Contra Costa County Grand Jury • 2025-2026

Grand Jury Final Report 2025-2026

Published: May 18, 2026 262 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 44 findings

F1
The current County triennial review process for County BCCs Agree provides an effective way to measure and thereby manage their operation and oversight because it establishes a predictable, thorough examination.
F2
As of January 19, 2025, eight percent (nine of 111) of County Disagree BCCs have no website or other online presence making it difficult for the public to obtain information about the existence, purpose, membership and progress of these B CCs.
F3
The 111 existing BCC websites are spread across multiple Partially department web pages on the County's main website, making Disagree online BCC information difficult to find.
F4
There is no master list of all County BCCs contained on the Partially County main website. Disagree
F5
As of January 19, 2025, 42 percent (47 of 111) of County BCCs Disagree do not have agendas posted in Legistar, the County's BCC data repository, which results in a lack of transparency to the public.
F6
As of January 19, 2025, 56 percent (62 of 111) of County BCCs Agree do not have their meeting minutes posted in Legistar on the central County website, resulting in a lack of transparency to the public.
F7
As of January 19, 2025, of the 49 County BCCs that post their Agree minutes in Legistar, 27 (55 percent) incorporate them into the agenda packets rather than in the Minutes column of Legistar, making it difficult to locate meeting minutes. Page A1 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report
F8
Historic County agenda and minutes data are stored and accessed Disagree in two different applications, Legistar and AgendaCenter, which can make the information difficult to find.
F9
Even though it is preferred to use only one system, Legistar, to Agree access meeting agendas and minutes, those presently contained in AgendaCenter cannot easily be moved or copied to Legistar due to technological constraints too costl y to overcome. Page A2 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 2 Report 2502 County Boards, Commissions, Councils, and Committees
F10
Subsequent to the reallocation of RPD funds in 2021 the City Agree Council approved the formation of the Community Crisis Response Program (CCRP). Partially
F11
The CCRP was formed to respond to calls involving mental Disagree health and quality of life incidents not requiring the RPD.
F12
As of April 2025, the CCRP is staffed with three people, a Partially program manager and two staffers. Disagree
F13
As of April 2025, the CCRP is not receiving calls for service Agree via police dispatch. Partially
F14
The need for agreement between the City and RPOA on duties Disagree to be performed and union representation of the CCRP is
F15
As a result of a legal settlement between the City and Partially Chevron Corporation, $550 million will be coming to the City of Disagree Richmond over the next 10 years, starting in June 2025, resulting in increased revenue for the City.
F16
As of April 2025, The City Council has not determined how Agree any of the Chevron settlement funds will be used. Page A5 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 4 Report 2503 Staffing Challenges Facing the Richmond Police Department: Diminishing Funds and Fewer Officers
F17
Children and Family Services does not have a hiring or retention Agree bonus program for social workers.
F18
Children and Family Services has university and employee Agree internship programs. Since 2019, CFS hired eight of 28 university interns and promoted five of 23 employee interns into permanent social worker positions.
F19
Several of the challenges identified by the Grand Jury in 2019 Partially (including a number of vacancies among social workers, a lengthy Disagree hiring process, heavy workloads, and a stressful work environment) still exist today. Page A15 of 22 Compliance and Continuity Report Table 10 Report 2506 Children and Family Services: Challenges in Recruiting and Retaining Social Workers
F20
The IOC is not provided with information to determine whether proposed annual audit plans address the County’s highest-risk areas, as required by IIA Principle 8, IIA Standards 8.1 and 9.4.
F21
IAD implements its annual audit plan without prior Board input or approval, eliminating the Board's opportunity to influence audit priorities before audit work has begun, inconsistent with IIA Principle 8 and IIA Standards 8.1 and 9.4, which collectively require that the board review and approve the risk-based audit plan before implementation.
F22
Findings F4, F10, F11, F12, F18, F19, F20, F21, and F26 collectively establish that the IOC and Board do not fulfill the audit oversight responsibilities required by IIA Principle 8 and Standards 8.1 and 15.1, and GAGAS §§3.46 and 6.06 — including charter approval, prospective audit plan approval, ongoing engagement, risk-based planning oversight, and direct receipt of audit reports.
