saW ot suoetruoc enoyreve seY seY esu draoB diD senohporcim seY seY draoB diD eht ot kcits adnegA seY seY draoB diD ecudortni no ton smeti adnegA eht Disclaimer ekaldooW ekaldooW ailasiV ailasiV 41/52/80 41/11/80 41/30/11 41/80/80 5 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY dexaleR ekil-ssenisuB dooG dooG seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY seY oN oN oN oN Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Section 924.2 and 929). COUNTY EMPLOYEE OVERPAYMENT: THE GIFT OF GIVING BACKGROUND: A gift is defined as something voluntarily transferred by an individual or entity to another individual or entity without compensation; whereas compensation is payment that constitutes an equivalent or recompense as for a service rendered or damage incurred. Attachment B of California Constitution, Article 16, Public Finance, and Section 6 stipulates: The legislature shall have no power to give or to lend, or to authorize the giving or lending, of the credit of the State, or of any county, city and county, city, township or other political corporation or subdivision of the State now existing, or that may be hereafter established, in aid of or to any person, association, or corporation, whether municipal or otherwise, or to pledge the credit thereof, in any manner whatever, for the payment of the liabilities of any individual, association, municipal or other corporation whatever; nor shall it have power to make any gift or authorize the making of any gift, of any public money or thing of value to any individual, municipal or other corporation... REASON FOR INVESTIGATION: A citizen’s complaint of unfair treatment by a Tulare County Governmental Agency (County) was received by the Tulare County Grand Jury (Grand Jury) for investigation and resolution, pursuant to California Penal Code §925 and §925a. The specifics of the complaint alleged unfair treatment due to a County demand for repayment of monies that were incorrectly overpaid to the complainant. Sixty nine pay periods had elapsed before the complainant, and approximately 110 additional employees, were notified of either overpayments or underpayments. Due to the significant length of time that had transpired before the complainant’s notification of demand for repayment totaling over $3,000.00, the complainant claimed to have been wronged because there was no initial notification that the “benefit amount was going to change.” The complainant also said that if there had been proper communication regarding a benefit change “I could have asked questions or disputed it at that time.” The complainant believes the County should have had more proactive oversight that would have precluded the need for a substantial payback. As a result, the complainant had asked for relief, citing the County’s lack of accountability and transparency in the matter. County administrative personnel explained during an interview with the Grand Jury that previous budget cuts had negatively impacted the quality of accounting standards and controls. According to County personnel these problems have been resolved. 15 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: The Grand Jury began its inquiry by scheduling interviews with the complainant, an administrator, and several accountant/auditors, in addition to obtaining pertinent data for review. In addition to interviews with County administrative and accounting personnel, the Grand Jury reviewed applicable California Government Codes. Upon request, the County submitted pertinent documents to the Grand Jury for further review. FACTS:
• CL28 Page 59
  TCOE operates programs designed to meet the full range of needs for mildly handicapped to profoundly handicapped students. Services provided by these programs can range from Designated Instructional Services (DIS) – which supplement regular classroom instruction – to Special Day Classes (SDC) for students whose needs call for modified curriculum.
• CL29 Page 59
  TCOE also provides home or hospital instruction as well as residential private placement.
• CL30 Page 59
  In additional to those programs/services noted above, TCOE also provides: a. The Bright Start Parent/Infant Program which serves children from birth to age 3 who have, or are at risk of having, disabilities. b. Educational services to at-risk students who attend Court and Community Schools and to incarcerated youth. c. Special education services for developmentally disabled students throughout the County.
• CL31 Page 59
  The graph presented below depicts the allocation of TCOE’s Special Education funding for the 2014-2015 school year. (see chart 23) FINDING: F1. The 60 day initial evaluation process of students having special education needs may be overly lengthy.
• CL32 Page 75
  The following teen pregnancy prevention programs were in place at the schools the Grand Jury visited: a. Positive Prevention Plus Supplemental Program b. Choices Prevention Program c. Health Science Adolescent Center for Disease Control d. California State National Health Standards e. Safe – Jim Sullivan Prevention Program
• CL33 Page 75
  When asked by the Grand Jury, school personnel outlined factors which seem to affect the teenage pregnancy issue: 68 a. Limited Education - Student Dropouts b. Family Structure – Single Parents, Drug or Alcohol Issues c. Economics – Below poverty level d. Social Media – Movies, Internet usage, etc. e. Television Programs – “Teen Mom” and “16 and Pregnant”
• CL34 Page 76
  School personnel identified a wide disparity in race and ethnicity, with rates among both African Americans and Hispanic teens remaining twice as high as other ethnic groups.
