Criminal Justice Committee Growlersberg Conservation Camp, Georgetown, Ca Reason for the Report The California Penal

This Grand Jury agrees with the 1998/1999 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings and Recommendations: · The DOC and the California Department of Forestry (CDF) administer the camp jointly. · The design capacity of the camp is 80. · Current population was 131. · Inmates are typically confined at the camp for 9 months. · This is a minimum-security facility, with open dorms and no fences. · Only carefully screened minimum security inmates are assigned to the camp; · Inmates do conservation and rescue work and fire suppression. · Every inmate has a full-time job either working on a conservation crew or in camp (kitchen, clerks). · The Grand Jury recommended that there be more publicity about the good work done by the inmates and staff.

This Grand Jury agrees with the 1999/2000 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings: · Housing areas were clean and well kept. · The food preparation area was clean, and the food was good. · Inmate welfare and recreation was provided for. · The kitchen needed to be updated, especially the range vent hood. · Management by the correctional staff seemed to be very efficient and professional.

This Grand Jury agrees with the 2000/2001 Grand Jury’s Report following Findings: · The range hood was a danger. · Housing areas were clean and orderly. · The food preparation area was clean and orderly, and the food was good. · There was virtually no compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The camp is well organized; every inmate is fully employed. The camp is maintained by the inmates under staff supervision.

The CDF, subject to the Governor's planning and budget process and legislative approval, is planning to replace the original buildings (circa 1965) beginning in FY 03/04.

The camp is designed for 80 with a present population of 137. It is anticipated that the 137 will be reduced to 120 in the near future.

Over the past 37 years the camp has enjoyed excellent relationships with its neighbors and neighboring communities.

All staff assigned to this camp is experienced with many years' managing inmates, facilities, and programs.

No weapons are kept at the camp. All DOC staff members maintain weapons in their homes. If necessary they will arm themselves to respond to emergencies (for example, an escape).

Any inmate in need of a program not offered at this camp (such as education or mental health) is transferred to another State DOC facility.

through F1.3 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses R~uired for Recommendations Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget Rl.1 through R1.6 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation NIFR Strategic Planning Results 3 u1 5 Key Results: °,'o Customers Satisfied with Applications Development Service Request Outcome. Activity Name: DESKTOP SUPPORT Activity Purpose: The purpose of the DESKTOP SUPPORT activity is to provide management and support of the entire desktop life cycle to clients so that they can benefit from a stable computing platform. Services that Desktop Upgrades comprise the Hardware Configuration & Pricing Activity: Desktop Virus Protection Distributed Equipment Help Desk Contacts Repaired Equipment Acquired Equipment Desktop Guidance Infrastructure Data Archiving & Recovery Technical Guidance (Desktop Hardware & Software) Desktop Installations Hardware & Software Inventory Network Server Services Office Automation Tools Personal Data Storage Performance Measures: RESULT: % of Available Server Services (24X7) Actuals FY 00: Actuals FY 01: Anticipated FY 02: 98 Mid Yr Forecast: Projected FY 03: Calculation: Data Source: Server logs. from the IT resource. of hours "up" / total number of server hours per quarter. (NOTE: 90 days in the quarter.) MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, Help Desk Tracking software and Internal Activity Leader: Jack Coffin RESULT: % of Available Server Services During Prime Business Hours (12X5) Actuals FY 00: Actuals FY 01: Anticipated FY 02: Nlid Yr Forecast: Projected FY 03: Atta chment 1 Page-I off' Program The purpose of the Information Technology Program is to provide IT leadership and Purpose: services to the client departments so that management can obtain maximum benefit 5.2 ()22 1 3 0 1" Qrt Result YTD 1 Comments 1 99.72 2 ( 99.81 99.75 3 4 Qrt Result YTD Comments I 1 100 2 l 100 100 3 4 ` \IFR Strategic Planning Results 1ut5 Calculation: # of hours "up" / total number of server hours in the quarter. (NOTE: 60 work days in the quarter.) Data MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, Help Desk Tracking software and Internal Source: Server logs. Activity Leader: Jack Coffin OUTPUTS: Number of installed and redeployed desktops Actuals FY 00: Actuals FY 01: Anticipated FY 02: 5600 Mid Yr Forecast: Projected FY 03: Calculation: # of PCs in the installed base + # of replacement and new PCs deployed + : of PCs "waterfalled" within installed base. Data Source: MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, SupportMagic Call Tracking software. Activity Leader: Jack Coffin DEMAND: Expected number of installed and redeployed desktops Actuals FY 00: Actuals FY 01: Anticipated FY 02: 5600 Mid Yr Forecast: Projected FY 03: Calculation: -- of PCs in the installed base + t of replacement and new PCs deployed + # of PCs "waterfalled" within installed base. Data Source: MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, SupportMagic Call Tracking software. Activity Leader: ' Jack Coffin EFFICIENCY: Cost per installed and redeployed desktop Actuals FY 00: Actuals FY 01: Anticipated FY 02: Mid Yr Forecast: Projected FY 03: Attachment l 5.20?: ? 0F Qrt , Result WD Comments 1 1426 2 1527 1 1635 3 4 Qrt I Result YTD Comments 1 1465 2 1587 1, 1682 3 4 NIFR Strategic Planning Results pj i Calculation: Number of installed and redeployed desktops divided by the annual budget of the PC/LAN Solutions and Support Team. Data MS Systems Management Server (SMS), Altiris, SupportMagic Call Tracking software and Source: the budget system. Activity Leader: Jack Coffin Attac hment 1 f 3 Qrt Result YTD I Comments 4 2. Capital Projects

As of April 20, 2002, the complainant has received neither the money nor the gun.

On May 8, 2002, the Sheriff filed an amended Schedule E to Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests (Income – Gifts), with the County Elections Department. That amended Form 700 was "certif[ied] under penalty of perjury," with a representation that the Sheriff had "used all reasonable diligence in preparing this statement," and that "to the best of [his] knowledge the information contained [in it] and in any attached schedules is true and correct." Although the Form 700 indicated that "[t]he period covered [was] 12/31/99 through December 31, 2001," and not a "leaving office" type of statement, the amended Schedule E indicated that it was both a "2001/2002 Annual" and a "Leaving" type of statement. 8

The County does not have a long range strategic plan with goals and objectives set by the Board of Supervisors to guide the allocation of County funds and resources. Without this, budget and program priorities are set primarily by County staff without the benefit of structured input from elected officials and the public. This has been particularly true in past years when the budget was adopted with very little discussion at the Board of Supervisors public hearings. For the current fiscal year, FY 2001-02, the Board of Supervisors chose to hold more extensive public hearings as part of the budget addenda process and received detailed presentations from all departments. While these hearings allowed for more interaction between the Board and the departments than has taken place in the recent past, this process would be even more valuable if the budgets submitted by the departments were prepared under policy direction already provided in a long range strategic plan. Another benefit of a strategic plan is providing a common set of goals and objectives for all County employees. As part of a multi-year strategic planning effort, a process for measuring individual department performance and plan outcomes is needed. This would also enhance the budget process by providing the Board of Supervisors with meaningful performance measures for each department and a method for measuring the effectiveness of allocated funds. Many organizations, public and private, engage in a strategic planning process to accomplish the following: 1) confirm and refine the mission statement of the organization with which all employees and stakeholders agree; 2) establish a vision for the future of the organization; 3) develop goals, objectives and action plans to ensure accomplishment of the mission and vision; and 4) establish a mechanism for measuring and reporting on actual organization performance relative to the goals, objectives and action plans. Generally, strategic plans are multi-year in nature with a five year horizon being fairly typical. A strategic planning process for El Dorado County should include the following steps: 0 0 a 0 0 Assessing the current state of County operations including resources available and strengths and weaknesses of the organization Identifying likely future trends that will affect the County (e.g., population growth in El Dorado and neighboring counties, changes in State funding formulas, likely incorporation of cities, impacts of new technology, etc.) Identifying likely future service needs and resources available to meet those demands (i.e., likely revenue streams) Establishing service goals and objectives consistent with the mission and vision for the future Establishing a system for measuring the County's success in meeting the stated goals and objectives Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget Currently El Dorado County does not have a long term strategic plan. Some departments such as the Information Services Department have developed plans specific to their departments and programs but there is no overarching plan for the County as a whole. A countywide plan would be valuable for budget purposes as it would help guide the allocation of resources consistent with established goals and objectives. Under the present system, department heads can set goals and objectives for their departments and Board members may provide direction on a case by case basis through budget hearings or other forums where department heads and Board members interact. But there is no formalized process by which the public and the Board as a group reach consensus and establish priorities that provide clear direction to all departments. A multi-year approach helps get around the limitations of the single year budget process that often doesn't address projects and initiatives that span more than one year. Typical multi-year projects in the county include capital projects, service delivery improvements, improvements in administrative activities, computer installations and upgrades, and other initiatives. While final appropriations still have to be made in the annual budget to fund multi-year projects and initiatives, providing directives in a strategic plan will help guide funding decisions in the budget process and will provide direction to department managers about their priorities. The County needs a system to measure department performance Measuring accomplishment of the goals, objectives and action plans in a strategic plan is probably one of the greatest benefits of embarking on such an effort and it is directly linked to the budget process. First, it makes the strategic plan a much more meaningful, results-oriented process. While establishing mission and vision statements, goals and objectives and action plans are all worthwhile activities, they can become meaningless if there isn't a method of measuring and reporting results. Setting an overall goal for the County such as making the County safe from crime is fine, but adding a method for measuring whether or not this occurs gives the process much greater impact. This could be measured in crime rate trends, arrest rates, successful prosecution and sentencings, community perception of safety, and other measures. These type of measures can be tied to the budget process through, for example, reviewing law enforcement officers per capita, arrests resulting in successful prosecutions, response times, and other measures. The budget can be adjusted accordingly to improve these measures to meet the service goals of the strategic plan. For each department, the proposed El Dorado County budget includes a mission statement, workload indicators, written summaries of all major programs, and staffmg information. This is useful information but what is missing are goals and objectives for the department and outcome measures to provide meaning to the workload indicators. The workload indicators, shown for the proposed, current and previous two fiscal years, generally measure caseload but not program outcomes. For example, the Probation Department budget for FY 2001-02 shows 33 workload indicators for eleven program areas. The program areas include Juvenile Hall, Juvenile placement, Group Homes/Foster homes, Adult Court, Adult Supervision and others. Workload indicators include measures such as number of court disposition reports, number of intake hearings, average daily population at Juvenile Hall, number of Adult Court reports, number of Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget adult probationers supervised, number of number of felony sentencing reports prepared and others. The problem with the workload indicators in the Probation Department's budget is that none of them allow for an assessment of department outcomes. For example, a common objective for probation departments is to rehabilitate the probationer so they don't commit the same crime again and have subsequent encounters with the criminal justice system. To measure this objective, recidivism rates should be presented in the budget document rather than just the number of probationers supervised by the department. A high recidivism rate might indicate that Probation Department efforts are not succeeding and would lead to discussion about the level of funding for this effort and whether or not it is adequate and if the Department needs to operate its programs differently to achieve greater success. The Probation Department's number of court reports workload indicator also measures work but not outcomes. It is not possible to tell from the numbers alone if the department is doing a good job of producing its reports for court. Two of the most important factors for court reports generally are whether they are delivered to the court timely and whether they contain the information needed by the judiciary to facilitate decision-making. Useful performance measures for this work might include number of reports delivered to the court on time and the results of a survey of the court's satisfaction with the content of the reports. As with the previous example, this type of information would enable a more informed discussion of the appropriateness of funding levels and program management. Having broad countywide goals and objectives in a strategic plan would also help guide departments such as the Probation Department in that their goals, objectives and funding allocations and requests would need to be linked to the countywide goals and objectives. For example, countywide goals and objectives related to the Probation Department might be to improve coordination between all of the County criminal justice agencies and expansion of alternative programs to keep nonviolent offenders out of jail. The Probation Department would need to respond to these goals and objectives by presenting its coordination efforts with other departments, and development or expansion of alternatives to incarceration programs. Another link between the strategic plan and the budget is that the strategic plan should include financial goals and objectives for the County. These could include target reserve levels, target user fee recovery rates, a countywide approach to one-time revenues, approaches to funding levels for internal service funds, policies regarding deficit spending and others. Departmental strategic planning in El Dorado County As mentioned above, El Dorado County's Information Services Department produced a strategic plan in 2000. The plan was prepared in response to a request from the Board of Supervisors and it states that it will be regularly updated. The purposes of the plan are to: anticipate future information processing needs and provide a strategy for meeting those goals; define an optimum sequence of events to achieve the strategy; facilitate common understanding and support for the department's future direction and goals by all key stakeholders (customers, staff, County management); provide a framework to manage and control the working environment; and, Harvey M. RoseAccountancy Corporation achieve optimum effectiveness and efficiency of resources. Its goals for the future include: expanding basic intranet/intemet services; sharing and integrating data; providing business support data in multiple formats; providing multi-level integrated computing services; re- engineering business processes; guaranteeing the integrity and availability of County data; and, maintaining adequate and appropriate resources. The Information Services plan and any other department strategic plan in the County should be used as underpinnings to a countywide strategic plan. The countywide plan would provide higher level goals and objectives and individual department plans would be more specific and detailed regarding their particular services. The various individual department plans should be consistent with the countywide plan prepared by the Board of Supervisors. As suggested for the countywide strategic plan, individual department success in meeting the goals and objectives in their plans should be measured on an annual basis. Strategic planning in other jurisdictions As mentioned above, many private and public organizations have prepared and are implementing strategic plans. The public organizations include counties and cities throughout the country. In California, one of the more extensive county strategic plans was prepared in Riverside County. The plan, entitled Strategic Vision 2020, addresses the County's mission and business, vision for the next twenty years and guiding principles, service delivery priorities, service goals and strategies, inter-governmental relations, environmental issues, financial management fundamentals, land use planning principles, and related matters. Since many departments in the county have also prepared strategic plans, the Countywide plan incorporates all of those plans. The Riverside plan addresses limits to County service and highlights what the County cannot do as well as areas where it should excel. Maricopa County, Arizona initiated a strategic planning process in 2000 that integrated planning, budgeting and performance measures. For this effort, each department was required to prepare a strategic plan that included the following: a 0 0 0 0 Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget The County mission and vision statement A department mission and vision statement' Department goals Identification of department issues Identification of all key programs in each department including: D Program name D Program purpose Key results for the program (usually a quantifiable measure) Activities and services within each program Outputs for each activity Actual results for each activity compared to key result expectations Cost per output 1 The department vision statement was optional in the Maricopa County plan. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 1: Long Range Strategic Planning and the Budget Quarterly reports are produced for each department in Maricopa County. A sample report for the Maricopa County Information Systems department is shown as Attachment 1. As can be seen, performance data is not available yet for each key activity in this program. But efforts are now underway to regularly collect this data and to tie it to a cost efficiency factor shown at the end of the attachment. There is a range of approaches for El Dorado County to consider in establishing a strategic planning process but the key elements should include: o statement of purpose or mission; o vision for the future; o goals, objectives and action plans for accomplishing the mission and vision statements; and, o a system for measuring results linked to the budget process. The plan's goals and objectives will also drive the budget process as each department will be expected to show how they are contributing to the strategic plan's goals and objectives through their activities.

