El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
El Dorado County Grand Jury 2005-2006 Mid-Year Report
⚠️ 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.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F10
Findings 14 findings
F1
Page 4
That you agree with the finding.
F2
Page 4
That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons for the disagreement. How to Respond to Recommendations Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or entity must report action on all recommendations in one of four ways: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action.
F3
Page 4
The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated.
F4
Page 4
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. Time to Respond, Where and to Whom to Respond Depending on the type of Respondent, Penal Code Section 933.05 provides for two different response times and to whom you must respond: 1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety (90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
F5
Page 6
Direct the inter-departmental Wraparound management team to amend the County Wraparound Plan to include procedures and protocols for admitting and providing services to non-revenue generating children in the program who are not assigned to authorized service allocation slots.
F6
Page 6
Direct the Wraparound inter-departmental management team to amend the program plan to include a definition of program “cost savings to be reinvested in children’s services” and to establish procedures for how decisions will be made regarding expenditure of such funds.
F7
Page 6
Direct appropriate County staff to draft a new Wraparound program Memorandum of Understanding for execution by the Departments of Mental Health, Human Services and Probation to replace the MOU among these departments that expired in September 2005.
F8
Page 6
Direct the inter-departmental Wraparound management team and Chief Administrative Officer to review the Wraparound program FY 2005-06 revenue and expenditure budget, its assumptions about the number of children to be served, slots to be filled, actual number of “slotted” and non-revenue generating children served and actual revenues and expenditures year-to-date and report back to the Board within six weeks on whether adjustments should be made to make the budget more realistic.
F9
Page 6
Direct the inter-departmental Wraparound management team and Chief Administrative Officer to prepare a budget plan each year based on the actual revenues and expenditures for the previous year and documented assumptions about the number of children to be served, both slotted and discretionary nonrevenue generating, and the nature of services to be provided in the budget year. 10. Direct the inter-departmental Wraparound management team to at least quarterly monitor actual program revenues and expenditures and number of children served for comparison to the budget.
F11
Page 7
Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to separately present the Wraparound program budget each year in the proposed Department of Mental Health budget document presented to the Board of Supervisors and to include planned and previous year actual numbers of slotted and discretionary non-revenue generating children program participants, hours of staff service provided, contractor service hours and expenditures for unique external goods and services.
F12
Page 7
Direct the inter-departmental Wraparound management team and Chief Administrative Officer to develop an expenditure plan for the approximately $173,244 Wraparound program fund balance and transmit the plan to the Board of Supervisors for review.
F13
Page 7
Direct the inter-departmental Wraparound management team to include in its annual program evaluation provided to the Board of Supervisors: statistics on the number of children referred to and considered for the program; the number and backgrounds of those admitted to the program and assigned to service allocation slots; and, the number and backgrounds of those receiving services with Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.
F14
Page 7
Direct the inter-departmental Wraparound management team to prepare written procedures regarding eligibility and services offered to children receiving services with Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.
F15
Page 7
Direct the inter-departmental Wraparound management team to prepare annual estimates of staff and contractor availability for the program and to use this as a base line when service plans are prepared to ensure that there is greater consistency between service plans and service provider availability. This Grand Jury report must be responded to by the Board of Supervisors within ninety (90) days as directed by the Penal Code 933.05 (b) (2) and (3). Exhibit A Audit of Claiming and Financial and other Reporting for the Wraparound Program of El Dorado County Prepared for: The FY 2005-06 El Dorado County Grand Jury Prepared by: December, 2005 Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary.................................................................................i Introduction............................................................................................1 1. Wraparound program overview & glossary of terms.................................3 2. Compliance with Wraparound program requirements...............................6 3. Wraparound program fiscal management...............................................19 4. Wraparound program records................................................................29 Executive Summary The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation was retained by the FY 2004-05 and FY 2005-06 El Dorado County Grand Jury to conduct a limited scope audit of El Dorado County’s reporting, claiming and financial reporting processes for Wraparound, or S. B. 163, and other federal and State-funded programs administered by the County Departments of Mental Health and Human Services. A summary of the findings and recommendations contained in this audit report are as follows. The recommendations are numbered according to their respective section in this report. A summary of the first section of the report is not presented here as it is an overview of the County’s Wraparound program and does not contain findings or recommendations. Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound Program Requirements Wraparound is a State-authorized program that allows counties to flexibly use (cid:137) State and local funds that would otherwise be used for group home placements to provide individualized services to prevent at risk children from being placed in group homes. In El Dorado County, funding is obtained from the State by the Department of Human Services, combined with County funds and transferred to the Department of Mental Health which administers the program. The County is not operating in full compliance with its key governance (cid:137) documents: State law; the County Wraparound plan; and, a Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human Services and Mental Health. Key areas of non-compliance include: the absence of an executive management team assuming responsibility for planning and monitoring program performance and a lack of procedures to ensure family understanding of and input to the program. Among other impacts, the lack of a Wraparound program management structure has resulted in under-expending available program funds, lower service levels than anticipated and over-budgeting every year of the program. State legislation requires that counties providing Wraparound services (cid:137) designate a number of service allocation slots for participating children. State funding is provided based on the number of such slots filled each month. The County’s Department of Mental Health has expanded program participation by including children at risk of group home placement in addition to those in the authorized service allocation slots. Services for these other children are provided with funds not spent on the children in the authorized slots. The methods for determining eligibility and expenditure levels for these additional children have not been documented in the County’s Wraparound plan or any other Department documents. i Executive Summary A Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human (cid:137) Services and Mental Health calls for reinvestment of savings realized in the Wraparound program to other children’s services. A definition of such savings has not been established nor has a process for the two departments to determine how funds should be reinvested. As a result, approximately $173,244 in program funding has accumulated over the last three year fiscal years that could have been reinvested in other services for children.