• CL35 Page 76
  School personnel interviewed by the Grand Jury expressed their concerns that not enough parents were talking to their teenagers about pregnancies because they felt uncomfortable discussing the topic. Therefore, these parents felt the schools should handle this topic because of the training teachers received in that specific area.
• CL36 Page 76
  School staff indicated that they did not provide counseling to young women facing an unintended pregnancy. School personnel did encourage the young women to talk to their parents and to stay in school. FINDINGS: F1. The majority of teen pregnancies in Tulare County are occurring with mothers 18-19 years of age. While still included in teen demographics, this age group is also considered adults. F2. While having a significantly higher rate than the state average, teen pregnancy rates have been steadily dropping in Tulare County. F3. The HHSA has numerous programs in place for pregnant teens and teen mothers. The majority of these programs assist teens after they are pregnant. Less focus was apparent in teen pregnancy prevention. F4. Although it may be difficult to prove a direct link, it is widely recognized that economic inequality, social marginalization and other structural factors affect teens’ sexual behavior patterns. How these behaviors are linked with teens’ race or ethnicity, educational achievements or family income is difficult to prove. F5. There was a wide disparity in race and ethnicity, with rates among both African Americans and Hispanic teens remaining twice as high as among other ethnic groups.
• CL37 Page 92
  The following chart represents a summary of the total Actual Revenue, total Expenditures/ The following chart represents a summary of the total Actual Revenue, total Appropriations and Net Cost for the Office of the District Attorney for Fiscal Years 2011 – 2013: Expenditures/Appropriations and Net Cost for Fiscal Years 2011 – 2013: Section Total 2011 2012 2013-Estimated Total Revenue 33,.555599,,552255 2,582,209 3,104,808 Total 17,312,425 16,269,317 16,269,317 Expenditures/Appropriations Net Cost 13,752,099 13,164,509 13,164,509 FINDINGS: F1. A portion of the Tulare County community is not aware of the operations of the Office of the District Attorney. F2. The Tulare County community has a right to know about the cases in the Tulare County co6u rt system. REQUIRED RESPONSES:
• CL38 Page 22
  Tulare County Auditor/Controller
• CL39 Page 22
  Administrator, Human Resources & Development Department Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Section 924.2 and 929). 17 FIRST 5 FIGHTING FOR OUR CHILDREN BACKGROUND: In November 1998, California voters passed Proposition 10, the “Children and Families Act of 1998” initiative. The act levies a tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products to provide funding for early childhood development programs. Revenues generated from the tobacco tax must be used to enhance the early growth experiences of children, enabling them to be more successful in school and ultimately to give them an equal opportunity to succeed in life. Revenues must be used for the following specific purposes: • To create a comprehensive and integrated delivery system of information and services to promote early childhood development; • Support parenting education, child health and wellness, early child care and education, and family support services; and • Educate Californians on the importance of early childhood development and smoking cessation. Tobacco tax revenues are collected at the state level. Eighty percent of these funds are then allocated to the 58 counties according to annual birth rates. The remaining twenty percent of the money is allocated to First 5 California to support statewide programs, research, and media campaigns. Participating First 5 counties in California are required to establish a County Commission composed of seven voting members and two ex officio members. The duties of each county commission include evaluating the current and projected needs of young children and their families, developing a strategic plan that promotes a comprehensive and integrated system of early childhood development services that addresses community needs, determining how to expend local monies available from the state Children and Families Trust Fund, and evaluating the effectiveness of programs and activities funded in accordance with the strategic plan. In addition, on or before October 15 of each year the state commission and each county commission shall conduct an audit of, and issue a written report on the implementation and performance of their perspective functions during the preceding fiscal year. This includes, at a minimum, the manner in which funds are expended, the program toward, and the achievement