Board of Supervisors Response to the

Chapter 3.12 of the El Dorado County Charter documents Purchasing Procedures and is known as the County Purchasing Ordinance. This section of the County Charter provides in part: “3.12.020: The purpose of this chapter is to secure for the county taxpayers the advantages and economies which will result from centralized control over the purchase of supplies, materials, equipment and contractual services resulting from the application of modern, businesslike methods relative to government expenditures for such purchases. Further, this 3 chapter is to adopt policies and procedures governing the purchase of supplies, equipment and contractual services by the county in accordance with the Government Code, section 54201 et seq. 3.12.060: The purchasing agent may, and where legally required to do so, shall, authorize in writing any county department to purchase renewable types of office supplies and materials in total amounts of four hundred ninety-nine and 99/100 dollars ($499.99) or less, utilizing the ‘direct’ purchase order form, independently of the county purchasing agent’s office; but such purchases shall be made in conformity with the applicable procedures. The purchasing agent may also rescind the authorization to purchase independently, by written notice to the county department unless otherwise prohibited by law. 3.12.070 A. Only department heads or their designated representatives may approve and sign direct purchase orders in total amounts of four hundred ninety-nine and 99/100 dollars ($499.99) or less. Department heads may delegate such authority by filing a written authorization therefor with the purchasing agent and the auditor-controller. … C. All departments shall strictly adhere to written purchasing procedures as they may be issued or amended from time to time by the purchasing agent or the board of supervisors.” Response to F1: The respondent agrees with the finding.

The General Services Department in conjunction with the Information Services Department developed a tracking system to report the number and percentage of confirming purchase orders. Confirming or “after the fact” purchase orders are not acceptable and are a violation of County Purchasing Ordinance requirements. The data reflects purchase orders issued between $0 - $10,000.00. Data was not extracted for purchases exceeding $10,000.00 since the competitive bidding threshold is established at $10,000.00 by ordinance. The data does not include the issuance of blanket purchase order purchasing activity, but rather independent purchase orders that were requisitioned by departments as confirming. Following are the results of this tracking system: Reporting Period Total Purchase Total Confirming Percentage Ending Fiscal Year 2000-2001 $14,716 $10,955 74% September 30, 2001 2,544 1,901 75% December 31, 2001 4,043 2,997 74% March 31, 2002 4,552 3,070 67% 4 Response to F2: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Purchase orders are sometimes “split” in order to circumvent required signature authority. For example, while a $15,000 purchase requires competitive bidding, two $7,500 purchases would not. This is an unacceptable practice. Response to F3: The respondent agrees with the finding.

There is no system in place to hold department heads accountable for failing to adhere to County Purchasing Ordinance Requirements. Response to F4: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. When this Grand Jury was convened in July 2001 the General Services Department had already begun to hold Departments accountable for non-compliance with the Purchasing Ordinance. Several Departments were directed to get Board approval before the General Services Department would sign non-compliant purchasing documents. Compliance with the Purchasing Ordinance is insured through the efforts of the General Services Department, County Counsel, the Auditor’s office and the Board of Supervisors.

Purchasing practices that do not adhere to the County Purchasing Ordinance subject the County to risks of overspending and poor budget management. Response to F5: The respondent agrees with the finding.

Departments audited by the Grand Jury do not have independent computer systems for tracking fixed assets or inventory within their individual departments. Response to F6: The respondent agrees with the finding. The Auditor controls this report. Departments have no “real time” access.

The instruction form for Schedule E of Form 700 informs that it is the acceptance of a gift, not the ultimate use to which it is put, that imposes a reporting obligation. Such gifts must be disclosed even if they are never used and even if they are given away to another person, unless, within thirty (30) days after receipt, they are returned to the donor or delivered to a charitable organization without being claimed as a charitable contribution for tax purposes. Response to F7: The respondent agrees with the finding.

When the Sheriff filed his various Annual Statements of Economic Interest, he did not declare the receipt of or the value of the rifle or the shotgun, as he should have if they were personal gifts. Response to F8: The respondent agrees with the finding.

The Sheriff sold the Weatherby rifle, through a consignment arrangement with a gun store for $500.00. The $500 was credited to the Sheriff’s personal account at the store. The shotgun is still in the Sheriff’s personal possession. Response to F9: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Sheriff reports that the sale prices was $450 not $500. The respondent is unable either to agree with the finding or the Sheriff’s response, or to disagree wholly with it, because of the factual disputes in the matter, which the Board cannot resolve. However, the El Dorado County District Attorney was requested to conduct an investigation of this matter (see R6 of this Complaint). Due to an appearance of a conflict of interest, as stated in the attached letter to the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Lacy requested that the State Attorney General conduct the investigation. The August 20, 2002 letter from the State Attorney General’s Office concludes the following: “Based on our review it has been determined that 61 insufficient evidence of criminal intent exists to warrant prosecution of this matter.”

The Sheriff decided to turn over the sale proceeds and the shotgun to the complainant to resolve the matter. Response to F10: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F1.1: The Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Board of Supervisors does adopt goals and objectives, and did so most recently in May 7, 2002. Additionally, various actions by the Board incorporate goals and objectives as part of policy decisions. For example, goals and objectives are incorporated in the River Management Plan and the County’s Economic Development Program. Some departments have developed, and follow, plans that are specific to their particular programs. These goals and objectives do serve the purpose, where applicable, of guiding the allocation of County funds and resources. It is also true that in their planning and operations, many County Departments continually receive structured input from citizens through a variety of advisory boards and committees, legal mandates and regulations, and direction by the Board of Supervisors, and those Departments respond to this input through their planned allocation of funds and resources. The recent process leading to the development of the rural Public Health Clinic illustrates just one example of strategic planning that occurs within El Dorado County government. However, in the comparative sense of a business plan as conventionally developed or used by many private corporations, the County does not have an official strategic plan.