The amended Schedule E filed by the Sheriff on May 8, 2002, contained the following statements: • The Sheriff had received a Weatherby rifle and a single-barrel shotgun from a named individual • The rifle was attributed a value of $275 to $375 as of 1999. • The shotgun was attributed a value of $25, with the explanation "used gun, hard to estimate."

There is a $125 - $225 discrepancy between the $500 actual credit received by the Sheriff and the valuation amount reported by him.

In the "Comments" section of Schedule E, the Sheriff made the following statements: "This man gave me a rifle and shotgun in 1999, I think. At the time I saw it as he wanted to ge [sic] rid of them and so he gave them to me. At the time I did not think them a reportable gift. As I am finishing my term and leaving elected office I was advised that maybe I should file to set the record straight."

County managers, such as Sheriff’s Department Captains and Lieutenants are allowed to utilize their respective 96 or 80 hours of management leave for personal purposes, including electioneering. These hours are sometimes used during regular eight-hour shifts, creating the impression that the Captains or Lieutenants may be campaigning on county time.

Internal election battles waged within the Sheriff’s Department and the resulting bad feelings affected relations among Sheriff’s personnel and between Sheriff’s personnel and the public.

There are residual bad feelings among some of the Sheriff’s personnel. Many believe it will take years for healing to take place.

There are seven elected county department heads. Elections for Sheriff are frequently contentious because: • Opposing candidates are generally long time employees of the Department. • The Sheriff’ Department has a greater number of employees. • Departmental employees are highly visible in uniform. • The type of work, such as responding to emergencies, is stressful. • Persons attracted to law enforcement are usually assertive, tough minded and confrontational. 13 • The culture and traditions of law enforcement encourage such contentiousness.

The Sheriff’s Team of Active Retirees (STAR) are uniformed volunteers who assist the Sheriff’s Department with a variety of functions. There are more than 200 STAR volunteers. They are viewed by the public as being departmental employees.

through F2.4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations

The 2002 election is over. The unsuccessful candidate has already announced that he will be a candidate in 2006. That announcement may result in continued contentiousness for the next four years.

Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and a variety of religious programs are provided by volunteers from the community.

Using County budget documents it is not possible to determine the status of capital projects or whether the projects are over or under budget. Capital project status reporting in the budget would be improved by including comparisons of originally proposed and actual costs and project timing. Funding and priority setting for El Dorado County's facility and transportation capital projects takes place without benefit of a multi-year capital improvement or facility master plan. As a result, department managers can set project priorities without formalized direction from the Board of Supervisors and the public. These priorities may or may not reflect the highest and best use of limited resources in the opinion of Board members and the public but a method doesn't exist to reach consensus, formalize and update those priorities. Both the General Services and Transportation departments have relatively new directors who have developed project tracking systems that allow for better project status reporting. The Department of Transportation has a five year capital project plan prepared in 1995 but it has never been updated. Staff is currently preparing a new document for review by the Board of Supervisors. With adoption of this plan and a similar one that County management reports is in the planning stages for County facility projects, project priorities will be clearer, the budget process simplified and department accountability for completing projects on time and on schedule improved. There are two primary types of multi-year capital projects in El Dorado County. First are construction and rehabilitation of County facilities such as parks and public buildings that are the responsibility of the General Services Department. Second are road, bridge and transportation system projects that are the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. These projects often span multiple years so their presentation in the budget document is different than presentation of annual operating revenues and expenditures for most departments. County Facility Projects The budget for the General Services Department includes a list of County facility projects categorized as either carryover or new. This list is first presented in the proposed budget submitted to the Board of Supervisors in June and then updated for the budget addenda report in September. Differences between the two lists for FY 2001-02 are shown in Exhibit 2.1. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Exhibit 2.1 Difference in General Services Department Capital Projects between the Proposed and Addenda Budget Documents FY 2001-02 Proposed Budget Budget Addenda Change # Carryover Projects Carryover Funding # New Projects New Funding 45 72 $2,077,786 $2,827,090 22 43 $1,181,900 $2,358,761 27 $749,304 21 $1,176,861 # Projects Total Funding Total 67 115 48 $3,259,686 $5,185,851 $1,926,165 Source: FY 2001-02 Proposed Budget & Workplan and Budget Addenda Report Section 2: Capital Projects As can be seen, there is a significant change in the number of projects and funding levels between the two documents. This reflects the timing of the two budget documents. The proposed budget presented to the Board in June has to be submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer by the departments by the end of March/early April. The September budget addenda information is prepared five to six months later. By then, more construction activity has taken place during the prime construction season and the department has more information regarding which projects will be carried over to the next year. In addition, the original budget submission does not include carryover parks projects at all which added 19 more carryover projects and $371,456 in costs to the carryover projects in the budget addenda. With a 59 percent change in funding between the June and September lists, the Board's approval of projects in June is somewhat meaningless. Besides changes between the two lists, it is not possible to tell from either the status of the carryover projects in terms of time or costs. The lists simply present all projects with no indication of whether they are 10 percent or 90 percent done, when project completion is expected, or whether they are under or over budget. The lists are not prioritized so it is not possible to tell the order in which projects will be worked on and completed. While there are many projects in progress and compilation of information on these projects can be complex, a simple report showing the original budget and schedule compared to actual costs and schedule could be readily compiled from Department records with a column for briefly explaining significant variances in time or cost. The Department already maintains a project tracking list for use internally by management. This document could be modified for reporting to the Board and for inclusion in the budget documents. In addition to better reporting of the status of projects, the General Services Department needs a multi-year master plan, approved by the Board of Supervisors, that establishes project priorities and includes estimated funding and timing for each project over a multi-year period such as five years. With agreed upon project priorities, Department management would have clear direction about how to allocate their resources. Project priorities and available funding would also be Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Capital Projects better aligned with such a plan as it would allow for determination of what should be done given limited resources and what cannot be done. New projects could still be added and planned projects deleted after the plan is adopted if priorities change or funding becomes unavailable. The difference would be that the process would be formalized so the Board would have to make a conscious choice to delete a project rather than a project remaining on the list but never getting done. The interim Chief Administrative Officer reports that plans are underway at the time of preparation of this report to commence preparation of such a plan, including financing plans, for County facilities. Department of Transportation Capital Projects and Maintenance Work Transportation capital projects are presented in a different format in the budget than General Services projects. In the FY 2001-02 budget addenda document, the Department presents a list of approximately $24 million worth of capital improvement projects. For each project, a breakdown of project costs (labor, overhead, fixed assets, etc.) and the project's revenue source(s) are presented. The budget addenda document submitted to the Board of Supervisors in September lists 25 capital projects but does not show the timing or funding status of any of the projects or sequencing or priorities for the coming year (see Attachment 2). As with the General Services Department budget, information is not presented comparing planned and actual costs and timing of the Department's capital improvement projects. Nor are projects prioritized in accordance with a multi-year plan approved and updated by the Board of Supervisors. A five year roads capital improvement project plan was prepared in 1996 but it has not been updated since according to Department of Transportation management. The Department's planned road maintenance projects are also shown with the same cost breakdown as presented for capital projects and with revenue source(s) identified (see Attachment 3). Though these projects tend to be single year in scope compared to capital improvement projects, the work to be done such as patching and overlay, chip seal and traffic signal maintenance, is not prioritized by long term County goals such as achieving an average road condition on the County network by a certain date in the future. If specific priorities such as these were established in a multi-year plan, the Department would have a stronger basis to justify the allocation of its maintenance dollars. Like most counties in California, El Dorado County faces extensive deferred maintenance costs in excess of available resources for road and bridge work. Officially adopted agreed upon priorities are all the more important when need exceeds resources available. The Department of Transportation has prioritized its capital improvement projects by three tiers of priority and is in the process of preparing a new multi-year capital improvement plan. The Department is intending to use this document as a budgetary document as well as a work program so that project priorities and resources available will be linked. Department management's goal is to update the plan annually in advance of the April submittal to the Chief Administrative Officer and Board of Supervisors. 1 2 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Midyear planning workshops with the Board of Supervisors Section 2: Capital Projects To develop the annual plans and budgets for the two departments' capital improvement plans, a process is needed in advance and in lieu of the budget hearing process in September. By September, or budget adoption time, it is too late to add capital projects which often require a fair amount of advance work to obtain funding or to plan in relation to resources available. With five year plans in place for both departments, workshops should be held with the Board of Supervisors in January or at a more convenient time but well in advance of budget submission and adoption. The purpose of the workshops should be to revise and update the plans in accordance with any changes in circumstances, funding or Board priorities. From that point on, the plan for the next year should be established and budget submission and adoption should reflect the agreements reached at those workshops. This would make for a more clear and streamlined budget process for capital improvement projects as most of the projects and funding levels would have been previously agreed to or modified well in advance of the Board of Supervisors review and approval of the proposed budget. The Department of Transportation does prepare a monthly report on its capital projects but this report does not include a comparison of planned and actual project timing and costs. While this does not need to be provided to the Board and public on a monthly basis, it would be useful to present it at budget time and once more during the year such as at the annual planning workshop discussed above. Similarly, the General Services Department should prepare such a report for Board review twice a year, once at its planning workshop and again at budget addenda submission time. The list of projects included in the proposed budget in June should match that resulting from the January planning workshop and then be updated for the addenda process in September based on actual projects completed during the prime construction period and identification of carryover projects.

The booking area appeared cluttered.

The loading dock was not clean.