of, program goals and objectives, and the measurement of specific outcome through appropriate reliable indicators. The Tulare County Children and Families Commission was formed by the Tulare County Board of Supervisors on December 8, 1998, with the passing of County Ordinance 3217. The commission was charged with the responsibility to develop a local strategic plan and implement and administer projects funded by Proposition 10 in accordance with the legislative text. First 5 Tulare County is governed by a commission consisting of seven members: one from the American Cancer Society, one from the Tulare County Office of Education, two from the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency, one from the Tulare County Board of Supervisors, one from the Tulare County Medical Society, and a Pediatrician. 18 REASON FOR INVESTIGATION: The 2014-2015 Tulare County Grand Jury received a complaint from a citizen of Tulare County. The complaint stated “…for several years First 5 of Tulare County has been listed as a donor in the range of $500,000 to $1,000,000 to the Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation. How is that massive donation of taxpayer dollars being used for the specific benefit of Tulare County children? As a reminder the newspaper reported the Hospital CEO earns $875,000 compensation?”(sic) Therefore, the Grand Jury began an investigation of First 5 Tulare County. While interviewing the complainant, he/she issued another complaint that First 5 Tulare County’s Financial Reports did not match their Local Annual Report as to what was expended for the various programs for children by over $500,000 by his/her calculations. An additional complaint was received by the Grand Jury from a citizen pertaining to First 5 Tulare County regarding the sponsorship of a tee or green fee at a Golf Tournament being held by the Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation. At that time, the Grand Jury decided to combine all three complaints into one investigation and report. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION: On October 27, 2014, a representative of First 5 Tulare County came to the Grand Jury Office and responded to questions regarding the First 5 Tulare County Program. The Grand Jury requested and received documentation on the functions and operations of First 5 Tulare County. An audit was conducted of the financial statements and the Local Annual Report. On October 27, 2014, a representative of Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation and staff members came to the Grand Jury Office for a presentation to explain the Foundation’s relationship with First 5 Tulare County. An audit was conducted by the Grand Jury of all financial transactions involving First 5 funds remitted to the Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation. FACTS:
• CL40 Page 24
  In Fiscal Year 2012 – 2013, Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation received seven grants from First 5 Tulare County: a. Pediatric Hospitalist Grant – Six pediatric hospitalists covered a 24-hour span with two doctors available during the day. They take part in high-risk deliveries and were assigned sick newborns, premature births, drug-exposed infants and more critical cases. Among the pediatricians are two Neonatologists and a Pediatric Cardiologist. There were 1,760 children younger than six years of age treated (10,865 visits) and 300 emergency room visits. b. Pediatric Specialty Care Project – Exeter Rural Health Clinic – It paid for staff and operation of the Clinic. There were 403 patient visits conducted by the Pediatric Gastroenterologist, 19 Pediatric Specialty Care Project – Exeter Ru 93 patient visits conducted by the Developmental-Behavior Pediatrician, Pediatric Dietician provided 145 consultations, 37 patients visits were provided by Occupational Therapists and 138 patient visits were provided by Speech Therapists. It was a four-year grant of $3 million; expended $2,744,100 to date. In 2013 – 2014 expended $379,847, majority of which was program personnel costs. c. Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Program – Kaweah Delta partnered with the Tulare County Office of Education (TCOE), utilizing grant funds from the County of Tulare Health and Human Services Agency and First 5 to bring a program focusing on healthy eating and obesity prevention strategies to child development centers around the County. It provided training and technical assistance to 8-10 qualifying child care and education sites and 30-50 and 30-50 medical/dental providers/clinics. The award medical/dental providers/clinics. The award was $3,610 and TCOE matched this grant with another $3,610. d. Injury Prevention Grant – Community Health Workers provided childhood injury prevention information to