As of April 20, 2002, the complainant has received neither the money nor the gun. Response to F11: The respondent agrees with the finding.

for the current fiscal year, FY2001-02, the Board of Supervisors chose to hold more extensive public hearings as part of the budget addendum 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. Response to F1.2: The Respondent agrees with the finding. The public hearings process conducted by the Board of Supervisors prior to final adoption of the 2001-02 County budget did provide for greater interaction between the Board and the departments than has taken place in the recent past. The budget public hearings are the culmination of a process that begins months earlier with the Board of Supervisors issuing budgeting directions and instructions. These directives are themselves policy statements indicating management direction and fiscal expectations for guiding departmental Budget preparation. The Respondent does agree that, in principle, a long range strategic plan can provide policy direction for managerial and financial decisions, but so can a number of other 17 valid, rational planning methodologies. The decision to utilize any form of strategic planning is itself a management choice, and there is no exclusively singular methodology of strategic planning. Neither is the county completely without such direction by not having a particular form of strategic planning in place.

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. Response to F12: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F1.3: The Respondent agrees with the finding. In his 2002-2003 Budget cover letter to the Board of Supervisors the Interim CAO states on page XXXVII. “It has been over a decade since the Board of Supervisors and County managers have engaged in a strategic planning process for El Dorado County government as an organization. Through strategic planning, County government decision makers from department front-line operations up through department management, County Administration and the Board of Supervisors, develop a common understanding of overall ultimate goals and objectives, and the relationship or importance of incremental decisions made each year at all organizational levels. Incremental decisions may help to advance the organization toward Board adopted goals or could inadvertently delay or otherwise interfere with achievement of those goals. It is recommended that we proceed with development of a County Strategic Plan. As a precursor to the development of a strategic plan, the Chief Administrative Office will be undertaking an update of the Analysis of Financial Trends last updated in 1994.” 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: 18 Assessing the current state of County operations including resources available and (cid:137) strengths and weaknesses of the organization Identifying likely future trends that will affect the County (e.g., population growth (cid:137) 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 (cid:137) demands (i.e., likely revenue streams) Establishing service goals and objectives consistent with the mission and vision (cid:137) for the future Establishing a system for measuring the County’s success in meeting the stated (cid:137) goals and objectives 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 sentencing, community perception of safety, and other measures. These types of measures can be tied 19 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 staffing 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 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 20 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, achieve optimum effectiveness and efficiency of resources. Its goals for the future include: expanding basic intranet/internet 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 21 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: The County mission and vision statement (cid:137) A department mission and vision statement1 (cid:137) Department goals (cid:137) Identification of department issues (cid:137) Identification of all key programs in each department including: (cid:137) (cid:190) Program name (cid:190) Program purpose (cid:190) Key results for the program (usually a quantifiable measure) (cid:190) Activities and services within each program (cid:190) Outputs for each activity (cid:190) Actual results for each activity compared to key result expectations (cid:190) Cost per output 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: statement of purpose or mission; (cid:137) vision for the future; (cid:137) goals, objectives and action plans for accomplishing the mission and vision (cid:137) statements; and, a system for measuring results linked to the budget process. (cid:137) 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 department vision statement was optional in the Maricopa County plan. 22

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." Response to F13: The respondent agrees with the finding. The Sheriff reports that the sales price was $450, not $500, which would make the discrepancy $75- $175. The respondent is unable either to agree with the finding or the Sheriff’s response, or to disagree wholly with it, because of the factual disputes in the matter, which the Board cannot resolve. However, the El Dorado County District Attorney was requested to conduct an investigation of this matter (see R6 of this Complaint). Due to an appearance of a conflict of interest, as stated in the attached letter to the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Lacy requested that the State Attorney General conduct the investigation. The August 20, 2002 letter from the State Attorney General’s Office concludes the following: “Based on our review it has been determined that insufficient evidence of criminal intent exists to warrant prosecution of this matter.” 62

There is a $125 - $225 discrepancy between the $500 actual credit received by the Sheriff and the valuation amount reported by him. Response to F14: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Sheriff “guesstimated” the combined value of the two weapons at between $300 and $400. The actual value of the rifle was $450 and the estimated value of the shotgun is $25. Therefore, the discrepancy is between $75 and $175, not $125 - $225.

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 get [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." Response to F15: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F16: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Management employees, such as Sheriff’s Captains and Lieutenants are able to utilize their allotted management leave for personal use, including electioneering. Similarly, non-management employees are able to utilize their accrued leave time (vacation, compensatory time off) for personal use, including electioneering. As employees who are utilizing leave time should not be in uniform, the respondent disagrees that these employees create the impression that they 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. Response to F17: Respondent disagrees partially with finding. While some employees may have allowed the election to affect their relations with other Sheriff’s employees, all employees of the Sheriff’s Office are professionals and “internal election battles” did not affect their relations with the public they serve. To suggest otherwise does a disservice to the fine men and women who protect the citizens of El Dorado County.

There are residual bad feelings among some of the Sheriff’s personnel. Many believe it will take years for healing to take place. Response to F18: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. • The culture and traditions of law enforcement encourage such contentiousness. Response to F19: The respondent disagrees with the finding. Any election that involves two or more internal candidates has the potential to be contentious; this is not unique to Sheriff’s races.

