Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
Failure of Sacramento County to Oversee the Delivery of Services Contracted to Galt Community Concilio, Inc
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
Neither DHHS nor DHA had an effective system for oversight of their many contracts with the Concilio and did not have a system to determine if the Concilio was properly managed and capable of meeting the requirements of the contracts. The County generally lacks an oversight system for the approximately 400 contracts, which total $263 million annually, that it has with non-profit providers of social, mental health, and alcohol and drug treatment services. If the financial problems occur at other nonprofit service providers, it is likely that they would not be detected and addressed before services suffered.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The County should establish clearly defined procedures to ensure that the financial operations and program performance obligations are met by all non- profit and community-based service providers that have substantial service contracts with the County. As part of this procedure, clear responsibilities need to be established for contract management and coordination of multiple contracts. In the case where a single non-profit service provider is providing multiple services under multiple contracts, a single lead county official should be identified as responsible for overall evaluation of performance and assurance that performance problems are addressed. Performance goals and objectives should be developed, measured, documented and reported.
F2
When DHHS became aware that the Concilio was not providing the level of services called for in the contracts, it was slow to remedy the situation. When it became clear that the Concilio was in a financially untenable situation and could not provide the services called for in its contracts, DHHS proposed, and the County Board of Supervisors approved, a questionable bailout. The County modified the method of payment and essentially forgave the Concilio of the obligation to provide the services called for in the DHHS contracts. This allowed the Concilio to receive a $246,000 payment for expenses it incurred in its unsuccessful attempt to provide services called for in its contracts.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The County should assure that contract provisions, such as audit requirements, that are essential to ensuring legal and proper use of contract monies are implemented and enforced. In addition, the County should implement requirements for the County’s grant/contract monitors to ensure the grantee/contractor has engaged an auditor at least 30 days prior to the end of the fiscal year.
F3
DHA and DHHS did not ensure annual audits were completed in a timely manner. These agencies did not inquire about the status of the FY 2001-2002 audit until 28 February 2003, seven months after the end of the fiscal year. The FY 2001-2002 audit (along with the FY 2002-2003 audit) was not completed until March 2004. The delay further compromised the ability of these departments to detect the severe financial problems at the Concilio.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Once a criteria for payment under a contract is established (such as a fee for documented service to individual clients), the County should not modify its approach and utilize a different method of payment (such as reimbursement for expenses incurred) for any payments made for past performance. Response Requirements Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to both the