parents of young children using a home visitation model. There were 52 parents that participated, reaching 143 children, 77 of whom were age 0-5 and 104 home visits where education and assessment were conducted. Parents received a home safety kit and a magnet for their refrigerator with important emergency numbers in English and Spanish. The grant award was $24,000. Funds in the amount of $21,020.23, paid in August 2013, were devoted to planning of a helipad for the Trauma Injury Prevention Program feasibility. The feasibility study assisted Kaweah Delta in becoming a Level Three Trauma Center. e. Helipad Grant – Construction of a helipad to provide air transport services to the community, including ages 0-5 children in need of getting to a facility for an appropriate level of care or being transported to Kaweah Delta Hospital. The Grant award for 2012-2013 was $186,920.93, with a total cost of $2,700,000. Program Evaluation June 3, 2013 – June 2, 2014: Number of Transport Details Patients 16 To Children’s Hospital Central California – Madera 2 To Community Regional Medical Center – Fresno 4 To Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital – Stanford 1 To Benioff Children’s Hospital – University of California San Francisco 1 From Emergency Scene Call 24 Total Transports Total Reported Helicopter Transports for 12 months ending June 2, 2014: 20 Total Reported Helicopter Transports All transports: 182 Age 0 - 5 transports: 24 Age 0 – 5 transports percent of 13.19% total: Total Helipad Project Cost: $2,700,000 Age 0 – 5 transports percent of 13.19% total: Total First 5 Grant Amount $356,130 f. Pediatric Specialty Clinics in Visalia – To provide age appropriate furniture, books and activity center for children younger than six-years old in specialty clinics in Visalia. Grant award was $7,537. g. Ultrasound Machines for Exeter and Lindsay Clinics – Two portable ultrasound machines located at the Kaweah Delta Exeter and Lindsay Rural Heteearl tha nCdl inLiicnsd Osabys teRtruircasl D Hepeaarltthm eCnltisn tioc s provide diagnostic care for pregnant patients and most importantly to identify at risk pregnancy conditions early in the pregnancy, leading to enhanced care and improved outcomes for the infant. This allows the physicians to check for signs of birth defects, anatomical abnormalities and any signs of genetic problems. The OB/GYN departments provides an average of 700 problems. The OB/GYN departments provi patient visits per month with an annual estimate of 8,400. The Grant award was $30,400.
• CL41 Page 26
  First 5 Tulare County Strategic Plan Comparison - Target allocation of funds and services by Primary Result: services by Primary Result: PRIMARY RESULT 2010-2012 2013-2015 Children are mentally and physically healthy 65% 55% Children are ready for school 20% 25% Families are knowledgeable and able to promote their 14% 19% children’s development Services are culturally appropriate, integrated, and 1% 1% collaborative A Program Report in the Local Annual Report (LAR) consists of Personnel Costs, 21 In the preparation of the Local Annual Report
• CL42 Page 26
  A Program Report in the Local Annual Report (LAR) consists of Personnel Costs, Administrative Expense, Program Expense and Indirect Costs. The following individual expenditures are captured within each of those categories: a. Personnel Costs – wages, salaries and benefits. b. Administrative Expense – rent, utilities, office supplies, equipment less than $5,000 and insurance. c. Program Expense – services to the client or customers, mileage, materials, supplies, wage and benefits of those allocated on cost sheet. d. Indirect Costs – Cost of accounting office, legal fees and janitorial. Most ongoing programs have a defined rate for indirect cost in their Grant. First 5 Tulare County has a 15% cap for those that do not have it defined in their Grant. California Department of Education has a defined rate. Administrative and Indirect Costs cannot exceed 15%.
• CL43 Page 27
  Each year, First 5 Tulare County allocates $1,000 - $2,000 to the Freedom Celebration held in Visalia on the 4th of July. This contribution is intended to promote family-based activities at no cost.
• CL44 Page 27
  In September 2014, Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation held a Golf Tournament and First 5 Tulare County was listed as a tee or green sponsor. First 5 donated $750 for the purpose of sponsoring a tee. It was for media attention for First 5 Tulare County and to seek additional sponsors for the organization. Employees of First 5 Tulare County did not participate nor did they directly receive benefits from this sponsorship.
• CL45 Page 27
  In the preparation of the Local Annual Report each year, three officials review the report before it is available to the public.