The Sheriff’s Team of Active Retirees (STAR) is 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. Response to F20: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F2.1: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F21: The respondent agrees with the finding. 70

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. Response to F2.2: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Transportation: The Respondent agrees with the first statement in the finding, namely that priority setting and funding has not been driven over the last few years by a multi-year capital improvement program. The Respondent disagrees with the second statement in the finding, namely that as a result management can set priorities without formal direction from the Board and public. First, as is described more fully in our response to the related

Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and a variety of religious programs are provided by volunteers from the community. Response to F22: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F2.3: The respondent agrees with the finding. Moreover, the Respondent appreciates the Grand Jury’s acknowledgements of our recent efforts! On in Section 3 (Harvey Rose report) it is stated that "... 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..." The report focuses on the large variation between appropriations in the proposed budget compared with the addenda budget, in the Road Fund as well as General Fund. This is an important issue that DOT management and the CAO have discussed on a number of occasions, and DOT is increasing its efforts to deliver projects within the fiscal year in which they are budgeted. One salient consideration is the overlapping of the County’s fiscal year and the construction season, given our climate. As DOT’s annual construction activity has risen dramatically (capacity-increasing projects and capital surface treatment) we have more work to deliver each year. The difference between awarding one or two contracts, and encumbering the expenditures, at the end of a fiscal year or the beginning of the next fiscal year, can dramatically influence the change in appropriations between our two submitted budgets (proposed and addenda). DOT’s administrative staff spends a considerable amount of time with our capital project managers and maintenance staff in preparing the proposed budget, to determine where projects will be on June 30th, and associated 28 carryovers. A project can slip just a week and cause millions of dollars to be carried forward into the next year. Historically, we have been extremely optimistic in our projections. Alternatively, had we been conservative, we might well have underestimated carryovers in the proposed budget. From the perspective of public service, does it really matter if right of way or construction costs were incurred in July vs. June? It would appear that the important policy consideration is whether project costs have increased or a project has missed a construction season. Moreover, attempting to improve the accuracy of the guesstimates, even if possible, could easily result in more time spent, not an overall savings of time. To the extent that more can be done to expend or encumber project costs prior to June vs. say July or August, a number of things are needed. First, DOT will need to augment its project delivery capabilities. We continue to run a high vacancy rate in our professional project delivery staff (e.g. engineers, right-of-way staff, etc.), due to a number of circumstances. Second, DOT will need to augment some administrative support staff in its engineering and maintenance divisions to ensure timely production of contracts, agenda items, and plans, specifications and estimates, etc. Third, other County departments may need to augment their resources to address the increasing load of DOT-related purchases, agreements, etc. DOT is actively working on all of these matters, and will be making

The booking area appeared cluttered. Response to F23: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F2.4: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Management has assurance that decisions made by intake Social Workers are consistent and supported by the supervisor. Currently DSS has consistency in response because one supervisor in Placerville, and one supervisor in Tahoe, reviews all referrals, including those that come in after hours. They determine if the response was appropriate, and sign off on each decision. They provide supervision and training to staff who answer the phones, as well as those who respond. Most of the after hours coverage is provided by CPS and APS workers who work in similar positions during the day. The CPS supervisors now rotate after-hours coverage.

The loading dock was not clean. Response to F24: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response F2.5: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Approximately three years ago, CDSS instituted a Structured Decision Making tool as a pilot program in 13 counties. At this point CDSS is not endorsing the tool or allocating the funds to have more counties implement it. The supervisors are now available after-hours for consultation. 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 responses by a county social worker in emergency situations in accordance with regulations of the department.9 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. 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? • 9 California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 16054 300 6. Does additional information obtained from collateral contacts or record material invalidate the report? 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 301 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: “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.”10 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. • 10 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.1-2. 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. Exhibit 2.1 Number of Completed Emergency Response Protocol Forms in Case Files Number of Forms Percent Complete 29 50% Incomplete 29 50% Total 58 100% Source: CWS/CMS 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 303 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 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: • Brief Narrative of the Investigation (includes details of who, what, when and where) • Child’s age, vulnerability, physical and/or mental abilities (includes perpetrator’s access to child) • Child’s behavior • Caretaker’s Parenting skills/Knowledge (includes capacity for childcare; interaction with children, other caretakers; skill, knowledge; criminal behavior, mental health) 304 • 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) • Need for Emergency Services, if any 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 Number of Percent Narratives Each field complete 8 29.6% Fields Incomplete 11 40.7% Narrative not found 8 29.6% Total 2711 100% 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 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. • 11 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. 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, is 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. Inconsistency in After Hours Intake 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 After Hours process is as follows: 307 • 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. 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 308 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.”12 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 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. 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 • 12 Child Protective Services Policy Manual. El Dorado County Department of Social Services. 1992. pg. 9. 309 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 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. 310

Overall, the management of the Jail appeared to be considerably above average. Response to F25: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F26:

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. Response to F27:

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. Response to F28:

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. Response to F29: 109

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. Response to F30:

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. Response to F3.1: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The respondent agrees that the budget mid-year reports provide the Board with a comprehensive, well organized assessment of the county’s budget status. However, the monitoring of county budget and financial conditions is continuously occurring through the employment of qualified staff analysts serving in the Chief Administrative Office, Auditor-Controller’s office, and in every department. Established Board procedures also require that information about the budget and financial consequences of proposed Board actions be identified and included in departments’ agenda presentation of recommendations and requests. The respondent disagrees with the assumption that more regularly produced reports as described by the Grand Jury in Finding 3.1 are necessary or required by the Board to fulfill its duty as the steward of the County’s financial resources. At all times, the Board already has the ability to obtain full reports or assessments of any financial or budget matter affecting the County, and does call for and obtain such information when it determines the need to do so.