The Department's protocols for social workers to determine if an immediate investigation of a report of child abuse or neglect is needed are inadequate and allow for too much judgement by intake social workers. Though limited, the protocols provide at least some assurance of social worker consistency in determining appropriate responses to referrals. But in a sample of 58 case files reviewed for this audit, documentation of the required decision-making protocols was not found in approximately 50 percent of the cases. The Department does not have a formal risk assessment tool to assist investigation social workers in determining whether a child should be removed from home. The current tool and documentation used by Department social workers, called the Investigative Narrative, does not include a standardized scoring system or other methods to ensure consistent interpretation of similar situations. As with the intake protocols, the Investigative Narrative does not appear to even be used in all cases. In 8 out of 27 case files reviewed, or 29.6 percent, the Investigative Narrative documents were not completed. In another 11 cases, or 40.7 percent, the document was filled out incorrectly. The After Hours Intake function violates Department policies and procedures by not gathering background information from the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System on children who are the subject of telephone reports of alleged abuse and neglect. As a result of these problems, Department management does not have documented assurance that decisions made by social workers in the intake and investigative processes are consistent and properly supported. This problem is reinforced for the After Hours Intake function by the limited availability of supervisors for consultation. Structured Decision-Making is a system used by some counties to minimize individual variation in determining the level of response to initial reports of child abuse and neglect and in determining whether or not a child should be removed from their homes. By implementing at least some components of this system in El Dorado County, the Department will have greater assurance of consistency in its treatment of abuse and neglect allegations. In addition, the Department should require supervisors to be available on call by telephone to social workers assigned to After Hours for consultation and direction as needed. State law mandates that all counties provide initial intake and evaluation of risk services to all children reported to the County as being endangered by abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Every county is to maintain and operate a 24-hour response system and provide immediate in-person 10 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation responses by a county social worker in emergency situations in accordance with regulations of the department.' In response to this requirement, the El Dorado County Department of Social Services has developed its Child Protective Services Protocol, Criteria and Process for Accepting CPS Cases for Assessment, and Emergency Response Protocol included in the Department's policies and procedures manual. This protocol includes a form called the Emergency Response Protocol (Form EL 212) that is to be filled out by social workers for all initial calls alleging child abuse or neglect. When an initial call reporting suspected child abuse or neglect is received by the Department, the intake social worker has three response choices: • Conduct an investigation immediately; • Conduct an investigation within 10 days; or • Do not conduct an investigation or "Evaluate Out" the case. Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools The Department uses a 3 day response to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect. However, a 3 day response time is not formal policy in the Department. To assist intake social workers in determining which of these responses is the most appropriate, the Department's emergency response protocols include a series of response guidelines to guide the initial intake social worker's decision. The form includes the following questions to assist social workers in determining what the initial departmental response should be. 1. Is there sufficient information to locate the family? 2. Is this an open service case with DSS and is the current intervention adequately addressing the problem described in this allegation? 3. Does the allegation meet one or more of the legal definitions of abuse? 4. Is the perpetrator a caretaker of the child or is there reason to believe that the caretaker was negligent in allowing or unable or unwilling to prevent the perpetrator having access to the child? 5. Are specific acts and/or behavioral indicators of abuse, neglect, or exploitation included in the allegations? 6. Does additional information obtained from collateral contacts or record material invalidate the report? ' California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 16054 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools 7. Does this report represent one in a series of previously investigated, unsubstantiated, or unfounded reports from the same party in which no new allegations or risk factors are revealed? The answers to these questions are intended to guide CPS social workers in determining which referrals justify an in-person investigation. If an in-person investigation is not necessary, Department policies and procedures state the intake social worker should provide a more detailed rationale regarding their decision why an in-person investigation should not be conducted. This Emergency Response Protocol form is included in the Department's CWS/CMS computer system so that social workers receiving an initial call reporting child abuse or neglect can start a case file and enter all information required into the computer system as the call is received. According to Department procedures, this electronic form is supposed to be transferred to the emergency response supervisor for approval for all cases that are evaluated out. While the questions asked in the Emergency Response Protocol form seem appropriate for conducting an initial investigation, the problem with the protocol is that it is fairly open-ended and allows for significant individual interpretation of facts and circumstances. It relies primarily on interpretation of the facts and situation by the social worker. Social workers are trained to assess such situations and professional judgement is always required in children's welfare cases. However, trained social workers are still subject to personal biases and preferences and two social workers can interpret the same situation very differently. While the nature of the work is such that some judgement will always be required, Department management should make every attempt to minimize personal biases and variations in staff decision-making. The room for individual interpretation becomes more pronounced in cases where the situation is not obviously dire but may be on the border between a 10 day investigation or "evaluating out" the case. For such cases, the Department's policy is as follows: "Criteria are to be liberally interpreted, which means where circumstances are marginal, we should open a case for investigation. It is preferable to err in favor of ensuring the child(ren)'s safety and the appropriate response time should be considered." Thus, the explicit goal of the procedure, for safety purposes, is to conduct more investigations than potentially necessary. Emergency response protocols used by some counties provide more structured guides that link certain responses with certain outcomes. For example, a history of two or more previous referrals may lead to a guideline to conduct an immediate investigation unless the intake social worker can provide information that proves this would not be necessary. The tools available to assist social workers in making decisions of whether to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect or the evaluation of risk vary across the state. A study by the University of California at Berkeley found: 12 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools "Departments of Social Services are increasingly being challenged to determine which cases are reported to them are at the highest risk and most in need of services. One response to this challenge involves the development of screening procedures that distinguish levels of risk and need among cases that come to the attention of Child Welfare Services ... The employment of effective screening procedures ...can help not only to reduce disruptive legal intervention into families in situations when it is unwarranted, but also to insure procedural fairness - one-element of which involves consistency in the treatment received by similar cases. The systematic use of screening guidelines would help to promote consistency among decisions made by individual workers and among counties; it would also aid new workers in the field and offer workers and the state some degree of protection in an era of increased litigation. ,2 Some counties have chosen more structured guidelines such as the Structure Decision-Making (SDM) model, developed by the Children's Research Center of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, a non-profit organization. One of the components of SDM, the Response Priority Assessment, is a series of decision trees that guides the intake social worker on what the response should be for the various types of allegations ranging from physical abuse to general neglect. A system such as this would provide for a more consistent approach to determining the appropriate responses to initial reports of abuse and neglect in El Dorado County and would provide better documentation justifying the decision reached by the intake social worker. Emergency Response Protocol not being used in many cases To determine the Department's compliance with its Emergency Response protocol, 58 randomly selected cases were examined in CWS/CMS to verify that proper documentation existed in each case. Even though this protocol has limitations, it does provide some documentation of the decisions made and is required for every case by Department policy. Cases were selected largely from 2001 and included referrals which resulted in immediate investigations, investigations within 10 days, and cases that were evaluated out. It should be noted that the sample was randomly selected but was not designed to be statistically significant. A more authoritative examination would require significantly more time than was authorized for this project. As shown in Exhibit 2.1, out of the sample of 58 cases, Emergency Response protocol forms were only fully completed 50 percent of the time. Thus, although the policy manual clearly states that the form should be used as a guide to making initial intake decisions, half the time the information needed to do so was missing. Gilbert, Neil, Karski, Ruth, and Frame, Laura. The Emergency Response System: Screening and Assessment of Child Abuse Reports . School of Social Work, University of California Berkeley, 1997, pp.l-2. Harvey M. RoseAccountancy Corporation Source: CWS/CMS Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools Exhibit 2.1 Number of Completed Emergency Response Protocol Forms in Case Files As stated above, Department policies and procedures call for the Emergency Response Protocol form to be reviewed on CWS/CMS and approved by the Emergency Response supervisor for all cases which are evaluated out. The Emergency Response unit does an excellent job of reviewing the referrals that are evaluated out. Based on our review, supervisor approval was documented in every case where the decision was to evaluate out. As shown above, the response protocol forms are not complete 50 percent of the time. However, examination of the 25 cases where the decision was to evaluate out show that only two of those 25 referrals, or 8 percent, had incomplete Emergency Response protocol forms and were approved by the supervisor. Thus, in instances where supervisor approval is not required, social workers are more likely to not properly complete the Emergency Response protocol in CWS/CMS. In 47 of the 58 cases reviewed, the response proposed by the intake social worker was approved by the supervisor, even when a completed Emergency Response Protocol form was not entered in to CWS/CMS. Thus, our review suggests that the required Emergency Response Protocol form is not used to guide all intake decisions, in contradiction of Department policies and procedures. Additionally, it appears that this form is viewed by some social workers as a form that has to be filled out as an after thought and not as integral part of the decision-making process. . Management controls are needed to ensure that all workers are making appropriate decisions and documenting them consistent with Department policies. A regular process of reporting social worker compliance with department policies is needed as is periodic review of randomly selected case files by Department management to ensure that decisions are appropriate, properly justified and documented and in compliance with Department policies and procedures. Supervisors are reviewing a majority but not all decisions by the intake social worker. Based on the analysis above, we recommend the Department implement the Response Priority Assessment component of the Structured Decision-Making system. This assessment should be completed on every referral placed with CPS. Use of this tool would ensure greater consistency in social worker decisions about which cases to investigate and when. The Response Priority Assessment component of the Structured Decision-Making system provides social workers with a series of decision trees on which to base the initial response decision. This system will ensure that social workers systematically apply similar criteria to every case and provide consistency across social workers at the two DSS offices in El Dorado County. The 14 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Number of Forms Percent Complete Incomplete 29 50% 29 50% Total 58 100% SDM system provides a process to support, guide, and fully document assessments. One significant advantage of this system is that it brings accountability to decision-making and, based on the decision tree system, decisions require an explanation. Moreover, because the decisions are based on the decision tree system to guide the worker, consistency should increase. The Emergency Response Guidelines lacks guidance to guarantee consistency. Lack of a Formal Safety and Risk Assessment If the result of the intake worker's assessment is that an investigation should be conducted, the case is transferred to an investigative social worker. Under Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 309 and 16504, social workers must determine whether the children that are the subject of the allegations are in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse, and whether the children should be removed or can remain safely in their homes. The social worker also determines whether there are any services that can be provided that would allow the children to. safely remain in their homes. To document the basis for this decision, investigation social workers are required to complete an Investigative Narrative, a one-page form with ten fields, to document any risk factors contributing to the social worker's decision whether or not the child should be taken into protective custody. Currently, the Department does not have precise procedures requiring the use of the Investigative Narrative. CPS management reports that the Investigative Narrative serves as the Department's risk assessment tool. While the State of California requires only a written narrative, the Department has added ten fields to further explain the investigation. The ten fields in the Investigative Narrative that should be complete are: • Child's age, vulnerability, physical and/or mental abilities (includes perpetrator's access to child) Child's behavior Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools Brief Narrative of the Investigation (includes details of who, what, when and where) • Caretaker's Parenting skills/Knowledge (includes capacity for childcare; interaction with children, other caretakers; skill, knowledge; criminal behavior, mental health) • Strength / Weaknesses of Family support system (includes relationships, presence of parent substitute) • Caretaker's Substance / Alcohol Misuse • Environmental Condition of Home • Any services offered and result (includes directives/referrals given and family's response) 1 5 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Need for Emergency Services, if any Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools One problem with the Investigative Narrative risk assessment tool used by the Department to document investigations is that it does not offer a structured approach to guide the investigation social worker's assessment of risk into a decision. Instead, the form is primarily used by the Department's social workers to provide a description of their investigations. As such the documentation of why a child should be taken into protective custody is not as thorough or objective as it would be if a standardized risk assessment were in place. Without a formal safety and risk assessment the criteria social workers use to make removal decisions can vary significantly. Based on a questionnaire provided to social workers in CPS as part of this audit, 58 percent of social worker respondents disagreed with the statement that all social workers use the same criteria in deciding to remove children from their homes. Compounding the inadequacy of the Investigative Narrative as a risk assessment tool is that social workers are not properly using it. As shown in Exhibit 2.3, in 19 of the 27 cases reviewed where an in-person investigation took place, or 70.4 percent of all cases, the form is not properly completed. The definition of not properly completed is that the Investigative Narrative only contains a paragraph or two providing a description of the investigation rather than completion of all ten fields of information required on the form. Often, the paragraph narrative was only a few sentences in the cases reviewed. The Investigative Narrative was missing entirely in eight of the referrals examined. In these cases, it is impossible to retrace the steps of the social worker to determine the basis for the decision. For the eight cases where the Investigative Narrative was incomplete, a list of individuals contacted for the investigation by the social worker was provided in CWS/CMS, but this failed to provide beneficial information to determine how the social worker reached a decision. Exhibit 2.3 Use of Investigative Narrative by CPS Social Workers As shown in Exhibit 2.3, 11 of the 27 Investigative Narratives in CWS/CMS were improperly completed, by not having each of the ten fields documented. The quality of the narratives ranged from one sentence to a very detailed account of the investigation to one that simply referred to a list in CWS/CMS of individuals contacted for the investigation. As with cases that are evaluated 3 The sample number is 27 here because this is the next step in the child removal process. If the intake social worker determines that the referral does not meet the criteria of an in-person investigation that case is "evaluated out" and no further action is required by the Department of Social Services. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Number of Narratives Percent Each field complete 8 29.6% Fields Incomplete 11 40.7% Narrative not found 8 29.6% Total 273 100% Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools out after initial intake, prior to the Investigative Narrative being completed by the investigative social worker, the Emergency Response Supervisor must review and approve the document. Of the cases reviewed, only eleven of the Investigative Narratives, or 40.7 percent, were not properly filled out yet they were apparently approved by the supervisors anyway. However descriptive the narrative form may be, it is still an inadequate assessment of the safety and risk of the child. According to Department management, the Investigative Narrative is designed more to close an investigation, especially in cases where no petition will be filed, and is geared to move the case along. This creates the impression from management to line staff that the Investigative Narrative is a form required to be completed more as an after thought to move the case along, rather than a tool which assists social workers and is an integral part of the decision-making process. In one case reviewed, the Investigative Narrative included only a brief one paragraph review of the investigation. The decision was to open the case and offer Family Maintenance services. However, three days later the case was closed, and the case file indicates that the case was opened in error. While mistakes can occur in any system, the lack of precision in the Investigative Narrative means that mistakes like this will be more likely to occur. Use of a risk assessment tool with a structured assessment mechanism would significantly reduce the potential for opening a case in error or failing to open a case when the child should be removed from the home. Need for a more structured and consistent approach to case decisions Based on the case file review conducted for this audit, it is clear that formalized Safety and Risk assessments tools would assist the investigative social workers in their decision-making and ensure greater consistency in case decision-making. The Department should implement the Structured Decision-Making (SDM) Safety and Risk assessment components as a complement to CWS/CMS as a means to increase consistency of investigations. This system, or components of it, are currently in use in at least 15 other California counties. The Safety Assessment component of SDM is designed to be used by investigative social workers during the initial in-person investigation of abuse and neglect referrals to determine when a child should be taken into protective custody. The Safety Assessment form contains a simple checklist and a narrative to formalize the decision-making process in CPS. These assessments will ensure that CPS staff assesses all cases based on a standardized set of criteria. In some counties, full integration of the Structured Decision-Making tools and the CWS/CMS system are not fully realized. Until full integration, many counties have implemented a paper version of assessment tools to complement CWS/CMS. Santa Clara County uses a paper version of the Structured Decision-Making system. The risk assessment tool in Los Angeles County is a paper version to complement CWS/CMS. In both Counties, social workers manually complete the forms and keep the document in the hard case file. The Department of Social Services could implement a paper version of the Structured Decision Making tool and manually track the results of these assessment tools and maintain records in the hard case file, similar to Santa Clara County. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Inconsistency in After Hours Intake The After Hours process is as follows: Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools Section 16504 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) states the County must provide a 24- Hour intake hotline, where referrals can be made. CPS maintains After Hours hotlines and staff at both the Placerville and South Lake Tahoe offices. Currently the Department does not have dedicated staff to operate the After Hours intake at either office. Staffing for After Hours is made up of workers who either volunteer or are assigned on a non-voluntary rotating basis. According to the Memorandum of Understanding with the union, social workers who work After Hours are guaranteed a minimum of two hours pay, plus an additional $1.20 per hour on-call. Additionally, the Memorandum of Understanding states "On-Call duty" means that an employee is assigned to work outside their normal work week and must remain available to be contacted by telephone and be ready for immediate call-back. Thus, the social worker is not in the office, but is accessible by telephone and ready to respond should a situation arise. • The Department has a contract answering service that receives calls to the After Hours unit. At the beginning of the month CPS will send the answering services a monthly schedule of the social workers scheduled to work the After Hours shifts; and • When a referral is received by the answering service, the service will put the caller on hold and will either page or call the on-call After Hours social worker. At that point the social worker is connected to the reporter to begin the initial intake process. The After Hours intake process varies significantly from the intake process during normal business hours when CPS is fully staffed. For instance, in Placerville during normal business hours, the intake social worker will make the determination whether an in-person investigation is required, but they will not generally conduct the investigation. However, the After Hours intake social worker will not only make the decision whether to conduct an in-person investigation, but will actually perform the in-person investigation if an immediate response is required. Thus, when a social worker is conducting an immediate in-person investigation, the After Hours intake center does not have a social worker available to handle a second referral. According to the Emergency Response supervisor, those instances are rare, but they do happen. When these instances do occur, the answering service will take a message and the social worker will then call the reporter to begin the intake process on the second referral. According to the Department policies and procedures manual, when a child is removed from the home and placed in protective custody by After Hours staff, the written documentation of the incident should go to the Emergency Response Supervisor by 8:00 a.m. the next workday. The potential problem with this is that, without a supervisor checking the social worker's decision, a child could potentially be placed in protective custody or left in the home for as long as several days erroneously. 1 8 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools Additionally, unlike daytime hours, After Hours intake social workers have no direct supervision. During normal business hours, the intake social workers are positioned near the ER supervisor and can have consultation with their supervisor and fellow employees. However, social workers on After Hours duty work alone and do not have consultation with their supervisor. The social workers can call the supervisor if needed for informal consultation, but there is no guarantee that the supervisor will be available. When the supervisor is on vacation or unable to answer the phone the social worker is left to make these decisions on their own. Furthermore, during After Hours duty, social workers have no immediate access to CWS/CMS since the call is received at home. Although social workers have access to the Department building and CWS/CMS during After Hours, there is a delay to obtaining all relevant information regarding the case. This poses potential significant problems and violation of the Department's policy regarding factors to consider in determining if an in-person response is needed: "The decision whether. or not to make an in-person response for all other referrals shall be based on an assessment which shall include collateral contacts, a review of previous referrals and other relevant information to the extent such information or measures are necessary to conduct an assessment." Furthermore, the Department's "Child Protective Services Protocol" states that in-person investigation decisions by the intake social worker shall include a review of the child's "history and disposition of prior referrals." However, since the After Hours social worker does not have immediate access to previous referrals on CWS/CMS, the decision is made on only a partial picture. Additionally, the use of the Emergency Response Guidelines form in CWS/CMS is impossible for social workers to consistently answer correctly, since they do not have access to the past history of the child. Without access to CWS/CMS or paper files at the office, social workers cannot answer two of the eight questions that require further analysis. These questions are as follows: • Is this an open service case with DSS and is the current intervention adequately addressing the problem described in this allegation? • Does this report represent one in a series of previously investigated, unsubstantiated, or unfounded reports from the same party in which no new allegations or risk factors are revealed? Thus, when an After Hours social worker is making the decision to initiate an in-person investigation or not, the decision is made lacking historical information and without the ability to answer two of the key questions included in the Response Guidelines. In the sample of cases reviewed for this audit, instances were found where After Hours social workers received calls in which access to CWS/CMS might have changed the decision regarding if and how soon an in-person investigation should be conducted. We found instances where an After Hours referral had 10 previous referrals throughout the State of California. Based on the 4 Child Protective Services Policy Manual. El Dorado County Department of Social Services. 1992. pg. 9. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation To address the lack of historical and other information available to intake social workers for After Hours cases, CPS should implement a new category of a three-day response to give social workers more flexibility in making the in-person investigation decision. Unless it is obvious that an immediate investigation is needed, After Hours cases could be placed in this category rather than being evaluated out, pending access to CWS/CMS the next business day. This increased flexibility will come at no additional cost to the County. Additionally, CPS supervisors should be required to be on-call After Hours to provide consultation as needed to social workers. Taking these steps will ensure that After Hours decisions are consistent with the approach used during normal business days. Conclusion Section 2: Lack of Standardized Assessment Tools current system these referrals would not have been known immediately by the intake social worker. Additionally, we found several After Hours cases where children had three referrals each. In particular, the child had three referrals and the response guideline protocol was incomplete. Information such as this could be critical to the decision made by the intake social worker. During normal business hours, the worker would have immediate full access to this information on CWS/CMS. The initial screening and investigation risk assessment tools required by the Department for social workers to use are not sufficiently structured to ensure consistency of decision-making by different workers and at both Department offices. Nor do the tools provide adequate documentation justifying decisions reached. Unfortunately, they are not used at all in some cases and are only partially completed in others. Even with their limitations, these required forms provide some documentation justifying the decisions reached by the social workers. Cases are being approved by supervisors without these required forms completed in apparent contradiction of Department policy. The Department of Social Services needs more management oversight of worker compliance with required procedures and spot checking of case files to ensure that case decisions are adequately documented and supported. To further improve the level of documentation and justification of decisions reached, the Department should implement use of Structured Decision- Making tools to determine what referrals receive further investigation, how soon a response is needed, and to help social workers conducting investigations to determine if there is further risk posed to the child and whether to remove the child or not. In only 50 percent of the cases reviewed were the current initial intake response forms complete. In a review of a sample of Investigative Narratives, over 70 percent were either incomplete or missing. Since social workers are not accurately completing the Department's existing screening and investigation tools, consistency of intake responses and the decisions by investigators within the Department cannot be tracked. There are substantial problems with the process, ranging from lack of CWS/CMS immediate access to check previous referrals to a lack of consultation from supervisors. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