• CL46 Page 27
  Fiscal Year 2010 – 2011 One Time Capital Planning Grant Expenditures that were not included on the Local Annual Report, but were included on the Financial Statements: (see chart 9)
• CL47 Page 27
  Fiscal Year 2011 – 2012 One Time Capital Grant Expenditures that were not included on the Local Annual Report, but were included on the Financial Statements: (see chart 10)
• CL48 Page 27
  Fiscal Year 2012 – 2013 One Time Innovation Projects and Capital Grant Expenditures that were not included on the Local Annual Report, but were included on the Financial Statements: (see chart 11)
• CL49 Page 27
  Fiscal Year 2010 – 2011 Kaweah Delta Health Care District (KDHCD) and Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation (KDHF) Programs funded by First 5 Tulare County that were on the Financial Reports as well as the Local Annual Report: (see chart 12)
• CL50 Page 27
  Fiscal Year 2011 – 2012 Kaweah Delta Health Care District (KCHCD) and Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation (KDHF) Programs funded by First 5 Tulare County that were on the Financial Reports as well as the Local Annual Report: (see chart 13) 22 included on the Local Annual Report, but we included on the Local Annual Report, but we (see chart 9) Grant Description Amount $44,468 Barnes Dental Association – Dental Surgery Center $31,597 Children’s Hospital Central CA – Neonatal Stabilization Center Program Planning tion – Neonatal RetCam System $22,606 Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation – Infant Bili Meter Systems $97,744 Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation – Neonatal RetCam System $14,934 Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation – Pediatric Draeger Gamma XL Monitors $56,000 Porterville Unified School District – Playground Improvement Project $6,951 Tulare Community Health Clinic – Women’s Center Upgrade 21,497 Tulare Community Health Clinic – Women’s Center Upgrade Resource Development $7,756 Tulare County Child Abuse Prevention Council – Strategic Plan & Resource Development $303,553 Grand Total on the Local Annual Report, but were included on the Financial Statements: (see chart 10) Grant Description on the Local Annual Report, but were included on the Financial Statements: Amount $22,267 Tulare Community Health Clinic – Electronic Medical Records $6,333 Tulare County Child Abuse Prevention Council – Strategic Plan Medical Records $14,655 Tulare County Office of Education – Stepping Stones to Kindergarten $43,255 Grand Total 23 included on the Local Annual Report, included on the Local Annual Report, (see chart 11) Grant Description Amount $$163,4,98013 VCoalulrety APpBpSo i–n tReeda dSyp etoci Lale aArdvocates – Family Search and Engagement Planning (Innovation Project) $13,903 Valley PBS – Ready to Learn Program (Innovation Project) $6,073 Tulare County Office of Education – Stepping Stones to Education (Capital Grant) $50,313 City of Tulare – Mulcahy Park 2-5 Play Equipment (Capital Grant) $14,376 Tulare County Office of Education – CCYD Planning Grant $81,431 Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation – Equipment (Capital Grant) $30,439 Tulare Local Health Care District – Pediatric Cardio Equipment (Capital Grant) $6,742 Tulare Community Health Clinic – Bili Check (Capital Grant) $186,921 Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation – Helipad (Capital Grant) $396,679 Grand Total on the Financial Reports as well as the Local Annual Report: (see chart 12) Grant Description oAnm thoeu nFtinancial Reports as well as the Local Annual Report: $1,025,000 KDHCD - Pediatric Hospitalist Program $803,613 KDHF – Pediatric Specialty Care Project $17,310 KDHF – Neonatal Nurses Training $1,845,923 Grand Total 8 24 oonn tthhee FFiinnaanncciiaall RReeppoorrttss aass wweellll aass tthhee LLooccaall AAnnnnuuaall RReeppoorrtt:: (see chart 13) Grant Description Amount $768,750 KDHCD – Pediatric Hospitalist Program $805,140 KDHF – Pediatric Specialty Care Project $24,000 KKDDHHFF –– IInnjjuurryy PPrreevveennttiioonn aanndd RReessppoonnssee $1,597,890 Grand Total
• CL51 Page 30
  Fiscal Year 2012 – 2013 Kaweah Delta Health Care District (KDHCD) and Kaweah Delta Hospital Foundation (KDHF) Programs funded by First 5 Tulare County that were on the Financial Reports as well as the Local Annual Report: (see chart 14) oonn tthhee FFiinnaanncciiaall RReeppoorrttss aass wweellll aass tthhee LLooccaall AAnnnnuuaall RReeppoorrtt:: (see chart 14) Grant Description Amount $478,853 KDHF – Pediatric Hospitalist Program $379,847 KDHF – Pediatric Specialty Care Program $3,610 KDHF – Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Program $862,310 Grand Total
• CL52 Page 30
  In reviewing the various Program Reports, errors were consistently found every Fiscal Year on the IInn rreevviieewwiinngg tthhee vvaarriioouuss PPrrooggrraamm RReeppoorrttss,, eerr Interpretations section as to the quantity of children served. Primarily, when adding up the numbers to calculate the cost per client some numbers were excluded and others were inappropriately counted leading to incorrect Cost per Client.