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. Response to F31:

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. Response to F3.2: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Respondent agrees that the County’s financial system is capable of producing a variety of ad-hoc reports useful to department managers and others interested in county finances. The Respondent also agrees that such reports, by communicating financial information at any point in time, may be facilitative to Board and public involvement or understanding of the County’s fiscal status. The 38 respondent disagrees with the assumption that unexpected developments in the County’s fiscal status are due to the absence of such reports. Financial conditions may vary from expectations at any time and for any number of reasons, and such changes may manifest themselves as the result of many factors that are outside the range of information contained in a financial report.

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. Response to F32: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The DGS developed the budget for the Communications Division without assistance from the other two Departments.

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 departmental performance audits. Response to F3.3: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The term “performance audit” is taken to mean a process which analyzes and evaluates the observed relationship between a set of defined inputs into an activity, and their results. The respondent agrees that the technique of performance auditing is useful as a tool to identify and evaluate opportunities for improving operational efficiency, including fiscal efficiency for budgeting purposes. The respondent disagrees with the assumption in the Finding that the current budget process ignores the application of performance auditing principles and criteria or disregards consideration of baseline budgets. In preparing budget proposals, all department managers are continually called upon to justify and substantiate the results of their use of fiscal resources. Many times, baseline budgeting is defined by legal mandates. Department managers are frequently expected to meet baseline performance requirements with reduced revenues, requiring them to reorganize and consolidate operations, or generate new sources of income. 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. 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. Timing of County Budget Review and Approval Department budget staff spends 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 40 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. Exhibit 3.1 Changes between Proposed and Addenda Budget By Fund, FY 2001-02 Proposed Addenda % Total Fund Budget Budget Difference 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% 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. 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 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. 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,2 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 Sheriff’s 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. • 2 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. 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.

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. Response to F33: The respondent agrees with the finding.