Recommendations 4
-
R1Page 2The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action.
-
R2Page 2The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
-
R3Page 2The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated.
-
R4Page 2The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. Time to Respond, Where and to Whom to Respond Depending on the type of Respondent, Penal Code Section 933.05 provides for two different response times and to whom you must respond:
Conclusions 4
-
CL1 Page 33The Wraparound program is not operating in full compliance with its key governance documents: State legislation; the County Wraparound program plan; and, a Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Mental Health and Human Services. The State requirement for parent and family involvement in planning and assessing the program and for evaluation of the program are two key areas with which El Dorado County is not in compliance. County compliance with the State’s requirement for thorough strengths-based assessments of each participating child and family are not documented. The inter-departmental management structure called for in the program plan has not been implemented. This appears to be one of the key factors explaining under-expenditures of available program funding, lower service levels than anticipated, program budgets that have consistently been in excess of actual revenues and expenses and the absence of program evaluations. The Department of Mental Health has admitted 48 children, at an average of 9.1 per month, to the Wraparound program in addition to those assigned to the County’s six authorized service allocation slots. There are no official procedures for how these children are admitted to the program, how resource allocation decisions are made for these children and there is no program documentation about how they were selected and who was considered but not selected for this type of program participation. The Wraparound program under-spent available funding by approximately $173,244 between its inception in August 2002 and June 2005. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Mental Health and Human Services calls for reinvesting program savings in children’s services. These terms have not been defined and procedures have not been established for how funds such as these will be spent. If such procedures were in place, the $173,244 surplus could have been used for other services for the County’s children over the last three fiscal years.
-
CL2 Page 43The County has not consistently filled all of its six authorized Wraparound program service allocation slots since the program was implemented in August 2002. Since State and local program funding is directly related to the number of slots filled, the County has not collected the maximum amount of funding that it could have had all slots been filled. Lost program funding between FYs 2002-03 and 2004-05 was approximately $182,484 that could have provided services to an estimated additional 18.7 children over the life of the program through June 2005. The County has significantly over-budgeted revenues and expenditures for the program, indicating that fiscal management oversight has not been adequate. Actual program funding and service levels have been substantially less than anticipated in the annual program budgets since FY 2002-03. Besides recovering less Wraparound program funding than anticipated, the County did not expend $173,244 over the life of the program in funding that was available for the program and could have been used to provide services. The funds are in reserve and can still be used for the program but it is not clear why the funding has not been used to provide services as it was received. Combined with the $182,484 in funds not recovered due to unfilled service allocation slots, the County forewent $355,728 worth of services that could have been provided to children at risk of group home placement during the three years reviewed.
-
CL3 Page 49The County obtains State funding for the Wraparound program as part of the Department of Human Services’ monthly claims for foster care reimbursement submitted to the State. A review of a sample of claims and supporting documents conducted for this audit showed that the Department has sufficient documentation about the program participants to justify the amounts claimed. Department of Mental Health time sheet and cost records are not adequate to determine actual program costs and services provided prior to February 2005 when a new time and cost tracking system was implemented. While the new system is an improvement, other Wraparound program records are not being maintained to adequately document program costs, services and eligibility and admissions procedures. Records are not maintained of the number of children eligible for the program who were not admitted. No records are maintained regarding which children are admitted to the program but not assigned to service allocation slots or children considered but not admitted to the program. Program participant mental health treatment plans are not consistent with actual services delivered in many instances, possibly indicating a lower level of service than planned. Plans should be updated to reflect changes in prescribed services as conditions change and prepared in conjunction with an inventory of available service provider resources. 33
-
CL4 Page 15Section 4: Wraparound Program Records
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office