Ventura County Grand Jury
• 2000-2001
Ventura County Grand Jury Report Oversight Responsibilities In Ventura County Government
⚠️ 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
There is little or no regular oversight performed in most of the County’s operations by either the Auditor-Controller or by the departments involved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
County government should organize to increase the number of performance audits that can be accomplished each year. 4
F2
The reason given for not performing oversight on a regular or timely basis is a lack of qualified personnel.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Human Resources should use quality assurance- based definitions and procedures to set up guidelines for job descriptions, cross-training possibili- ties, and possible sources for staffing this level of oversight personnel. (The County department currently working on training and procedures involved with Medicare billing training may be a valuable source for this information.)
F3
The ever-increasing use and dependence on computers by County Govern- ment requires more independent checks to insure that the systems are working as intended with a high level of confidence. Typical concerns to be addressed include such issues as: 1. Are all required signature approvals in place? 2. Have all software and/or form changes been properly documented and implemented. 3. Have all work units been considered and/or notified of impending changes? 1 CAO report “Strengthen Specific Financial Management Capabilities for the County of Ventura” dated 2/27/01 31 Final Report 2000-2001 Ventura County Grand Jury Conclusions C-1 A broad definition of governmental oversight includes the performance of checks and investigations to assure the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of a Unit’s operations. A part of the overall oversight audit process can be identified as a quality assurance component. Under this heading, the following departmental functions can be evaluated: PURPOSE (OBJECTIVE) OF THE UNIT LISTING OF ASSIGNED DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES. Customers (users ) Who are beneficiaries of units’ services? Are there written policies Step-by-step procedures for internal defining the functions operations and desk or window performed by the unit procedures for public contact. Are employees knowledgeable Procedures require compliance of the procedures and to be effective. do they follow them?* C-2 The advantages of performing the quality assurance elements of oversight are as follows: 1. The evaluations can be performed by personnel with lower level credentials, who are less costly and are more available for the tasks required. a. Qualifications include the ability to read and understand complex directions coupled with a natural ability to deal with minute details. b. In industry, these types of employees may be found in such occupations as “systems analyst,” “information system technician,” or “quality assurance technician.” (F-2) 2. By concentrating on these quality assurance subsets of oversight, it is possible to achieve the classic desired outcome wherein 20% of the effort (cost) accomplishes 80% of the goal (meaningful oversight). In a typical scenario, the evaluator will appear at a selected area of a department’s operation (either scheduled or unannounced) and ask to see the procedures covering that part of the work flow. After a verbal reviewof the procedures and forms with department personnel, the evaluator will monitor the flow step-by-step to insure that the procedures are being followed and accurately reflect the operations being performed. The evaluator will then review the results of his/her findings with the department personnel before completing and filing his/her reports. If appropriate, the evaluator will have previewed any applicable customer requirements to assure compliance with contrac- tual obligations (F2). For example, many of the errors uncovered in prior oversight reviews could have been identified and corrected on site had these simplified oversight procedures and personnel to perform them been available. C-3 The quality assurance component of oversight constitutes the backbone of efficient, well-run operations. C-4 A simplified “quality assurance” review on a regular basis will fulfill many of the objectives of an oversight evaluation. (F1-F-3) Recomendations:
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The functions and personnel involved with the quality assurance-based reviews should be located in the Auditor-Controller office so that the find- ings, files, and other information collected can be used and maintained in conjunction with the less frequent, more comprehensive oversight reviews.
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R4All County departments should act promptly to implement the CAO’s recom- mended internal self-assessment reviews5 . Responses Required Board of Supervisors Chief Administrative Officer R-3, R-4 Auditor- Controller R-1 3 1999-2000 Grand Jury Reports “Purchase Orders,” “Procurement Bank Card.” 4 ibid 5 CAO report “Strengthen Specific Financial Management Capabilities for the County of Ventura” dated 2/27/01 33
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 4The evaluations can be performed by personnel with lower level credentials, who are less costly and are more available for the tasks required. a. Qualifications include the ability to read and understand complex directions coupled with a natural ability to deal with minute details. b. In industry, these types of employees may be found in such occupations as “systems analyst,” “information system technician,” or “quality assurance technician.” (F-2)
-
CL2 Page 4By concentrating on these quality assurance subsets of oversight, it is possible to achieve the classic desired outcome wherein 20% of the effort (cost) accomplishes 80% of the goal (meaningful oversight). In a typical scenario, the evaluator will appear at a selected area of a department’s operation (either scheduled or unannounced) and ask to see the procedures covering that part of the work flow. After a verbal reviewof the procedures and forms with department personnel, the evaluator will monitor the flow step-by-step to insure that the procedures are being followed and accurately reflect the operations being performed. The evaluator will then review the results of his/her findings with the department personnel before completing and filing his/her reports. If appropriate, the evaluator will have previewed any applicable customer requirements to assure compliance with contrac- tual obligations (F2). For example, many of the errors uncovered in prior oversight reviews could have been identified and corrected on site had these simplified oversight procedures and personnel to perform them been available. C-3 The quality assurance component of oversight constitutes the backbone of efficient, well-run operations. 32 C-4 A simplified “quality assurance” review on a regular basis will fulfill many of the objectives of an oversight evaluation. (F1-F-3) Recomendations: R-1 County government should organize to increase the number of performance audits that can be accomplished each year. 4 R-2 Human Resources should use quality assurance- based definitions and procedures to set up guidelines for job descriptions, cross-training possibili- ties, and possible sources for staffing this level of oversight personnel. (The County department currently working on training and procedures involved with Medicare billing training may be a valuable source for this information.) R-3 The functions and personnel involved with the quality assurance-based reviews should be located in the Auditor-Controller office so that the find- ings, files, and other information collected can be used and maintained in conjunction with the less frequent, more comprehensive oversight reviews. R-4 All County departments should act promptly to implement the CAO’s recom- mended internal self-assessment reviews5 .
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Ventura County
County
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office