By implementing an employee performance evaluation system that explicitly explains job expectations for the first year of employment, includes in-person documented performance evaluations every three months during the first year of employment, uses a standardized appraisal instrument, includes outcome based performance measures in the appraisal 314 instrument, and provides timely annual post probationary evaluations, the Department will have greater assurance of consistency and accuracy in its performance evaluations. Response to F3.4 The respondent disagrees wholly with the finding. Probationary employees do not have the same rights as employees who have passed probation and achieved civil service status. To implement a system which is consistent with that provided to civil service employees may result in newly hired employees achieving full property rights and civil services status from date of hire. The respondent does concur that it is important to provide expectations and ongoing feedback to probationary employees. The manner in which the feedback is provided will be consistent with merit system standards and locally negotiated requirements. Organizations, whether public or private, need to establish a set of goals and create an ongoing system of measuring organizational and employee outcomes. Increased staff accountability, improved problem solving ability, and, ultimately, better results for children are goals that all child welfare agencies should strive for. Without an accurate measurement of outcomes, it is difficult to determine the impact of the resources allocated on services and whether or not the agency is effectively carrying out the goals and objectives of management. To achieve an accurate measurement of performance, the Department must set measurement goals, employee outcomes must be measured related to these goals, and data must be utilized to measure performance. Employee evaluations are the source to quantify the performance of employees. Both processes of setting goals and establishing outcome measures can be beneficial because they require management to establish priorities and to allocate resources and to establish systems and processes that will lead to the intended results. The Department of Social Services, according to its web site, cites its mission goal as “to help people in social or economic crisis increase their ability to become as self-sufficient as possible.” However, the Child Protective Services division does not have its own mission statement, but generally the goal of the division is to provide assistance to children who are victims of abuse, neglect or exploitation. Based on research and interviews, the Department does not have a consistent system in place for measuring the effectiveness across units within CPS. However, the CPS does a good job of collecting and reporting a variety of statistics about caseload activity levels, but not always outcomes and Department goals. The statistical management reports produced concern the type of referrals and their dispositions, current caseload levels, type of out-of-home placements, closed and active, number of adoptions, and number of children freed for adoption. The information provides management a tool to review and assess caseload and staff productivity, but they do not measure outcomes or the achievement of Department goals, such as the number of families reunified, number of children in stable placements and others. Inconsistencies exist in the performance measures used in the Child Protective Services division. The variances not only exist between the two Department offices, but also 315 within CPS units in the Placerville location. While there are many similarities, such as caseload numbers, between the units there was not a consistent guide for tracking outcomes throughout the division. The Emergency Response unit in Placerville, we found there are more formalized performance measurements in place. The supervisor in that unit has created a series of reports and systems that can track performance within the ER unit. The performance measurements in that unit are as follows: • Referral Count by Start Date • Referral Count by End Date • Voluntary Status Report • Case Plan Start Date for Cases Opened Between two Dates • Open Referrals with First Investigation Date • Referral Performance Statistics • Number of All Evaluate Outs • Number of All Referrals upon Closing • Number of All Voluntary Family Maintenance Cases upon closing • Monthly Caseload Activity Report • Caseload Summary • After Hours Intake Log Examinations of the Ongoing and Adoptions units show each unit within CPS has different standards which are examined to determine performance measurement. According to the Ongoing Unit supervisor, that unit reports social worker caseload numbers on a monthly basis. In addition, the supervisor scans cases and a determination is based on the case plan, as some case types require more staff time than others do. In the Adoptions unit some performance outcomes are measured, such as the number of adoptions, but the outcomes are not linked to the case approach that preceded it in the other units. Caseload Tracking Another critical role of the supervisor is to monitor achievement of key casework activities and outcomes on a case-by-case basis. Monitoring activities and outcomes enables the supervisor to track client progress as well as the caseworker’s completion of essential casework functions. In addition, supervisors monitor achievement of casework activities and outcomes across caseloads. Finally, by monitoring the unit to determine if it is achieving its program goals, supervisors can identify trends necessary for planning purposes as well as areas in need of corrective action. One problem with caseload tracking in CPS is there is not a system in place to determine caseload numbers on a historical basis. Supervisors informed audit staff that caseload numbers change daily and there is not a systematic procedure to produce reports, which offer a historical perspective on caseloads. Even with the Monthly Caseload Activity Report, we were unable to get a historical assessment of assignments across units and of 316 both DSS offices in the County. Analysis of the number indicated dramatic fluctuations in caseload numbers. One consistent theme emerged from discussion with upper management of the CPS division. The theme is that the performance measurements are not outcome based. Some interviewed felt outcome based performance measurements would be beneficial to the Department Outcome Measurement Systems in other Jurisdictions Jurisdictions throughout California have or are in the process of instituting outcomes- based performance measures for their child welfare service departments. Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties are among the California counties that have or are establishing outcomes-based performance measurement systems. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, in its Strategic Plan 2000, have identified accountability as one of its key values, defining it this way: Accountability involves the belief that efforts to achieve an outcome will be made, that these efforts will be directed at a goal and will result in achieving that goal, that achievement can be demonstrated, and that someone is held accountable for the results. Based on this value, Los Angeles County distinguishes five broad outcome areas for all children in the county: • Safety and survival • Good health • Social and emotional well being • Economic well being • School achievement and work force readiness Of the broad goals listed above, each has its own specific outcomes tailored to the children in the Los Angeles County system, which includes performance indicators and data sources for each specific outcome. The data sources established in Los Angeles to track each performance indicator is generated by CWS/CMS. For instance, for social and emotional well being the desired outcome goal is to reduce the time a child spends in placement. To measure this outcome Los Angeles County used CWS/CMS data to determine the average amount of time a child spends in foster care, stratified by placement type. Data for this measure is available in CWS/CMS Contra Costa County’s child welfare system established broad outcomes, strategies, performance measures, and data sources, similar to the structure of Los Angeles County’s system. The outcomes are as follows: • 13 Strategic Plan 2000, 2000; Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 317 • Children’s health and developmental needs are being met • Families are satisfied • Children are safe and remain in their own homes whenever possible • Children achieve permanency in a timely manner El Dorado County could replicate the outcomes and models in both Los Angeles and Contra Costa Counties. To establish an outcome based performance measurement system usually requires an investment of staff time and possibly funding for new or enhanced information systems. The Department of Social Services Child Protective Services division can create outcome based performance measures from data stored in CWS/CMS. While the system has its limitations, it also has the ability to produce some useful outcome and performance reports for management. For example, throughout the audit, CPS staff provided ample data to audit staff directly extracted from CWS/CMS. The Department filled numerous audit staff data requests by extracting the data from CWS/CMS. Examples of the data provided included number of: Emergency Response Investigations; Active Cases; Cases Closed; Current Caseload; Referral Counts by Start Date; and Voluntary Family Maintenance Cases. Since CWS/CMS is an automated version of a case file, all data recorded about each child and family should be available from the system and able to be extracted and aggregated for outcome reporting. Some of these measures listed above, such as the number of families reunited at case closure and number of Social Workers per child, would require development of special reports that are not produced at this time, though they are all technically possible to produce. For example, recidivism data is recorded in individual case files and could be extracted to review family referrals to the Department subsequent to case closures, but this would require production of a new CWS/CMS based report. Production of any performance measurement report requires that all Social Workers input the data needed