Overall, the management of the Jail appeared to be considerably above average.

Understanding ROP JPA policies, agreements, financial reports, and complex financing issues involving asset transfers, program delivery costs, and enrollment caps are difficult at best. Making decisions based on independent research and investigation is impossible without extensive study and personal experience. Few ROP JPA board members are willing or equipped to do this. There is no JPA staff separate from EDCOE and school district administrative personnel.

It is extremely difficult for the ROP JPA Board to make independent decisions on ROP governance issues because of the lack of frequent interaction among the board members and because of the structure of the ROP JPA. Attendance at board meetings is inconsistent. Seven ROP JPA Board meetings were held between September 13, 2000, and March 7, 2002. The same three appointed board members were present at only two of the seven meetings. An alternate board member for one participating school district was present at another meeting. Only two board members, the bare minimum necessary to establish a quorum, were present at four of the seven meetings.

One of the objectives of the ROP JPA Board and administration is to preserve the base enrollment and maintain the revenues for the ROP program, currently in excess of $1.8M, in order to supplement other revenues for general education purposes. The additional ROP allowance is $3,100 per student over and above the standard average daily attendance (ADA) per pupil allowance. This $3,100 allowance is a significant inducement to maintain and increase ROP enrollment, even though ROP enrollment is capped or limited by the amount of student eligibility established by funding formulas when the Central Sierra ROP was established.

The EDUHSD is serving more adults in ROP classes than in previous years by coordinating with the CalWORKs program to provide vocational training classes for welfare recipients. BOMUSD and LTUSD are just beginning to serve adults in ROP classes. 39

Enrollments in ROP classes generate more revenue for school districts than enrollments in Adult Education classes. Adult Education classes are also capped, but unlike ROP classes, they receive substantially less than $3,100 per ADA. Accordingly, school district administrators and the ROP JPA Board have a dilemma. They can choose to provide instruction to enhance personal skills or hobbies, such as “Computer Applications for Adults Age 55 and Over,” in Adult Education classes where it properly belongs, or they can attempt to generate greater revenue by designating the same course as an ROP class. The latter choice results in students taking ROP classes when they have no job-related purposes. This creates a credibility problem for ROP, which is regarded as a serious vocational training effort by some and a "cash cow" for school districts and a waste of taxpayer-generated state funding by others.

through F3.3 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations

In-service training for school district teachers and support personnel also can be conducted under the auspices of ROP. This opportunity creates a potential conflict between the desire of school boards to generate revenue through ROP and their responsibility to protect the interests of taxpayers by spending tax-generated dollars only for bona fide vocational students.

Although no official reorganization plan had been adopted to transfer radio and telephone operations out of DGS, Communications was informed in midyear that the Information Services Department would assist it in budget preparation for FY 2002- 2003. Likewise, Radio was informed in midyear that the Sheriff's Department would assist it in budget preparation for FY 2002-2003. This unofficial midyear plan has created a problem for the employees in these units because the lines of authority are no longer clearly defined. There is uncertainty about how these units will operate in different departments in the coming fiscal year.