• CL53 Page 30
  In rIIennv irreeewvviiieenwwg iitnnhgge ttvhhaeer iovvuaarrsii ooPuuross gPPrrraoomgg rrRaammep oRRreetspp,oo errrttrsso,, reesrr were consistently found every Fiscal Year on the LocYYalee Aaarrn oonnnu atthhl eeR LLepoooccraatll /AATannbnnluueaa 1ll :RR Ceeoppsootrr ttp //eTTr aaCbblllieeent by Program.
• CL54 Page 30
  For Fiscal Year 2010 – 2011, three of the ProgrPP arr moogg Rrraa emm po RR rtee s pp eoo xrr pttss e nee dxx epp dee nn add mee odd u aa nmm tsoo duu inn dtt ss n odd tii dd m nn aoo tctt h what was expended on the Provider Contract Payments Section of the Financial Statements.
• CL55 Page 30
  For Fiscal Year 2011 – 2012, one of the Program Reports Detailed Cost Benefit Section exceeds the amount listed as expended for the Fiscal Year. The Total Expended does not match the Provider Contract Payments Section of the Financial Statements.
• CL56 Page 30
  For Fiscal Year 2012 – 2013, three of the Program Reports Expended Amounts did not match what was expended on the Provider Contract Payments Section of the Financial Statements. 25 FINDINGS: F1. For fiscal years 2010-2013, First 5 Tulare County did not include Innovation Grants or Capital Project Grants on the Local Annual Report, but they were included on the Financial Statements. F2. For fiscal years 2010-2013, First 5 Tulare County consistently had errors on the Program Reports within the Local Annual Report. F3. For fiscal years 2010-2013, First 5 Tulare County Program Report Interpretations on the Local Annual Report were not consistent leading to errors in the Cost per Client.
• CL57 Page 111
  The RCSD is not in compliance with proper study and evaluation of its existing internal control and financial organizational structure per established auditing code requirements.
• CL58 Page 23
  Tulare County Board of Supervisors
• CL59 Page 112
  Tulare County Local Agency Formation Commission Disclaimer Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Section 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Section 924.2 and 929). 102 SPECIAL DISTRICTS – AUDIT FAILURES BACKGROUND: Special Districts are authorized by the State of California and/or the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). After their creation, special districts became independent and, seemingly, unwatched. Each independent special district has an elected (or appointed) board which acts as a separate self-regulated entity detached from city/county oversight. The Board members are responsible only to their constituents and to the state laws applicable to that specific district. These independent special districts are agencies that have been created by California law to perform a particular local governmental service. Tulare County is home to 112 independent special districts. This report does not review dependent districts that are set up by cities and the County solely to provide service, but focuses instead on the independent district. The State of California Government Code (CGC) §16271(d) stipulates: “A ‘special district’ means any agency of the state for local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited boundaries. A property tax rate is levied to pay for a service or improvement benefitting that area.” A less complicated way to describe a special district is to say that it is a separate local governmental agency that delivers a limited number of public services to a geographically defined area. In Tulare County, the majority of these districts have to do with water. Tulare County independent special districts and their boards must abide by all Federal and State laws, and are responsible to their constituents. As with all governmental agencies, independent districts must comply with the directives from the Office of the State Controller. The function of a district may bring it under other laws and statutes that further define responsible operation and governance of the district. For example, all fire districts in Tulare County and the Tulare County Mosquito and Vector Control district must follow sections of the Health and Safety Code (HSC) as well as the Government Code. The district’s registered voters usually choose an independent special district governing body but the district board may be appointed by a city council and/or the Tulare County Board of Supervisors instead of being elected. Once in office, board members are responsible only to their constituents and not the appointing body. REASON FOR INVESTIGATION: Tulare County Grand Jury requested and received documents relating to the status of Tulare County’s special district audit requirements, pursuant to CGC §26909. This law requires independent special districts to have annual audits conducted by either the County Auditor or a Certified Public Accountant. The completed audit is then filed with the State Controller Office and with the County Auditor Office. The annual audit can be changed to a two year audit if approved unanimously by the district board or the Board of Supervisors under certain conditions. 103 The Grand Jury seeks to ensure the public has sufficient information to fully address appropriate aspects of overseeing these districts as they provide service to the community by publishing this informational report. It is the residents of each district who must determine if their level of service is satisfactory, if the cost is reasonable and whether funds are allocated judiciously and appropriately within the respective district’s budgets. In order to guarantee that each citizen has enough information to make these determinations, all actions of every district must be open and clearly visible to all concerned. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED: The Grand Jury interviewed knowledgeable persons within Tulare County government agencies and county special districts. Visits to district board meetings, observation of board parliamentary procedures, and onsite interviews were made. Telephone interviews with County executive officers and a thorough review of reliable documents was conducted during the jury’s investigative process. FACTS:
• CL60 Page 114
  Tulare County instituted an education program for special district board members covering a variety of important topics such as the Brown Act and conflict of interest. The information is also posted on line at: http://tularecounty.ca.gov/board/index.cfrn/governance/.
