📋
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.
Score: +4
(4/4/0)
Riverside County Grand Jury
• 2024-2025
Services Division Dedicated to Protecting Riverside County Children
2 pages
⚠️ 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 and recommendations have not been extracted yet.
The full report content may still be accessible via the PDF link above.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
▶
Executive Office response to the 2024-2025 Grand Jury Report: Fraud Detection in Riverside County Gr
September 22, 2025
•
15 pages
• 8 responses
•
Score: +4
(+4, 4, 0)
View Details ▾
8 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
The Civil Grand Jury found no evidence that any actions taken by Riverside County employees in the administration of the grants in question constituted malfeasance or misconduct.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
The civil Grand Jury found no evidence that any actions taken by Riverside County employees in the administration of the grants in question constituted malfeasance or misconduct, Response to Grand Jury Finding #'l: Respondent agrees with finding Housing and Workforce Solutions (HWS) leadership and staff perform their duties in alignment with the County of Riverside Code of Ethics as described in Board Policy C- 35 (attached). This has been communicated to staff by HWS leadership, who are continuing to demonstrate adherence to policy when working with grants and subrecipients. Grand Jury Findin...
R2
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that HWS upper management personnel emphasize the importance of addressing lower-level grant reviewers' concerns regarding claims that lack the required clarity and documentation no later than November 1, 2025. Based on Findings 2 and 3 Financial Impact-Minimal
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that HWS upper management personnel emphasize the importance of addressing lower-level grant reviewers' concerns regarding claims that lack the required clarity and documentation no later than November '1, 2025. Based on Findings 2 and 3 Financial lmpact-Minimal Response to Grand Jury #2: Recommendation has been implemented.
HWS leadership reaffirms that all staff concerns related to subrecipient claims or program performance will be taken seriously and investigated promptly and thoroughly. The fiscal and program teams are collaborating to strengthen claims rev...
F3
Claim reviewers expressed documentation concerns to their supervisors, yet the claims were paid.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
Claim reviewers expressed documentation concerns to their supervisors, yet the claims were paid. Response to Grand Jury Finding #3: Respondent agrees with finding Concerns were expressed by staff to management during claims reviews, and management followed up with those concerns by conferring with the HWS HUD representative for guidance as well as following up with the subrecipient to gain additional information and understanding about their program operations. ln order to avoid unnecessary impact to the participants whose rents were being paid by this program, claims payments were processed u...
R3
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that HWS implement a policy requiring a brief review of the previous months’ claims from a subrecipient as part of processing grant claims no later than January 1, 2026. Based on Finding 5 Financial Impact-Minimal
Response: Will Implement
Due: January 1, 2026
Scheduled: Within 90 days
Score: +1
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that HWS implement a policy requiring a brief review of the previous months' claims from a subrecipiont as part of procesaing grant claims no later than January 1, 2026. Based on Finding 5 Financial lmpact-Minimal Response to Grand Jury #3: Recommendation has not been implemented, but wili be implemented. The implementation time frame is noted in the response. The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has provided HWS with access to a specialized consulting firm, free of charge, to perform a full assessment of our current business process for...
F4
HWS experienced political pressure from both Federal and state governments to settle marginal claims, particularly during and immediately following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
HWS experienced political pressure from both Federal and state governments to settle marginal claims, particularly during and immediately following the COVID-19 pandemic. Response lo Grand Jury Finding #4: Respondent disagrees wholly with finding HWS followed guidance from granting entities while still following appropriate protocols in the review of claims. Grand Jury Finding #5:
F-5
lssues that were not apparent in individual claims submifted by a subrecipient became evidenl when multiple claims were reviewed collectively. Response to Grand Jury Finding #5: Respondent agrees with finding H...
R4
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that Riverside County implement mandatory fraud detection training for new employees processing grant claims and require annual fraud detection training for all current employees in this role no later than January 1, 2026. Based on Finding 6 Financial Impact-Minimal to Moderate 11 REQUIRED AND INVITED RESPONSES Under California Penal Code §933, governing bodies are required to respond to Civil Grand Jury report findings and recommendations California Penal Code §9...
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
Recommendation #4:
R4
The Civil Grand Jury recommends that Riverside County implement mandatory fraud detection training for new employees processing grant claims and require annual fraud detection training for all current employees in this role no later than January 1,2026' Based on Finding 6 Financial lmpact-Minimal to Moderate
Response to Grand Jury ,r4: Recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented.
F5
Issues that were not apparent in individual claims submitted by a subrecipient became evident when multiple claims were reviewed collectively.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
lssues that were not apparent in individual claims submifted by a subrecipient became evidenl when multiple claims were reviewed collectively. Response to Grand Jury Finding #5: Respondent agrees with finding HWS took action as soon as a pattern was established and evidence was available crand Jury Finding #6:
F-6
HWS employees lack fraud detection training. Response to Grand Jury Finding #6: Respondent disagrees partially with the findlng. HWS team members are trained in grant and program compliance and administration according to the guidelines provided by HUD and the Federal Office of Man...
F6
HWS employees lack fraud detection training. RECOMMENDATIONS
Response: Agree
Score: +1
agrees with finding HWS took action as soon as a pattern was established and evidence was available crand Jury Finding #6:
F-6
HWS employees lack fraud detection training.