The Board of Supervisors receives very comprehensive, well organized reports on the status of the budget at mid-year but no further formal reports until they receive the proposed budget for the next fiscal year in June. As stewards of the County's financial resources, more regularly produced status reports and updates should be provided with less detail than the mid-year reports but with enough information to allow the Board to monitor performance and receive early warnings of potential fiscal problems. The County's financial information system allows for production of a wide variety of ad-hoc reports and analysis of expenditures and revenues accessible to all department managers. A monthly report to the Board showing actual expenditures and revenues by department, with a projection of the County's financial position at year end, could easily be produced and would facilitate more Board and public involvement in monitoring the County's fiscal status. It would eliminate surprise developments such as the increase from $12.5 to $21.5 million in fund balance available reported between the proposed and budget addenda for FY 2001-02. Information of this sort would also provide a basis for other questions and analyses of situations when revenues or expenditures are not at the level originally projected. The analysis of the proposed budget each year consumes many months of staff time but largely focuses on incremental appropriations requested by the departments or recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer but not the baseline budget. Oftentimes, savings can be realized in the baseline budget by improving the efficiency of operations, reorganizing or consolidating programs or increasing revenues. One of the most effective means of identifying opportunities for savings in the baseline budget is through departme ntal performance audits. The major points of public presentation and discussion about the County's budget are: 1) the mid-year budget report to the Board of Supervisors; 2) presentation of the proposed annual budget in June; 3) presentation of the addenda budget in August; and, 4) budget hearings in September. At all four points, a great deal of useful information is provided to the Board covering all departments, revenue sources and operational issues. The information is prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer and, in the past, discussion about the contents were largely between the Board and the Chief Administrative Officer and the Auditor-Controller. For the FY 2001-02 budget, the process was expanded when the Board of Supervisors requested that each department make a presentation about their budget and operations. The mid-year budget report provided in February 2002 contained discussion of projected fund balance, expenditures and revenues by department, a discussion of expected increases in health benefits costs, detailed revenue projections (summarizing projections prepared by the Auditor- Controller), capital project highlights, a discussion of the State budget, a regional economic forecast, salary projections for FY 2002-03, and departmental savings. It provides a good deal of information of interest to the Board of Supervisors, department managers and the public. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Timing of County Budget Review and Approval Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis The proposed budget document for the subsequent fiscal year is provided in June of each year and includes detailed revenue projections and proposed expenditures for each department. Information for each department is also presented including staffing detail, descriptions of all major programs operated by the department, workload indicators, actual revenues and expenditures for the previous two fiscal years and proposed revenues and expenditures by major programs or costs centers for all departments. An overview of the County's financial situation is presented including detailed revenue estimates for the budget year, changes in State and other funding sources, and roll ups of expenditure data by fund and functional areas. The third and final budget report prepared by the Chief Administrative Officer is provided in August. This report provides final revenue and expenditure estimates for the year after the State budget has been adopted and actual fund balances are known based on better and more complete prior year actual data. While all three reports provided to the Board of Supervisors include a substantial amount of useful information, there are no routinely produced reports between these three to keep the Board abreast of the overall fiscal situation of the County and to have early warnings of potential problems. Budget related items do come up at Board meetings if an individual department is requesting mid-year supplemental funding or if the supervisors request information on a particular department or a budget related topic. However, fiscal information is not otherwise routinely reported in a standardized report to the Board to allow for comparisons and trend analyses throughout the year. Department budget staff spend many months of the year going through their internal budget review and preparation processes and then explaining and defending their proposals to the Chief Administrative Office before they are submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Then, for many departments, there are additional analyses and expenditure plans to be prepared between June and September as actual fund balance amounts become known, the State budget is adopted and other adjustments are made. The net result is a lengthy process consuming more than half the year and a budget mostly prepared six months earlier being reviewed by the Board of Supervisors in September. While the County is subject to State timing requirements governing the preparation and adoption of the budget, attempts should be made to complete more of the budget process in June so that fewer staff hours are consumed in duplicative efforts between June and September and so the budget reviewed and discussed by the Board of Supervisors is more current. A review of changes between the proposed and addenda budget for FY 2001-02 shows that budget appropriations increased by $23 million between June and September. Most of the change, or 77.3 percent, was in the General Fund and Roads Fund. Exhibit 3.1 presents the changes for all funds. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Source: Proposed and Addenda Budgets, FY 2002-03 The $9.5 million in Roads Fund monies was mostly from capital project carryovers and increases in estimated fund balance. For the General Fund, the increase was primarily generated from carryover fund balance, mostly due to a combination of capital project carryover, actual expenditures being less than budgeted, and actual revenues being more than budgeted the previous year. The fourth largest contributor to the increase, Accumulated Capital Outlay, was also the result of an increase in fund balance available compared to what was estimated in the proposed budget due to more projects being carried over from the previous year than anticipated in June. Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis By producing more detailed projections of revenues and expenditures throughout the year, particularly in the second half, and projecting year-end fund balance monthly, the County's estimates of carryover fund balance in June should become more accurate and closer to the amounts now not identified until September. With better tracking and reporting of capital project expenditures and timing, as recommended in Section 2 of this report, and monthly projections of year-end fund balance for the Roads and Accumulated Capital Outlay funds, the discrepancy between the June and September budget for capital project carryover funds should also be decreased. The net result of more accurate forecasting would be fewer changes between June and September and less work for all County staff in creating and analyzing a second budget document with numerous revisions for the September hearings. Though the State budget could be and probably will be changed to some extent between June and September, most of it should be known and in place by June based on the Governor's budget. County estimates of the budget in June should be reasonably accurate for most of the State funding received. The County should endeavor to reduce discrepancies between the two budgets 24 Harvey M. RoseAccountancy Corporation Exhibit 3.1 Changes between Proposed and Addenda Budget Fund By Fund, Proposed Budget FY 2001-02 Addenda Budget Difference Total Difference Roads Fund $31,856,908 $41,367,148 $9,510,240 41.2% General Fund 147,900,815 156,236,963 8,336,148 36.1% Health Department 17,128,851 19,719,350 2,590,499 11.2% Accumulated Capital Outlay 3,673,718 5,403,519 1,729,801 7.5% Mental Health Services 9,749,849 10,463,260 713,411 3.1% Tobacco Settlement 487,860 487,860 2.1% Road District 2,460,871 2,617,875 157,004 0.7% Community Services 7,986,053 8,026,027 39,974 0.2% Special Aviation 20,000 20,000 - 0.0% Fish & Game 5,000 5,000 - 0.0% EIR Development Fees 300,000 300,000 - 0.0% Erosion Control 4,918,455 4,413,840 (504,615) -2.2% TOTAL $226,000,520 $249,060,842 $23,060,322 100.0% Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis and complete most of the budget process in June, with only some minor changes to be approved in September. While production of the three budget reports that the Board now receives involves a substantial amount of work for the Chief Administrative Officer and department fiscal staffs, other regularly provided information between these three reports is needed. Current budget information is readily available on the County's Financial Management Information System (FAMIS) and could be produced without extensive staff work. Of key importance for a monthly report is: 1. Budgeted vs. actual expenditures and revenues by department and major revenue source 2. Explanations of major variances between budgeted and actual expenditures and revenues 3. Projected expenditures, revenues and fund balances, by fund, for year end 4. Key performance indicators This information would provide ongoing assessments of the County's fiscal situation and individual department performance and would serve as a supplement to the annual budget review and approval process by making the Board aware of issues affecting certain revenues or individual departments during the year. The Interim Chief Administrative Officer directed all department heads in April 2002 to undertake detailed re-computations of their estimated year- end Net County Costs to improve the forecast for FY 2002-03. Even though monthly reports at the early part of the year would generally not be too revealing with so little time passed since budget adoption, the Board should still receive these reports as they will serve as the foundation for subsequent reports during the year. As the year progresses, the Board may want to request other special reports with more detail on a certain department or revenue or an issue such as turnover or workers compensation claims if a particular department is experiencing a high rate of claims. The County needs to analyze its baseline programs and budgets Another type of information that would be useful to inform the annual budget process is evaluations or performance audits of individual departments and programs conducted throughout the year. This would provide the Board with more detail that could be used at budget time regarding all aspects of individual department operations and provide a stronger basis for decisions about baseline department funding levels. The budget review process assumes that a baseline level of funding will be provided for all departments. The discussion in the proposed budget regarding funding changes almost entirely deals with incremental funding levels, or additions to the base level of funding. As in most counties, the Chief Administrative Office's analysis of budget requests submitted by the departments is focused primarily on any increases to the baseline budget but generally does not question the existing level of funding. Comments in the proposed budget document focus on increases or changes in the budget and recommendations on what new positions or programs should be funded, if any. For the most part there is no discussion or recommendations to decrease funding of the baseline budget through improved efficiency and/or increased revenue. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 3: Budget Timing, Information and Analysis There is an implicit assumption in the budget review that existing allocation levels should not be changed. In fact in many instances changes could be made to department operations or business processes and costs reduced through efficiency improvements or revenues increased through improved collections or establishing fee levels that capture more of the costs actually being incurred. One way of identifying such changes is through detailed review of department operations through performance auditing. Performance auditing can briefly be described as a review of all aspects of a department's operations to determine if the department is operating in compliance with all applicable laws and as efficiently, effectively and economically as possible. Performance audits can be conducted by outside consultants or in-house staff. While regular conduct of performance audits might represent a new cost to the County, if new staff is hired or consultants are used,' over time audits should more than pay for themselves with cost savings and/or revenue increases for the departments reviewed. Another benefit would be improved service levels for the public by identifying improvements in business processes and methods of streamlining operations. El Dorado County engaged a consultant to conduct a performance audit of the Department of Transportation and is planning one soon for the Department of Social Services. Efforts such as these should be continued and expanded to include all other departments on a multi-year cycle. Performance audits should take place throughout the year but their recommendations could be used in the budget process by identifying areas where departments could operate more efficiently particularly in the base budget. For example, a recently conducted analysis of Sheriffs Department staffing conducted independent of their budget preparation process recommended adding more permanent positions to reduce overtime. An analysis of a department's management structure might reveal an opportunity to consolidate and reduce management positions based on an analysis of duties performed. An audit of user fees charged by the County might show that they are not fully recovering costs and should be adjusted accordingly. In some jurisdictions performance audits are conducted on an ongoing basis so that all departments are audited over a certain number of years. Other counties select audit topics annually based on an assessment of the risk or exposure of each department and the potential impact of realizing improvements in that department. Other jurisdictions conduct performance audits as the need arises. An ongoing performance audit program in El Dorado County would have multiple benefits including improved service levels, reduced costs of operations and making resources available for other purposes. The County should explore the possibility of conducting performance audits with existing audit staff through re- prioritization of their current duties. If this is possible, new costs would not be incurred. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

There are no apparent policies and guidelines in existence that deal with the preparation of budgets for Radio by the Sheriff's Department or for Telephones by the Information Services Department.

Fleet Services is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, disposing of, and interdepartmental billing for all county-owned vehicles.

There are presently over 550 county-owned and operated vehicles, approximately 100% more than existed five years ago. This has dramatically increased the workload of the entire staff in Fleet Services. The Board, in September 2001, approved a new position for a Fleet Services Technician in South Lake Tahoe.

Technicians provide specialized installation and maintenance of lights, consoles, radios, computers, etc., in vehicles. Routine maintenance continues to be performed countywide by outside vendors. 50

Fleet vehicles are fueled at a county-owned gas pump operated by DGS. Fuel can be pumped without providing accurate vehicle identification numbers and odometer readings, thereby distorting records for interdepartmental billings. As a result, certain departments are not billed for all mileage and vehicle use by employees of those departments. Consequently, budget preparations by those departments do not incorporate accurate cost projections.

Administrative responsibility for Fleet Services was transferred in September 2001 from the Supervisor of the Communications and Fleet Services Division of DGS to the Manager of the Airports, Parks and Grounds Division. The most current reorganization proposal is to transfer responsibility for Fleet Services from the Manager of Airports, Parks and Grounds, which is now a vacant position, to the Assistant Director of DGS, which is also a vacant position. Line authority has not been clearly defined for making and reporting decisions, and the continuing changes have had an adverse effect on employee morale.

The position of Fleet Services Supervisor has been vacant for more than six months. During this time the duties and responsibilities of Fleet Services Supervisor have been carried out by an employee who has not been given official supervisory authority or a pay differential.

Because of inadequate staffing and inconsistent management, interdepartmental billings for use of fleet vehicles fell months behind schedule. Requests for administrative assistance and for substantial fiscal and clerical help were ignored or denied. As a result, interdepartmental billings were not completed for certain departments in the 2000-2001 fiscal year, resulting in incomplete data for preparation of budgets for the 2001-2002 fiscal year. In an effort to address these problems, in September 2001 the Board approved a new position, Fiscal Technician, for Fleet Services.

through F4.4 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations

For years, Fleet Services was housed in an old leaky trailer with damp, moldy interior wall spaces. Even though this condition was reported, the Department allowed this unhealthy work environment to continue to exist and did nothing to remedy the situation. Finally, action was taken in August 2001 by the new Interim Director of DGS. The new Manager of Airports, Parks, and Grounds was assigned responsibility for Fleet Services, and the old leaky trailer was replaced with a new trailer.

The Fleet Services trailer location is isolated from other DGS offices. This has contributed to administrative problems, separation of employees from support systems, and inadequate oversight by management.