on to CWS/CMS. All staff does not consistently use the system at this time, making some data collection and analysis difficult to perform. Employee Evaluations As a result of an organization’s goals and objectives, performance measures should be tracked to ascertain if the stated purpose of the organization is met. Further, organizations must have a formal system to review employee performance to determine if goals are being met by employees consistent with organization-wide goals. Without evaluation there is no objective, quantifiable measurement of service or staff quality, no technique for fostering improvement and no system to determine if stated employee goals are achieved. Employee performance evaluations can foster improvement in worker morale and employee performance. With detailed employee evaluations, areas for individual employee improvement can be identified and goals set for improvement in those areas. Unless feedback is provided voluntarily by supervisors to their staffs, the absence of an employee evaluation system can encourage the status quo or even a decline in performance as it communicates the message that one’s performance doesn’t matter. Performance evaluations are a method of communicating and reinforcing an organization’s goals and values such as efficiency and responsiveness to customers. An effective performance evaluation system should not be constructed or used as a punitive measure but as a proactive system for management to communicate its expectations to employees and for assisting employees to improve. Employee performance evaluations are crucial in the initial stages of employment when workers are in the socialization process of learning the details of the job. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between El Dorado County and Public Employees, Local Unit No. 1 details the review process for the yearlong probationary period for new employees. The MOU identifies the probation review process as follows: • The employee will receive a written statement of expectations signed by the supervisor and employee. The supervisor shall retain the copy signed by the employee and provide a copy to the employee. • Not less than monthly the supervisor shall meet with the employee to review the employee’s progress toward meeting the supervisor’s expectations. The supervisor shall provide the employee with a written summary of the meeting. • The employee will acknowledge receipt of the summary of his/her progress by signing a copy of the summary. The supervisor shall retain the copy signed by the employee. • The employee shall be considered to have met expectations in any month in which the supervisor does not meet with the employees and provide them with a written summary of his/her progress. • All written summaries, containing the employee’s acknowledgement of receipt, shall be submitted to Human Resources with the appropriate forms for successful completion of probation or of the employee’s failure to complete the probation period. In addition to this process, the Department maintains a more formalized employee evaluation process in which probationary employees are reviewed using the Department’s standardized Employee Performance Appraisal form after six months and eleven months of employment. These more formal reviews are done in accordance with Merit Systems. Merit Systems is a contractor for the California State Personnel Board that satisfies the 319 State of California’s responsibility to ensure that personnel systems which cover county employees of federal grant-in-aid programs comply with federal merit standards. The employee evaluation process begins when an employee is hired. The Department gives the employee a description of the job and a list of essential functions related to the job. According to the Department, employees are given informal monthly reviews. These informal reviews are supposed to consist of a memorandum chronicling the employee’s status and highlighting any issues regarding the employee’s job performance. These reviews describe the nature of the meeting, and provide some feedback to the employee regarding their performance. The formal employee evaluation process starts with the supervisor completing a formal written evaluation of the employee. Once the appraisal form is complete the supervisor will sign and date the review. The employee will then review, sign and date the evaluation. The form, however, clearly states that the employee signature does not mean the employee is in agreement with the review. At this point, the Program Manager reviews the employee evaluation and signs the form. Unlike the employee signature, the upper management signature does indicate concurrence with the employee review. The Department’s instrument to meet the Merit System requirement for a formal performance evaluation is the Employee Performance Appraisal. This form is only completed for the formal evaluations at the six-month review and end of probation. This appraisal is used to evaluate the performance of staff based on several criteria. A review of this document indicates that the evaluator must (a) identify or report on the probation status of employee, (b) identify an overall rating, (c) identify employee goals, and (d) report on the employee’s performance using a list of performance factors, which includes job knowledge, output, compliance with rules, and initiative. A supplementary appraisal form, used only in South Lake Tahoe, indicates that the evaluator must (a) list items discussed during the review, (b) identify desired training and training attended, and (c) identify length of time with the Department. As part of this audit, verification of employee performance evaluations was conducted for 13 randomly selected CPS employees at pre and post-probationary stages and for all employees on probation during the previous three fiscal years. Several issues limited the immediate review of the employee evaluations. DSS management was reluctant to provide audit staff access to the employee performance reviews due to confidentiality considerations and outstanding litigation. The County Counsel’s Office determined their office could conduct the review and provide the data to audit staff with names redacted so employee privacy would remain intact. Based on this review, the Department does a good job of providing yearly post probationary evaluations. Analysis of the performance evaluations of post probationary employees revealed the Department completed an employee appraisal on a timely basis for all but one of the 13 employees. The employee that did not have a yearly review had their performance evaluated each of the previous six years prior and three years after the missed evaluation. The evaluations reviewed were conducted more than one year after their last evaluations. Excluding the missed review, we found that in 8 of 26 yearly post probation evaluations for six employees, or 30.8 percent of all their evaluations, the Department missed the required yearly time period. On average the missed reviews were 58 days past the one- year period. The longest delay was 141 days more than a year. The shortest delay was 4 days past the one-year mark for a post probation evaluation. This review found significant problems with probationary evaluations. The formal evaluation forms, performed after six months and at the end of probation, are conducted on an inconsistent basis. The Department does a sufficient job of conducting employee evaluations for some employees, while other employees get performance evaluations on a sporadic basis, if at all. As Exhibit 3.1 illustrates, the Department conducted formal Merit Systems evaluations during probation on employees at various frequencies. A majority of probationary employees, 23 out of 30, or 76.7 percent, received between one and three formal evaluations during their one year probation. Two employees, or 6.7 percent, received four formal evaluations, an average of once every three months. Exhibit 3.1 Completion of Formal Employee Performance Reviews during Probation Number of Number of Employees Percent Probationary Reviews 4 2 6.7% 3 7 23.3% 2 9 30.0% 1 7 23.3% 0 3 10.0% N/A 2 6.7% 30 100.0% Total Further, Exhibit 3.1 shows of the 30 employees in the random sample, five employees, or 16.7 percent, did not receive a formal performance evaluation at either the six-month point of employment or at the conclusion of probation. Two of these employees are not applicable since each employee has been with the Department less than six months. However, of the three remaining employees without a formal review, one has worked for the Department for more than 540 days without a formal appraisal of work quality. Additionally, we found a second employee employed at the Department for over 375 days with no formal evaluation conducted, although the Department policy is that these reviews should happen at the 6-month point of employment and again at the end of probation. Moreover, these two employees moved from the probation period of employment to post-probationary timeframe of employment without a formal review. In an examination of nine probationary employees where formal probationary reviews were completed using the Employee Performance Appraisal form, we found minimal consistency in how the results of the formal evaluation were used. Of these nine cases, we found that only one employee was given ratings above standard, the equivalent of above average. The remaining eight employees were all rated as meets standard, which is the equivalent of average or satisfactory, for all of their formal reviews during probation. The findings of the eight employees are presented in Exhibit 3.2. Exhibit 3.2 Probation Results for Eight Employees who Met all Standards in Their Formal Evaluations • No. of Average Overall Rating Result of Probationary Percent Employees Number of Reviews Of Review Period 4 50% 1.50 Meets Standards Retained 4 50% 1.25 Meets Standards Terminated 8 100% 1.38 As Exhibit 3.2 demonstrates, based on the formal evaluations half of the employees were terminated at the end or during their probationary period even though their overall ratings were the same as those who were retained. This demonstrates that either these formal evaluations are not documented well or the meaning of the evaluation elements are not consistently understood by all supervisors and the Program Manager who reviews all evaluations. Moreover, of the four terminated employees, three received a