F23
The IAD’s schedule is based on a calendar year, inconsistent with the fiscal year that governs the County’s overall planning, budgeting, and operational processes.
F24
The IAD does not maintain an ongoing quality assurance and improvement program, as required by IIA Standard 8.3 and GAGAS Chapter 5, which require audit organizations to establish and maintain internal quality assessment processes to evaluate conformance with professional standards.
F25
The IAD has not undergone an external quality assessment review in more than 25 years. IIA Standard 8.4 requires an external assessment at least once every five years and GAGAS §5.179 requires an external peer review at least once every three years.
F26
The IAD does not distribute its reports to the IOC, as required by IIA standards 11.3 and 15.1 and GAGAS Chapter 9.
F27
The IAD does not post its completed audit reports or annual audit plan on its public webpage, inconsistent with GAGAS Chapter 9, which requires public availability of completed audit reports, and the recommendations of the Association of Local Government Auditors and the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers.
F28
The deficiencies documented in Findings F3 through F8, F16 through F21, F24, F25, F26, and F27 collectively establish that the IAD does not operate in conformance with the IIA and GAGAS standards required by California Government Code Section 1236 and directed by its own Policies and Procedures Manual.
F29
The County LEMSA has not notified the hospitals in the County that their APOT Reduction Protocols do not cite the applicable County LEMSA standard.
F30
As of March 2026, the County LEMSA has a current balance of $1,062,715 from fire district fines assessed when ambulance response times exceeded contracted times.
F31
The Board of Supervisors (Board) does not have the County LEMSA’s quarterly APOT reports as a standing agenda Board item.
F32
BART’s organizational chart places Internal Audit within the executive management hierarchy with no direct reporting to the Audit Committee.
F33
There is no documented policy governing the form, content, or timing of Internal Audit’s communications to the Audit Committee, as IIA Standard 15.1 requires. The Grand Jury’s review of Audit Committee meeting materials found that the topics the Charter requires Internal Audit to address periodically were not always covered in Internal Audit’s appearances.
F34
Complete Internal Audit reports were not provided to the Audit Committee on a consistent basis in connection with Internal Audit’s appearances. Activity summaries were provided instead.
F35
There is no documented policy establishing how Internal Audit reports are to be distributed to the Audit Committee following completion of an engagement, as required by GAGAS Section 9.57 and IIA Standard 15.1.
F36
Internal Audit’s public webpage includes the Internal Audit Charter and annual activity reports containing summarized audit findings but does not include the annual audit plan, completed audit reports, or the status of audit recommendation implementation.
F37
There are no documented restrictions precluding public availability of Internal Audit’s completed audit reports, indicating that BART’s Internal Audit function does not comply with the public distribution requirements of GAGAS Section 9.56.
F38
Internal Audit’s risk assessment methodology does not comply with IIA Standards 9.3 and 9.4 because it does not include documented scoring criteria, risk-weighting factors, a defined process for gathering risk information, or evidence of management input.
F39
The 2025 annual audit plan presented to the Audit Committee relied on internal surveys to identify risks and did not include documented input from the Audit Committee or Board of Directors, contrary to IIA Standard 9.4, which requires that the risk assessment be informed by input from the board and senior management.
F40
During the 2020 and 2025 external auditor procurement cycles, BART staff issued the Request for Proposals in both cycles without prior Audit Committee review, and in the 2025 cycle the Committee was not provided the RFP or the responses received from prospective auditors.
F41
The Employee Code of Conduct was adopted in 2013.
F42
The Audit Committee Charter requires the Audit Committee to conduct biennial reviews of the Employee Code of Conduct. 23 of 30
F43
The Employee Code of Conduct has not been reviewed by the Audit Committee since the Committee’s inception in 2021.
F44
BART’s Internal Audit Charter, Audit Committee Charter, and organizational chart are inconsistent with one another regarding Internal Audit’s reporting relationships and the Audit Committee’s authority, creating ambiguity about where authority over Internal Audit actually resides. These conditions are inconsistent with IIA Standards 6.1 and 7.1, which require that internal audit authority, positioning, and reporting relationships be clearly defined and consistently reflected across governance frameworks.

Recommendations 22