F4.4 The County budget includes two internal service funds; the risk management fund covers centralized County insurance costs and the fleet management fund covers the County's vehicle maintenance and replacement services. Internal service fund costs are not as predictable as operating departments because they rely on forecasts of future needs and variables such as the number of employees who will need health services or be injured on the job, the extent to which claims will be filed against the County and the number of vehicles that will need to be replaced. The budget for these two funds in FY 2001-02 is approximately $20.9 million and together the County maintains reserves for these two funds of another approximately $16 million. This level of expenditure and reserves represents a larger budget than most County departments. Key information on assumptions used for these funds is not fully disclosed in the proposed and addenda budget documents to assist the Board of Supervisors in determining the appropriate level of appropriations and reserves for these funds. The budget does not present actual expenditures for previous years or projections of expenditures for subsequent years. Without this information it is not easy to determine if appropriate funding and reserves are in place. If too much is budgeted and reserved, budget resources are tied up that could otherwise be used for other purposes. If too little is budgeted, the County may need to reduce expenditures elsewhere or use contingency funds to meet its insurance or fleet obligations. The Risk Management budget for FY 2001-02 includes reserves based on five year projections for the County's risk management fund. The basis for these projections should be provided to the Board of Supervisors, who should then adopt a County policy regarding appropriate reserve levels for each type of insurance. Historical and projected vehicle purchase expenditures are not presented in the budget. Such information would help the Board determine an appropriate level of funding and reserves for the County's vehicle replacement fund. Internal service funds are defined as funds used to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or agencies, on a cost reimbursement basis. El Dorado County has two such funds: 1) Risk Management and 2) Vehicle Replacement. The Risk Management fund is used to account for payments from all County departments to cover their share of the County's costs for general liability, employee health and workers' compensation insurance. The costs covered by the monies in this fund include claims payments, legal costs, insurance premiums for excess insurance', a third party administrator and staff and indirect costs of the County Risk Management Office. The County is self-insured but buys third party commercial insurance only for incidents above a certain dollar threshold. This helps prevent any dramatic swings in pay outs from year to year. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds The fleet management fund charges each department for the costs of maintaining and acquiring and maintaining the department's vehicles and heavy equipment. The charges also cover the costs of County fleet management staff and related indirect costs. Key budgetary decisions to be made for these internal service funds are: a) the level of appropriation to include in the budget to meet annual expenses; and, b) the level of reserves to include in the fund to cover known future liabilities. Charges to customer departments are based on appropriated annual expenditures and a proportionate share of reserves. Annual appropriations are needed to cover the operating costs for a single budget year. Reserves are established for internal service funds to cover known or expected costs beyond what is expected in the budget year. Particularly with insurance, costs can be paid over multiple years. Although costs can be estimated for a claim filed in the current year, the case may not actually be settled for several years out. The risk management fund reserve provides funds for these type of situations and for unexpected pay outs in the event that a large claim against the County is settled sooner than expected or an unpredicted unusually high employee disability payment has to be made in a single year. Commercial excess insurance is also purchased by the County to cover high cost unusual cases. Fleet management fund reserves might be used if a number of vehicles or heavy equipment unexpectedly need replacement in addition to what is expected in the County vehicle replacement schedule. Insurance expenditures are determined with input from actuaries who produce multi-year projections of likely future pay outs based on historical loss and expenditure data, known claims filed, demographics of the work force, changes in law and other contributing factors. For fleet management, maintenance and replacement costs can be projected based on existing fleet characteristics such as age and mileage plus any projected increases in fleet size or mix needed based on new or expanded programs or workload in the County. Risk Management Fund As mentioned above, El Dorado County's risk management fund is comprised of three components: 1) employee health insurance; 2) general liability; and 3) workers' compensation. Each represents a significant cost to the County but the budget document does not present details on the three components. Instead, the County risk management fund is presented in aggregate with no breakdown of how much of the total cost is attributable to each component. Total budgeted expenditures for FY 2001-02 were approximately $18.1 million for all components of the risk management program. This amount is separate from the reserves kept in the risk management fund to cover known and projected insurance liabilities in future years. The budget document does not report the approximately $12 million reserved for the risk management fund nor does it report how much of this is attributable to each of the three components of the fund. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 4: Internal Service Funds Details on the risk management fund should be presented in the proposed budget for a number of reasons. First, it is important for the Board of Supervisors to know which costs are increasing, which are decreasing, and what, if anything, County management has done or can do to control these costs. For example, employee health insurance costs are expected to increase significantly in the next year, an issue that was widely discussed in the budget hearings for FY 2001-02, but it would be useful to present these costs in the context of overall health insurance costs, separate from general liability and worker's compensation costs. Increases in workers' compensation costs cannot always be controlled but a large increase may raise questions about the extent to which County management has implemented safety training programs for employees. Similarly, a rise in risk management costs should be reviewed to determine if certain exposures resulting in frequent claims have been effectively dealt with by management. The proposed budget document for FY 2001-02 presents information about the Risk Management office that is part of the Chief Administrative Office. The document presents revenues and costs for the Risk Management office, including County staff, claims payments and other administrative cost, as follows: Exhibit 4.1 Risk Management Revenues and Costs Presented in the Proposed FY 2001-02 Budget FY 1999-00 through FY 2001-02 As can be the Services and Supplies expenditure line items of $17.4 million for FY 2001-02 represents the bulk of risk management annual costs. Since this is such a large amount and is comprised of a number of different costs, more detail should be provided in the budget including 3 1 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Actual FY 1999-00 Approved FY 2000-01 CAO Recommended FY 2001-02 Revenues: Charges to Departments $12,764,911 $14,824,755 $17,194,416 Use of Money & Property 684,255 594,007 527,506 Fund Balance - 1,199,008 366,515 Other Sources 1,500 4,000 1,500 Miscellaneous 103,356 166,667 Total $13,554,022 $16,788,437 $ 18,089,937 Expenditures: Salaries & Benefits 378,356 415,759 427,897 Services & Supplies 13,914,111 16,165,149 17,427,744 Other Charges 159,663 207,531 231,094 Intrafund Transfers 2,390 3,200 Total $14,454,520 $16,788,439 $18,089,935 Section 4: Internal Service Funds how much is for claims payments, legal services, the third party administrator, excess insurance premiums, and other costs, for each of the three risk management fund components. Staffing for the office and workload indicators are presented in the proposed budget document as is a description of the office's programs and the Chief Administrative Officer's recommended changes in the budget. Determining Appropriate Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds The revenue discussion includes the statement that the fund will be relying less on fund balance than it has in the past for health and worker's compensation. The discussion reports that reserves for the General Liability program are greater than what is needed and that Worker's Compensation reserves are lower than needed according to an actuarial analysis performed for the County. The Chief Administrative Office reports that it has prepared a five year plan to achieve reserves at a 70 percent confidence level for both the General Liability and Worker's Compensation fund. The 70 percent confidence level is described as a reserve level that will statistically be sufficient or better in 70 percent of the cases and inadequate 30 percent of the time. While it is laudable that the budget discloses the imbalance in reserves found in the two funds and a plan to correct it, the discussion has some deficiencies from a public decision making perspective. First, the actual amount of reserves in the two fund components are not presented in the budget nor is the fiscal impact of adopting the 70 percent confidence level approach clearly laid out. Alternative reserve scenarios are not presented so that the Board could see the fiscal impact of choosing other approaches to funding reserves for these funds at the 70 percent confidence level. The choice of a lower reserve level, which would not prevent the County from meeting its current year claims payment obligations, could potentially mean millions of dollars available for other purposes in the budget. On the other hand, the Board of Supervisors may want to adopt a higher reserve level policy that would require increasing the charges paid by departments to increase reserve levels in the fund. To make an informed decision, the budget should include the following: o Current amounts in reserve, shown separately for Workers' Compensation, General Liability and Health Benefits u Three years of projected actual expenditures for the budget year and the next five to ten years, shown separately for Workers' Compensation, General Liability and Health Benefits u The amount needed to fund reserves at alternative confidence levels, covering the spectrum of possible approaches ranging from no reserves for future year expenses if a "pay as you go" policy is adopted, funding to cover the current year and some future costs, funding to cover the current year and some but not all projected future costs, and funding to cover the current year and all projected future costs. 3 2 Harvey M. RoseAccountancy Corporation Exhibit 4.2 Example of Information to Provide to the Board of Supervisors for Consideration of Alternative Insurance Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds 33 Section 4: Internal Service Funds Counties and public jurisdictions have varying policies on reserves. On one end of the spectrum, some counties and other public jurisdictions simply budget for their expected payments in the budget year. Others choose to maintain reserves to fully cover all known current and future liabilities and some counties choose a position between these two. The Board of Supervisors should be involved in deciding the level of reserves for each of these funds. To inform this decision, the budget document should include information in a table such as presented in the example in Exhibit 4.2: The County's financial statement for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001 showed that the Risk Management fund had approximately $12.9 million in cash reserves for future costs. The liability for noncurrent insurance payments was reported in the financial statement as $11.9 million. In other words, there was enough cash in the fund to cover all known and projected pay outs for the current and future years that would have to be paid if the County suddenly went out of business and never received any more payments from its customer County departments. Since the likelihood of the County actually going out of business is quite small, the Board may want to consider a lesser reserve level. By presenting the projected pay outs for future years in the proposed budget, the Board would be better informed for deciding the optimal level of reserves. A summary of information that should be presented is shown in the following two exhibits. The numbers are for illustration purposes only and do not reflect the actual or projected expenses of El Dorado County. The information in Exhibit 4.3 would provide a snapshot of retained earnings, annual revenues, annual costs, and cash reserves on hand for the future and projected future liabilities, all in one table. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Confidence level Reserves required 000s Pa as you o None 20% $3,000 35% $3,500 50% $4,000 65% $4,500 70% $5,000 80% $5,500 100% $6,000 Exhibit 4.3 Example of cash reserve, revenue and expenditure information to be presented in the proposed General Liability and Workers' Compensation Fund budgets (in 000s) Note: Amounts shown are for illustration purposes only and are not actual El Dorado County amounts. Actual historical expenditures should be shown to provide information about typical annual expenditures, what is likely to be needed in future years and to help determine how much cash should be kept in reserve to meet those expenses. Exhibit 4.4 Example of payment data to be presented in budget for General Liability and Workers' Compensation Funds (in 000s) Section 4: Internal Service Funds Information such as that shown in Exhibit 4.4 should be presented to the Board of Supervisors to identify average annual expenditures in the past and as a basis for future projections. The historical numbers would have to be tied to some sort of appropriate index such as number of employees to determine an average cost per employee and then project forward based on expected increases in the County work force. Other variables should also be considered in the projections such as changes in County services that might result in changes in risk exposures. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation General Workers' Liability Compensation a Retained earnings: end of FY 00-01 $2,900 $3,600 b Revenues from charges to departments FY 01-02 3,700 4,200 c Total funds available (a+b) 6,600 7,800 • FY 01-02 Claims pay outs/legal costs, 2,000 2,600 - FY 01-02 Third party administrator costs 400 300 FY 01-02Excess insurance costs 1,500 1,000 FY 01-02 Staff and administrative costs 150 200 h Total costs FY 01-02 (d through g) 4,050 4,100 i Retained earnings: end of FY 01-02 c-h 2,550 3,700 J Cash reserves on hand 6,600 3,300 k Future Year Liabilities 6,500 4,200 Fiscal Year General Liability Workers' Compensation 1995-96 1,500 1,600 1996-97 1,700 1,500 1997-98 1,800 1,900 1998-99 2,000 1,900 1999-00 2,700 2,500 2000-01 2,500 2,700 Fleet Management Fund Section 4: Internal Service Funds Fleet management fund information in the budget document is less comprehensive than risk management fund information. The fleet management function is a function of the General Services Department and is included in that department's budget. Because the department covers so many functions, such as capital projects, communications, purchasing, airports and parks and grounds, and because the expenditure level is lower, the level of reporting is lower for fleet management than risk management. In spite of its smaller size, similar information should be presented in the budget as discussed for risk management. The budget document should include cash on reserve (approximately $3.7 million as of June 30, 2001), annual revenues and historical and five year projected fleet maintenance and replacement costs. Unlike insurance costs, the County would not have future vehicle maintenance and replacement obligations if it went out of business but some reserve level is appropriate to cover unanticipated expenses such as replacement of critically needed vehicles before their expected replacement dates due to accident or unplanned repair costs exceeding the vehicle's value. This information and reserve options would assist the Board of Supervisors in making decisions on funding levels and appropriate charges to customer departments for this fund.

Supervisory and management personnel at various levels of DGS have failed to address obvious conduct and performance issues. Some employees have performed well above required standards. Other employees have failed to meet standards for attendance and productivity. This has resulted in unfair workloads for some 51 employees and a potential risk to the County of increases in workers compensation claims.

In the recent past, critical vehicle registration documents were not processed properly or timely for fleet vehicles. Among other consequences, this lack of proper documentation jeopardized the safety of law enforcement officers using Fleet Services vehicles in undercover investigations. Extra Help employees could perform critical functions in Fleet Services. With limited staff and no backup, absences for vacations, sick leaves, family leaves, administrative leaves, and scheduled training result in tremendous workloads for the remaining employees.

The "fleet rate" set by DGS for interdepartmental billing includes administrative costs. It is unclear why the "fleet rate" was higher when DOT administrative costs were a factor and why the "fleet rate" decreased after Fleet Services was transferred to DGS. The "fleet rate" is critical to develop accurate budget proposals for every county department. Airports, Parks, and Grounds Division Findings

The Airports Division is authorized to have one Airport Supervisor and two Airport Technicians to cover the Placerville and Georgetown Airports. The position of Airport Supervisor has been vacant for more than a year and currently is under-filled on a temporary basis by one of the Airport Technicians.