Fleet Services is responsible for purchasing, maintaining, disposing of, and interdepartmental billing for all county-owned vehicles. Response to F34: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Not all County owned vehicles are maintained in the Fleet program.

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. Response to F35: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Board approved a new Fleet Services Technician for the Fleet Services unit in Placerville in the 01/02 budget not South Lake Tahoe. We have no Fleet Services operation in South Lake Tahoe. There are currently 526 fleet vehicles and were 337 five years ago – a 58% increase.

Technicians provide specialized installation and maintenance of lights, consoles, radios, computers, etc., in vehicles. Routine maintenance continues to be performed countywide by outside vendors. Response to F36: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. While the Fleet Services Technicians do provide the services referenced in the Grand Jury Report, we also provide many aspects of routing vehicle maintenance as well.

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. Response to F37: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Mileage charges are billed, not via the “Gas Boy” system but by mileage reading provided by departments on a monthly basis, so vehicle mileage and use is accurate. Fuel use and charges are distorted as stated because of problems with the “Gas Boy” system. Within the next six months General Services will replace the “Gas Boy” system or utilize an outside vendor for fuel provision.

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. Response to F38: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F39: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The position of Fleet Supervisor was not vacant for six months. The Fleet Supervisor was placed on Administrative Leave. Because the position was not vacated, recruitment could not be initiated with the HR Department until that Supervisor resigned some months later. The individual who voluntarily took over the supervision of the Fleet unit did receive a 5% 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. Response to F40: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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 FY2001-02 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. Response to F4.1 The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Risk Management fund covers much more than the County’s “insurance” costs. El Dorado County is self-insured for Liability, Workers’ Compensation, and Health Benefits. For fiscal year 2001/02 overall insurance costs as compared to the total Risk Management program were 18%. Risk Management manages the county’s loss control program (ergonomics, illness and injury reporting, OSHA, property safety, emergency evacuation, threat assessment training and management, contract review, etc.), medical and disability leave program (miscellaneous state and federal leave acts, short and long term disability, return to work, rehabilitation), employee benefits (life insurance, disability insurance, health, dental, employee assistance, vision, retiree and former employee health billing), workers’ compensation, general liability, medical malpractice, property insurance etc.

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. Response to F41: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. Prior to the new General Services Director securing a new modular unit for the Fleet program, the Department would routinely caulk areas determined to be the cause of the leaks. In addition the department applied “cold patch” and asphalt emulsion to the roof. It is not only the Board policy, but CalOsha regulations, to provide safe and healthful working conditions for all County employees.

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. Response to F4.2: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Internal service funds follow the same budget procedures as all other fund types which includes reporting at a fundtype level the prior year actual expenditures, the current year approved budget, the department request, the CAO recommendation 47 and the difference from the prior year approved budget. There are three fundtypes larger than the internal service fund and two smaller. For example, during Fiscal Year 2001/02 the General Fund expenditures exceed $100 million, the Special Revenue Fund exceeded $67 million and the Special Revenue Board Governed Districts approximately $28 million; the Enterprise fund was approximately $.7 million and the Capital Projects fund $2.5 million. Several department budgets equal or exceed the Risk Management such as General Services ($17.5 million), Sheriff ($33.56 million), DOT ($42.75 million), Health ($28.9 million) and Social Services ($30.3 million). Key information and assumptions are included in the CAO recommendations. The 2002-03 budget includes 6.5 pages of discussion regarding the assumptions included in the internal services’ program budgets. These departments are no more at risk for over or underestimating funding needs than any other program. All fundtypes, including the general fund, must budget for reserves and contingencies. The point is, every fundtype and department program is unique. That uniqueness or size alone, should not dictate special budgeting procedures falling outside the normal budgeting process of rest of the County.

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. Response to F42: The respondent agrees with the finding. 127

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. Response to F4.3: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. Although insurance amounts are a part of the expenses and amounts that the County must consider when budgeting, insurance is not a big consideration when establishing reserve levels. There are two types of reserves. The first type is based on claims that have been made. The County has reviewed these claims and established “reserves” that equal estimates of the worth of these claims. Since the County believes that these claims are liabilities that will have to be paid, it sets up a payable called a “reserve”. In addition to the known claims, the County must estimate amounts for unknown claims. These are called “incurred but not reported” or IBNR. These are claims that the County does not know about yet, but that it must anticipate based on historical information and experience. These IBNR amounts are also set up as a payable or reserve. Reserve amounts are then established based on known and unknown amounts, based on historical actual information, and finally something called “confidence level”. “Confidence level” is a means of measuring how good the County’s reserves are. Budgeting at a 50% confidence level is budgeting at the “expected” level of payment. Budgeting above 50% builds in “confidence levels” that amounts funded are sufficient to pay claims, since what the County ultimately 48 pays may exceed what was expected. If the County performs better than expected, future funding needs decline and the County takes a “credit” on funding future reserves, thereby reducing the possibility of overfunding. Should the County choose to reduce funding of reserves, this would be a one-time only savings, as the amounts would need to be made up at a later point. Should later reserves not be adequate, and should unanticipated expenditures occur during any one fiscal year, amounts would have to be provided from another fund’s reserves or contingencies. Reducing reserves could negatively impact the cost applied process, which allocates charges to each program so that programs can pass those charges on to grant, state, and federally funded programs. If reserves are not being charged properly at the time that the liability is determined to exist, then reserve charges are not applied to programs. Later on, when the liability is paid, programs which should receive the charge may not exist. Therefore grant funding, state and federal funding, fees and charges would be lost forever. Reserve and funding level information is an integral part of the proposed budget information to the Board. The County had adopted via the budget process the goal of a 60% confidence level with the fiscal year 1996/1997 budget and a 70% confidence level with the fiscal year 2001/02 budget. In fiscal year 2001/02 the County approved the first year costs of a five year plan to bring both the Workers’ Compensation and General Liability programs to a 70% confidence level. A discussion of the second year of this five-year plan was included in the fiscal year 2002/03 proposed budget. Although the Health Plan also establishes payables or reserves, the reserves are much simpler. There is no long period of payout of liabilities associated with this self-insured program. Instead, the County has traditionally maintained an average amount of 2.5 months worth of costs to be in reserves (IBNR). The County does this because 2.5 months equals the average lag time between medical services being received and paid. Beginning in 1996/97 the County was also able to fund a “rate stabilization account” of approximately $1 million. The account was established to help mitigate cost increases. Because of huge increases in expenditures, beginning in March 2001 and continuing through fiscal year 2001/02, the County spent its rate stabilization amounts along with its IBNR. Fiscal year 2002/03 increases are designed to stop spending over amounts anticipated for claims.

