Submittal to the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside, State of California Item: 3.38

The Board of Supervisors and Executive Office disagree with the finding. A specific process of reviewing the business practices of the county, as they align with the Workday platform, were conducted and resulted in demonstrated changes. It was determined part way through the implementation of Workday, that Workday’s standard solution would not accommodate two critical county requirements relating to time tracking and payroll accounting data. The county worked diligently with KPMG and Workday to solve these issues, but the parties were unsuccessful. The county, Workday and KPMG all concluded that the county’s relevant requirements were substantive and structural. Therefore, a reasonable change in business practices, as to those specific requirements, was not a viable solution. 3.38 ID# 13952 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA County Human Resources, RCIT and the Auditor-Controller concurred on an alternate path to accomplish the same outcome for less financial investment. Alternate implementations and upgrades such as upgrading the County’s existing Human Resources Management System are underway, and most likely will be achieved by December 2020. FINDINGS NO.3: KPIs not reported for years 2017-2018 and not in new budget book KPMGs

The Board of Supervisors and Executive Office partially disagree with the finding. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been displayed in the budget books consistently from FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 Adopted Budget. The Executive Office agrees that the FY 2020/2021 Recommended Budget did not reflect the KPIs, however, they were included within the Adopted Budget for FY 2020/2021. The implementation of the county’s new budget system, known as RivCo Budget, as well as unexpected work closures occurring throughout county departments arising from COVID-19 impacts, prevented the KPIs from being added to the Recommended Budget for FY 2020/2021. However, the Executive Office commitment to sharing and evaluating these objectives resumed within the Adopted Budget for FY 2020/2021. One of the

The Board of Supervisors and Executive Office agree with the finding. As KPMG was already engaged to assess the criminal justice system organization and operational performance, finance review and review of the law enforcement contract city rates, it was decided to further contract with KPMG for an implementation phase as a result of the assessment. As KPMG was already familiar with the overall structure of the county, engaging for further review of other departments was extended. There is no requirement for the county to seek additional bids in those circumstances. FINDINGS NO.5: No evidence that County received what it paid for in contract The county paid KPMG a considerable hourly rate for tens of thousands of hours of work without quantifiable deliverables – just “assistance”. This was in conflict with Board Policy A-18 which directs how county departments must contract for professional services. For some of the deliverables specified in the KPMG contract Amendment 1, the Executive Office provided the Grand Jury no evidence that they were completed or received by the county. Thus, it appears that the county did not receive what it paid for in these instances. Response to

The Board of Supervisors and Executive Office disagree with the finding. As a result of their work for the county KPMG prepared two reports: in March 2016, the Criminal Justice System Review Report which included

The Board of Supervisors and Executive Office partially disagree with the finding. A key feature of a County Performance Unit (CPU) is data. Data is stored and housed in many different systems spread throughout county departments. In an ideal situation, the CPU would extract information from any department at any time. However, accessing other departments’ systems in that manner is not possible, due to security issues, uneven system access across the county, and/or non-county systems (sometimes required by state or federal funding sources). Data is sent to the Executive Office as a document from the department, and is not directly accessed, which delays information delivery. There is no single countywide software system that stores all data from all departments. 3.38 ID# 13952 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA KPMG recommended countywide system upgrades that provide for streamlining data collection which would result in a central hub that enables coordination of data through the CPU. As this is cost-prohibitive and logistically challenging, the county explored multiple methods to capture the data to provide the most real-time and over-time analysis of county KPIs. Some systems that drive county data will go online during 2020, with implementation training and refinements to follow. The Executive Office has put into place a structure with management analysts and the Chief Deputy County Executive Officer to roll out a new budgeting structure. The roles of these positions have a wide array of county knowledge along with an intimate knowledge base to assist the departments with which they work. This department connection and familiarity greatly enables building of data to develop trends and evaluation analysis. Additionally, the county’s organizational structure is within portfolios, which are departments grouped together who have similar missions/functions, headed by an Assistant County Executive Officer. This structure has allowed greater communication, flow of information, cross- collaboration and sharing of data. The system changes in the Executive Office, Human Resources, and the Auditor Controller’s payroll division will be implemented this year for the purpose, in part, of collecting and using the data needed to support a CPU going forward. The county reviewed various platforms to provide real time reports of the data and selected Power BI, a Microsoft data platform. RCIT has moved forward with purchasing licenses for the Executive Office to use this platform for data and report management. Power BI provides tools to create measurements but does not access many departments’ data. The combination of these efforts support the CPU concept is effective not only at the preparation of the budget, but at any time throughout the year. This approach better aligns with current resources and the county’s financial standing. As part of the budgetary constraints, the Executive Office FY 2020/2021 budget implemented a 10 percent budget cut of $631,000, which translated to the transfer of or layoff of three full-time positions, as well as defunding vacant positions. To date, current staff members have undertaken the function of what was recommended as a separate unit to collect and publish the achievement levels of KPIs. To create a stand-alone county performance unit is an additional expense to the department’s budget, which is incongruent with the recent budget reductions incurred by the Executive Office. Options to augment existing staffing for the Executive Office will be re-examined with any additional staffing requests to be submitted for Board of Supervisors consideration during the FY 2021/2022 budget process. FINDINGS NO.7: KPMG

The Board of Supervisors and Executive Office disagree with the finding. Characterizing the Executive Office as providing incomplete, dubious or misleading information is incorrect. The information provided to the Grand Jury demonstrates the current status of the

The Board of Supervisors and Executive Office partially disagree with the finding. Follow-up is continuously occurring throughout county departments. This occurs during monthly or weekly meetings, quarterly budget reports, evaluations with department heads, or may be integrated throughout different methods that were originally recommended. As mentioned in

The Board of Supervisors and Executive Office disagree with the finding. Many