Board Policy F-9, dated October 19, 1993, Subject: Airports-Portable Hangar Color, and Board Policy F-10, dated April 19, 1994, Subject: Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities for El Dorado County Airports, refer to the Department of Transportation (DOT) as responsible for airport operations. DGS is currently the responsible department and has been handling all matters related to county owned and operated airports for more than three years.

Board Policies F-9 and F-10 refer to the Airport Commission as the recommending body to the Board for airport matters. The Airport Commission no longer exists; it has been replaced by two Airport Advisory Committees, one for the Placerville Airport and one for the Georgetown Airport.

Subsequently, the Board revised Policy I-3, September 16, 1999, Subject: El Dorado Airport Commission, to create two Airport Advisory Committees -- the Placerville Airport Advisory Committee and the Georgetown Airport Advisory Committee. This revised policy abolished the Airport Commission, but did not indicate which department has primary jurisdiction over airport matters. The original Policy I-3 indicated that DOT had primary jurisdiction. Primary jurisdiction, however, is now with DGS, but no written document has established this fact.

Administrators of Fleet Services and Airports must interface with federal and state transportation agencies regarding policies and operating requirements. These units in 52 DGS clearly have management issues and reporting responsibilities that are aligned with federal and state transportation matters. Fiscal and Administrative Services Findings

through F5.4 El Dorado County Department of Social Services El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Responses Required for Recommendations

According to the 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan, DGS is responsible for work plans and budgets set forth in five separate funds: Fund 10 is the DGS General Fund Budget for general operations; Fund 12 is for Special Districts (County Service Areas #2, #3, #5, and #9); Fund 13, the Accumulated Capital Outlay (ACO) Fund, sets forth the County's capital improvement projects for facilities and parks; Fund 31, the Airports Enterprise Fund, provides separate budgets for the Placerville and Georgetown airports; and Fund 32 is the vehicle Fleet Management Internal Service Fund.

The Fiscal Administration Manager (FAM) is responsible for the operations of the Fiscal and Administration Services Division of DGS and for the work plans and budget preparations for the five Funds.

F5.4 Communications with top management of the Department of Social Services is considered poor by many staff social workers and office assistants. Many staff members feel there is no forum to express their concerns and problems and to make suggestions for improvements. This is particularly true in the South Lake Tahoe office as visits and meetings with staff there by the CPS Program Manager and the Director and Deputy Director are infrequent. Regular forums with open communications between staff and managers should be employed as a mechanism for improving CPS processes and services and to improve staff morale. The CPS polices and procedures manuals are not up to date and omit some key areas of operations such as how the CWS/CMS computer system should be used for case intake and processing. Incomplete, out of date or missing policies and procedures could lead to inconsistencies in staff approaches to case work. Most staff surveyed reported that the Department's rules and regulations are not clear or consistently enforced. The manuals are now all hard copy paper documents and could be placed on the Department's computer system for easier updating and access by all staff. Many staff members believe that more and different types of training are needed to ensure greater consistency in approach by staff. A mentor program for new staff is one approach suggested by staff which Department management could implement on a pilot basis and assess its costs and benefits to see if it should be replicated throughout the CPS division. The Department does not have a formal written policy or formal reporting mechanism for client and family complaints. Such a policy is needed to ensure consistency in responses to complaints and to ensure that management is kept informed of all complaints and staff responses and correct ive actions. For staff and supervisors to perform in a manner that will lead to the consistent and desired outcomes for an organization, management must first clearly and accurately define policies and procedures. Second, management must communicate these policies and procedures to staff. Then, adequate resources and supports for staff to perform successfully must be provided. Finally, and most important, the organization must maintain a capacity to obtain feedback and measure and report the degree of success it has achieved in following the policies and to determine if the policies are effective. Deficiencies, in various forms, were identified in each of these elements at Child Protective Services. Communications The employee survey conducted for this audit showed that many CPS employees perceive communication between management and staff as a problem. Exhibit 5.1 shows the responses from social workers and office assistants to statements regarding communications within CPS. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 5. Communications As the Exhibit clearly shows, line staff feel there is a problem with communications in the Department, particularly with top management. Exhibit 5.1 Survey Responses Regarding Departmental Communication Source: Audit survey of CPS social worker and office assistant staff Only 16.7 percent of the survey respondents believe they have the ability to influence matters above them. Overall, 83.3 percent of office assistants and social workers felt they have little or no influence over Department matters. Further, 66.7 percent of the survey respondents believe that top management is not responsive to suggestions or concerns. Of greater concern is that half of all survey respondents, 50 percent, felt that Department management was not supportive in general of the Child Protective Services division and only 41.7 percent believe top management and CPS staff communications are very good. These perceptions are not conducive to high staff morale or a motivated work force. Child Protective Services management conducts staff meetings in Placerville bi-weekly. These meetings are attended by the CPS Program Manager, supervisors and line staff. A review of staff meeting minutes demonstrated that the CPS staff meetings are primarily a forum for management to update staff on new Department developments, changes in polices and related matters. The Department Director and Deputy Director do not attend these meetings. While CPS should be commended for its efforts to keep staff informed, the meeting minutes demonstrate that staff is not provided with an opportunity to express concerns and grievances or make suggestions for program improvements at these meetings. Department staff indicate that forums to provide such opportunities do not occur on a regular basis. Regular staff meetings with the CPS Program Manager, supervisors and staff do not take place at the South Lake Tahoe office as they do in Placerville. The managers based in Placerville may discuss issues and concerns with South Lake Tahoe supervisors, but there is minimal, if any, group communication and feedback between the Program Manager and South Lake Tahoe line staff. Without regular contact with management, many of the South Lake Tahoe staff feel they do not have a place to air grievances, complaints or make suggestions for improvements. One technique for improving communications between management and line staff would be to set aside time during the regularly scheduled meetings where employee concerns and suggestions can be freely expressed directly to upper management. As such, the Director of the Department 42 Harvey M. RoseAccountancy Corporation Agree Disagree Communications between Department's top 41.7% 58.3% staff and CPS staff are very good Top Management of the Department are very 50,0% 50.0% supportive of CPS Top Management of the Department is very 33.3% 66.7% responsive to suggestions from staff I can influence matters above me 16.7% 83.3% Section 5: Communications and/or the Deputy Director should attend these meetings which should take place on a regular basis in both the Placerville and South Lake Tahoe offices'. It is of equal importance that top management respond to issues, concerns, and suggestions on a timely basis. Many employees expressed frustration in their written comments on the audit survey over the lack of response from management toward their suggestions for improvements made in the past. Furthermore, employees often felt when a response came from management it was long after the employee suggestion was made if a response came at all. The Department should have strong support systems in place to provide workers with open forums to discuss and deal with dissatisfactions and frustrations, and suggestions for how to make constructive improvements. The forums should not become a series of sessions where workers continually complain about the Department but should be directed toward identifying and solving problems. The discussion above is not meant to imply that upper management should immediately implement any and all suggestions made by staff. But the process will be perceived as meaningless if management does not respond to staff suggestions and grievances within a reasonable amount of time, even if the decision is to not implement the staff suggestion. Responses to staff suggestions should be communicated directly to employees by upper management, including the Director, through as few layers as possible. By taking timely actions to address employee concerns, even if the actions are not what employees suggested, management would demonstrate responsiveness to staff concerns. Regularly communicating how and why decisions have been made to staff would also help improve morale. Updating the Policies and Procedures Manual Child Protective Services possesses extensive policies and procedures manuals that provide guidance to social workers and staff regarding Department operations. However, the manuals are lacking some key policies and procedures such as reference to the Department's CWS/CMS computer system and policies and procedures for office assistant support staff. Without documentation of all key areas of operations, the chances increase of certain activities being inconsistently applied throughout CPS. This current state of Department policies and procedures is consistent with findings of the FY 1999-2000 El Dorado Grand Jury which reported: The Grand Jury requested and received a copy of the El Dorado County CPS Policy and Procedures manuals. Analysis indicated that the manuals contained many outdated or undated documents, documents whose origin could not be determined, unsigned documents, and documents that referred to manual record keeping operations which had long since been replaced by computerized operations. This dilapidated state appeared to have been in existence for several A recommendation in Section 4 calls for routine visitation by the Program Manager to South Lake Tahoe so that upper management is represented at that office and to provide a means of resolving staff concerns and issues. One of the appropriate roles of this position would be conducting staff forums as described above. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 5: Communications years. In May, 2000, the Grand Jury observed that these manuals had been professionally updated. Further, it is noted that the Department of Social Services (DSS) has initiated other corrective actions, including initiation of periodic internal audits to ensure compliance with state requirements. The Department disagreed with the previous Grand Jury finding wholly, stating "first, the outdated manuals were state regulations that are outdated. Second, the professionally updated manuals were prepared by DSS." However, during our review of CPS policy manuals we found that some formal statements were outdated and appeared to be produced by the Department. Many of the policies that appear outdated involve some of the most important responsibilities facing the Department and social workers such as use of CWS/CMS in processing cases. The Department's policies and procedures regarding the overview of CPS appears to be dated 1992. The manual was written prior to the full implementation of CWS/CMS by the State. Thus, Department policies and procedures regarding the intake and screening process do not make any reference to CWS/CMS. As demonstrated in Section 2 of this report, documentation of intake processes could not always be found on CWS/CMS, indicating inconsistent application of Department policies and procedures. As discussed below in more detail, CPS does not have formal written policies regarding client complaints. Although, management provided a detailed oral description of how the client complaint process works, without a formal written policy in place regarding how to address concerns raised against the Department, responses to complaints have the potential to be inconsistently handled. Department management acknowledges these lapses in the policies and procedures, however, they do not feel it is necessary to rectify these deficiencies. Clerical staff perform a vital role within CPS but currently are working without any formal policies regarding their roles and duties. According to staff, an effort is underway to complete a formal clerical policies and procedures manual but it is not yet complete. Thus, clerical staff are not provided with a training manual when new to the job and must learn their duties primarily through on-the-job training without written materials to use as references. Samples, training and written policies are particularly important for the Department's court report procedures, which are very specific and must comply with the requirements of the State Welfare and Institutions Code. In some counties, clerical staff has specific written guidelines of their duties and responsibilities. In Los Angeles County, for example, a clerical policies and procedures manual deals with many issues similar to those faced by El Dorado County's clerical staff. For instance, Los Angeles County has specific policies and procedures regarding how to handle instances of a mail referral containing allegations of child abuse or neglect. Los Angeles County policies also include court procedures ranging from processing proof of service notices for Welfare and Institutions Code 366.26 hearings to entering Court results into CWS/CMS. The results of the employee survey for this audit demonstrate staff concerns regarding Department policies and procedures. Exhibit 5.2 presents responses from social workers and 44 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Exhibit 5.2 Survey Responses Regarding Department Rules and Regulations Source: Audit survey of CPS social worker and office assistant staff Section 5. Communications office assistants regarding Department policies and procedures and enforcement of these procedures. Nearly 8 out of 10 survey respondents, or 78 percent, stated that rules and regulations in the Department are not clear. Further, 82 percent of survey respondents stated that regulations are inconsistently enforced. This demonstrates a combination of incomplete written policies and procedures and/or lack of consistent implementation. One reason staff may feel policies and procedures are inconsistent and unclear is because the Department does not present them in a standardized format. At least three different formats are used to explain and illustrate current policies, each with different levels of information. By comparison, Los Angeles County has very formal policies and procedures regarding their entire Child Protective function all presented in a consistent format. Each policy is given a formal issue date, the employees the policy is applicable to, associated documents, and relevant Code sections. Additionally, each policy provides a detailed description of the adopted policy and provides a step-by-step detailed description for guidance of the procedure. For some of El Dorado County's CPS policies and procedures, the format includes subject, adoption date, revised date, reference and a detailed explanation of the policy and procedure. However, this format is the exception rather than the rule in the Department's written policies and procedures. A standardized format with the data elements listed above should be used for all procedures to provide staff with improved guidance and clarity in performing their job duties. Improvements to Department policies and procedures should include making the manual available on-line to ensure that all staff members have access to the most up-to-date versions of all policies and procedures and that they are applied consistently throughout CPS. In written responses to the audit questionnaire, numerous staff expressed concern that each staff member did not have their own copy of the manual. An on-line version would be particularly useful for ensuring that the South Lake Tahoe staff has access to any updates or revisions to Department policies and procedures. All staff should be oriented and trained on the use of the on-line policies and procedures manual as soon as it is fully updated. When new policies or procedures are implemented, supervisors should be directed to discuss the changes with all unit staff at unit meetings rather than distributing copies to staff. That way accountability for remaining current with management approved policies and procedures would rest with the supervisor, rather than the line staff person. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Question Agree Disagree Department rules and regulations are clear 22% 78% Department rules and regulations are consistently enforced 18% 82% Training Section S: Communications One example of a staff concern that could be addressed through the recommended staff forums is training. Throughout the audit process of interviewing line staff, supervisors and managers, concern about training was a common theme. Without exception, those that commented on employee training indicated that training is not done on a regular basis, and/or more training is needed but, for various reasons, is not taking place. Training is necessary to ensure supervisor, social workers and office assistants have the specialized skills and knowledge required to effectively provide the functions of CPS. Of the employees that responded to a survey conducted for this audit, 70 percent stated that not all CPS staff had received adequate training to perform their jobs. Many social workers believe that ongoing training was a key weakness in Child Protective Services. The main concern voiced by staff at all levels was that the training received by new employees of CPS was not sufficient given the complexity of the job. In discussions, some employees suggested that a mentoring program for new employees could provide new staff with a more useful hands-on training in the various functions performed by the Department. A staff forum for exchanging ideas and considering improvements in operations would be a place to discuss ideas such as this. Department management could then consider the costs and benefits of a mentoring program or other training enhancements and respond to staff within a specified time frame concerning whether or not the idea could be implemented. Key to management's decision should be an assessment of the costs and benefits of any proposals with benefits expressed in measurable terms such as reduced turnover, improved family outcomes, or reduced delays in processing cases. Client Complaints The Department does not have written policies and procedures regarding complaints filed against the CPS division or its social workers. Department management reports a single procedure for responding to all complaints filed against Child Protective Services. According to management, CPS requests that grievances be formally submitted to the Department in writing. Once a complaint is received, the Program Manager reports that she and the supervisor will develop a response and, in some cases, the complaint will be investigated. When the response is finalized, it is provided to the complainant in writing. The Program Manager and the supervisor responsible for the unit determine the final outcome. In response to a request by auditors for copies of documentation regarding complaints against any CPS social workers or CPS practices, the Department provided copies of seven complaints and all documentation prepared in response to the complaints, all of them dated from January to December 2001. The nature of the complaints against CPS included transfer of cases between two social workers, visitation complaints, placement complaints, and inadequate case plan therapy. One file contained a letter stating that the Department had failed to respond to an original complaint, sent 133 days earlier. Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 5: Communications Several of the complaint files contained documentation of the follow-up investigation conducted by the Department in response to the initial complaint. The thoroughness of the investigation, based on the documentation provided, ranges from extremely detailed to very brief. One letter chronicles the specific details of the investigation and makes it clear the Department indeed investigated the grievance. However, the letters explaining the details of the follow-up investigation make it difficult to determine the Department's response. The Department should document and implement a formal consistent policy regarding how CPS responds and documents formal complaints. The Department should create a centralized, computerized database detailing the grievance and the response to said complaint. The computerized database should be accessible to County Counsel staff to conduct a periodic review to determine if the Department is handling complaints properly. A regularly produced summary report, such as quarterly, should be provided to the Department Director by the CPS Program Manager reporting the date of each complaint received, date the internal response was initiated, nature of internal response (e.g., full investigation, employee discipline, etc.), and date of written response to complainant. The Department should institute formal procedures governing when and how complaints are investigated, as follows: • The complainant shall make a formal complaint in writing and the Program Manager and/or unit supervisor shall have initial contact with the complainant within 10 working days; • The investigation and final decision shall be rendered by Child Protective Services within 10 working days once contact is made; • The final decision shall be signed off by the Director of Social Services or the Deputy Director of Social Services; and • The Department has the authority for formal disciplinary action if the investigation finds the staff violated State law or DSS policy. A benefit of this review process and a centralized database is that CPS will have access to documentation currently unavailable to determine any trends in grievances. The review and the database could provide a mechanism to implement further policy and procedure changes to minimize the number of complaints. Conclusion The employee survey conducted for this audit showed that communications between management and staff is not perceived positively by most Department employees. Specifically, most line staff believe upper management is unresponsive to their needs and that staff has no ability to influence matters above them within the Department. A widely held belief of CPS staff is that Department policies and procedures provide inadequate guidance for job tasks. Analysis of the Department's policies and procedures manual found that complete formal policies do not exist for some key aspects of CPS, such as grievances and clerical duties and responsibilities, and. that existing policies and procedures are presented inconsistently and without key information such as the date the policy became effective. Many of the existing policies are old 47 Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Section 5: Communications and outdated. Our analysis found that child removal policies were written prior to the implementation of CWS/CMS, and the manual makes no reference to the program. Many employees expressed frustration at the level of training, especially relating to clerical support and new hires. Child Protective Services does not have written formal policies governing grievance procedures. Even where information was presented in the actions taken by the Department, the standard response or evidence of ample investigations could not be consistently documented.