• CL61 Page 114
  Special District audits, as prescribe by the State Controller and pursuant to CGC §26909, is intended to adhere to minimum requirements, including proper study and evaluation of the district’s existing internal control and financial organizational structure. 104 FINDINGS: F1. LAFCO intent was to create county (or area) agencies that could bring order and planning into overlapping jurisdictional and service boundaries that were becoming common circa 1963. F2. During its research of independent special districts, the Grand Jury learned that reviews and investigations of special districts are not uncommon. F3. Many special districts are not complying with State mandated annual audits conducted by the County Auditor or a Certified Public Accountant.
• CL62 Page 118
  Communication between the Complainant and the Vendor containing pertinent headstone standards were made available to the Grand Jury.
• CL63 Page 118
  Required headstone dimensions were sent from the Complainant and the VPCD to the Vendor.
• CL64 Page 118
  The headstone which the Complainant purchased in 2008 is currently in storage. The cost of storage is accrued at the Complainant’s expense.
• CL65 Page 118
  The headstone received from the Vendor did not meet VPCD standards. (See illustration on next page) 108 FINDINGS: F1. Both the Complainant and the Vendor stated difficulty in understanding the dimensions within VPCD standards pamphlet. F2. Prior to the manufacture of the headstone, communication between the Vendor and the Complainant stated references to correct dimensions. Those references were not adhered to with the finished product received from the Vendor. F3. From information provided to the Grand Jury, despite the Complainant or the Vendor having some misunderstanding of the specification documents, there was evidence indicating an awareness of the proper dimensions for the headstone.
• CL66 Page 127
  Are you currently involved in any litigation (law suits) in this county? 116
• CL67 Page 128
  Are you or any of your immediate family members employed by the County of Tulare? or any school district within the county? If yes, where?
• CL68 Page 128
  Do you have any significant problems reading or understanding the English Language?
• CL69 Page 128
  Do you have any suggestions, comments or other matters you would like to bring to the judges attention in connection with your application?
• CL70 Page 128
  Please tell us about any special skills or abilities that you have which the judges should know about in considering your application?
• CL71 Page 128
  Please tell us why you are interested in serving on the Tulare County Civil Grand Jury. (Please attach additional pages as needed)
• CL72 Page 128
  Describe any background experience or skills you have which would be helpful to grand jury service (i.e., computer skills, leadership skills, or experience writing/editing reports, working in groups, or conducting investigations or interviews.) Would you be willing to serve in any of the following capacities? FOREPERSON Yes No SECRETARY Yes No COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON Yes No Mail in or deliver questionnaire to: Civil Grand Jury Tulare County Superior Court 221 S. Mooney Blvd., Room 303 Visalia, CA 93291 Or Fax to: (559) 737-4290 NOTE: Applicants for nomination as a member of the Tulare County Civil Grand Jury are subject to investigation by an appropriate law enforcement agency as to the statutory qualifications for service and the applicant’s ability and suitability for service. In support of my application for selection as a member of the Tulare County Civil Grand Jury, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information is true and correct. Signed: Date: PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE NO LATER THAN: April 15, 2016 117 118

No Responses Found 5

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