Considerable money was spent for overtime during February and March to prepare DGS budget requests for submission to the CAO's budget analyst in early April 2001. The process, however, extended into May, and the FAM and DGS Director (then interim) were required to make major revisions with insufficient notice to complete revisions without additional overtime. Communication with division managers during this process was insufficient to keep them informed of critical budget requests, which were deleted from the final proposal by the FAM and the CAO's budget analyst.

The CAO presented the DGS budget to the Board for approval without including substantial details on the full scope of budget needs for each division. The Board was not informed as to the nature or priority of requests deleted from the final DGS budget. It appears that the CAO’s budget analyst is too far removed from the operational requirements of DGS divisions, project design, and construction management to make critical budget recommendations. For example, at one time the construction of a toilet facility in a county park was approved, but, unbelievably, the septic system required for the toilet facility was deleted from the budget.

Some capital facilities projects for the county are identified in the budget of Department 15 (General Fund Other Operations), which is composed of discretionary county revenues and expenditures, rather than in the DGS budget for Fund 13 (Accumulated Capital Outlay projects). Examples of those discretionary projects set aside in the Department 15 Fixed Asset budget include the South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Hall ($4.5 million) and the “capital facilities programming and financing plan” ($250,000).

It is not clear why the Department 15 budgeted item of $250,000 for a "capital facilities programming and financing plan" did not appear in the narrative for the 53 DGS 2001-2002 Budget/Workplan. DGS has divisions of Real Property Planning and Administration and of Facilities Services, both of which should be (but have not been) fully informed and involved in the creation and execution of this "plan," referred to in previous Findings as "Facilities Master Plan." Real Property Planning and Administration Division Findings

The Real Property Planning & Administration (RPPA) Division of DGS has authorized positions for a Manager, Administrative Secretary, Senior Administrative Analyst, and Administrative Technician. There is one additional position of Storekeeper for Records Management, which is filled by two "extra help" employees, each working one half time, or .5 full time equivalent (FTE).

RPPA is responsible for purchasing, leasing, and disposing of county facilities, analyzing space needs, contacting realtors and property owners, coordinating department moves, managing county cemeteries, negotiating cable television franchises, and monitoring property leases in the Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor.

In addition to the above listed duties, RPPA provides storage for all permanent county records and documents in the basement of the main library building and the lower floor of county-owned Building C. Record storage and retrieval requests are processed daily. Records disposal is accomplished on a schedule determined by county ordinances and departmental regulations. The Grand Jury's inspection of the records storage areas was conducted without notice. Storage areas appeared to be organized, clean, and adequate. The present library building and Building C, however, were not designed to provide permanent, safe storage for county records in the event of a manmade or natural disaster.

In 2001, RPPA prepared and published an excellent manual to assist county departments in planning, organizing and completing department or division moves from one facility to another, or reconfiguring existing space.

Administration of cable television franchise contracts with five different cable companies was assigned to RPPA without a commensurate increase in staff and resources. RPPA does not have sufficient staff or expertise to address all the issues that must be resolved if the County is to collect higher revenues from franchise contracts. Communication with the responsible people in each company is difficult because of constantly changing ownership resulting from mergers and acquisitions in the telecommunications industry. Franchise contracts have been difficult to track and renegotiate. One company is seriously delinquent in paying franchise fees to the County, and collection of these delinquent fees has not been accomplished.

Management of county-owned and county-operated cemeteries has required increased staff time and record keeping. RPPA personnel are required to respond frequently, often on very short notice, to the public, concerned citizens, and mortuaries in order 54 to provide services and monitor compliance with state laws and county ordinances. They are required to be present at all interments in county cemeteries. Management of historic pioneer cemeteries has become a matter of public debate and concern.

The Sacramento Placerville Transportation Corridor (SPTC) is an abandoned railroad right-of-way that was deeded to El Dorado County. There are 537 parcels in the SPTC. The County is the lessor for 77 of these parcels. RPPA requested an initial budget allocation of approximately $30,000 for Professional and Special Services. This money would be used for parcel appraisals in order to establish realistic values and lease rates. The Department has not been able to negotiate lease renewal contracts at realistic rates that are advantageous to the County. RPPA has begun eight parcel appraisals with the initial $24,000 in approved funding. Additional appraisals will be completed for future lease agreements as these leases are renewed.

Section 205 of County Resolution 228-84 identifies those county employees who may potentially invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission.

Matters are brought to the attention of the Commission through review of decisions of department heads. The Commission’s caseload is generated through procedures initiated by employees through HRD. There is not a provision for the direct filing of complaints with the Commission. HRD attempts to resolve employee complaints before they are brought to the Commission, and employee complaints generally reach the Commission only as a last resort.

The Commission is authorized to hear only the following types of matters: • Claims of unlawful discrimination in personnel matters; • Disciplinary matters involving classified employees with permanent status; and • Such other matters as may be provided for in personnel rules, MOUs between the County and recognized employee organizations, or Board Policy.

The Commission has authority to cause subpoenas duces tecum to be issued for matters within its lawful jurisdiction.

The Commission is empowered only to affirm, modify or reverse decisions of the “appointing authority,” generally the department heads, in disciplinary actions.

Findings and decisions of the Commission in disciplinary actions are final and binding, subject only to judicial review.

Remedies available to county employees through access to the Commission are seldom sought, and accordingly, the Commission is not used to its full capacity. The Commission has not had a contested hearing for approximately a year. The most recent contested matter brought before the Commission for hearing was the complaint of a sergeant in the Sheriff’s Department.

On occasion, properly requested information has not been provided to the Commission in a timely manner.

The Director and/or other employees of HRD: • Act as the Executive Officer for the Commission; • Receive all mail directed to the Commission concerning appeals and grievances; 68 • Provide a secretary to the Commission; • Prepare the budget for the operation of the Commission, without the Commission’s participation; and • Administer the expenditure of funds for the Commission. This state of affairs essentially removes any opportunity for confidential communications from employees to the Commission without the necessity of initiating formal proceedings.

Members of the Grand Jury toured the hospital emergency rooms and several floors of the facility, and found them to be very clean and well maintained. There is only one examination room in the emergency room area with an observation window. When the examination rooms are full, this particular room, which is preferred for psychiatric observation, may not be immediately available.

Security at Barton Memorial Hospital is provided by the maintenance staff, who have received special training and who are available on every shift. When restraint is necessary to control mentally ill patients, the preferred method of restraint is medication, rather than physical restraint, to reduce injuries to patients and staff.

Tahoe Manor Residential Care (Tahoe Manor) is a privately owned, state licensed board and care facility in South Lake Tahoe with accommodations for 49 residents. Fifteen of the residents are clients of the Clinic.

Tahoe Manor is the only residential care facility in El Dorado County that accepts Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments for board and care residents. The County contracts with Tahoe Manor for residential care for clients who are also receiving mental health services at the Clinic. 110

Grand Jury members toured Tahoe Manor without an appointment. During the visit, no group activities were observed. The physical layout and floor plan are not adequate for group activities and events. Hallways are narrow. There is no designated activity area except a small day room and a dining room. The overall appearance of the facility is drab, but it is moderately clean.

Tahoe Manor is not licensed to accept residents who have been diagnosed with dementia. A request for a dementia waiver was denied by the Department of Social Services of the State of California in October 2000.

Monthly payments from the County to the contractor at Tahoe Manor were approximately two months in arrears. The County’s requirement that invoices be routed through several different departments slows payment processing and discourages providers from contracting with the County.

The annual licensing review and evaluation of Tahoe Manor by the State Department of Social Services, called a Facility Evaluation Report and dated April 2000, identified four deficiencies: • Medications were not stored, locked, labeled, and dispersed according to regulations. • Medications were being set up more than 24 hours in advance. • Hazardous areas in the laundry room were accessible to residents. • Staffing was not sufficient to meet state licensing standards.

The Facility Evaluation Report for Tahoe Manor dated April 2001 showed no deficiencies in the community care licensing standards. The resident census at that time was 35, which was 14 less than the maximum allowed number of 49 residents.

The 2002 Facility evaluation and inspection of Tahoe Manor has not yet been conducted.