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 employees and a potential risk to the County of increases in workers compensation claims. Response to F43: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. This is a very broad statement and the respondent has no specific references for response. When the Interim Director was appointed in May 2001 new accountability standards were applied to all Department staff. Those employees who were unable or unwilling to comply, for the most part, are gone from the Department. Continuity in Department management staff will result in greater accountability and performance.

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. Response to F4.4: The respondent agrees with the finding. 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 insurance3, a third party administrator and staff and indirect costs of the County Risk Management Office. 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 types 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 needing 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: • 3 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. 50 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. 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 CAO Actual Approved Recommended FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 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 51 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 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 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: 52 Current amounts in reserve, shown separately for Workers’ Compensation, General (cid:137) Liability and Health Benefits Three years of projected actual expenditures for the budget year and the next five to (cid:137) ten years, shown separately for Workers’ Compensation, General Liability and Health Benefits The amount needed to fund reserves at alternative confidence levels, covering the (cid:137) 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. 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: 53 Exhibit 4.2 Example of Information to Provide to the Board of Supervisors for Consideration of Alternative Insurance Reserve Levels for Internal Service Funds Reserves required Confidence level (000s) Pay as you go None 20 % $3,000 35% $3,500 50% $4,000 65% $4,500 70% $5,000 80% $5,500 100% $6,000 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. 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) 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 d FY 01-02 Claims pay outs/legal costs, 2,000 2,600 e FY 01-02 Third party administrator costs 400 300 f FY 01-02Excess insurance costs 1,500 1,000 g 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 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) General Workers’ Liability Compensation Fiscal Year 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 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. Fleet Management Fund 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.

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. Response to F44: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F45: The respondent agrees with the finding. Each department coordinates the Fleet program to function within their department using an organization structure designed to produce the greatest amount of efficiency and effectiveness. Each department could therefore have a higher or lower administrative rate, depending on whether or not “line” staff perform a function for the program, or whether administrative staff perform a function. Then too, the department could assign the work to employees that may make more or less pay. 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. Response to F46: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Airport Manager retired and a recruitment was initiated which resulted with the hiring of the Airport Supervisor. Prior to this recruitment, a reorganization strategy recommended by an interim direction, deleted the Airport Manager position and replaced it with an Airport Supervisor position. The Airport Supervisor then resigned his position in December 2000 and another recruitment was initiated which resulted in the hiring of a new Airport Supervisor on January 8, 2001. This Airport Supervisor served as the Airport Supervisor until he transferred over the Planning Department in September 2001. The Airport Technician was appointed as the Acting Airport Supervisor in September and he received a 5% hourly increase in acting pay as specified in the Union Contract. He served in this capacity until a third recruitment resulted in rehiring one of the prior Airport Supervisors in April 2002.

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. Response to F47: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F48: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F49: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Airport Program was transferred to the Department of General Services from the Department of Transportation by Board Resolution No. 274-97 on December 7, 1997. Although the Board of Supervisors abolished the Airport Advisory Committee and created two Committees, the Georgetown Airport Advisory Committee and the Placerville Airport Advisory Committee there was no further clarification needed about the program continuing to be assigned to the General Services Department.

Administrators of Fleet Services and Airports must interface with federal and state transportation agencies regarding policies and operating requirements. These units in DGS clearly have management issues and reporting responsibilities that are aligned with federal and state transportation matters. Response to F50: The respondent agrees with the finding. Fiscal and Administrative Services Findings

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. Response to F5.1: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F51: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F5.2: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F52: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F5.3: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F53: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Respondent recognizes that the Grand Jury was responding to concerns with the past budget processes between the DGS and the CAO’s office. It is important to note that the FY 02/03 budget process went much smoother with the Department’s new department head and fiscal administrative manager. The budget was submitted on time with accurate financial postings to the budget systems and complete and balanced financial schedules, and appropriate and accurate line item justifications. As a result there was sufficient time for CAO review and department response to questions. The County must adopt a proposed budget by July 1 of each year. Due to the DGS management and administrative problems, in the past, the department budget package did not comply with annual Board of Supervisor budget policy guidelines and/or CAO directions for budget preparation. The department submitted inadequate and incomplete budgets. This required the CAO’s office to work much more closely with the Department than normal and in compressed time frames due to the initial submittal delays coupled with the impending July 1 deadline. The department head is ultimately responsible for the department’s final request and for communicating changes to the division heads at the time deemed appropriate by the department head. Overtime is not unusual for department staff, as well CAO staff, to complete budget preparation. Staffing levels are geared to year long term operations and not the heavy additional workload which must be accomplished during the budget preparation season. Staff is expected to continue normal, routine operations and at the same time complete the extra work required for budget preparation.

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 corrective actions. Response to F5.4: The respondent agrees with the finding. 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. 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 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 supportive 50.0% 50.0% of CPS Top Management of the Department is very responsive 33.3% 66.7% to suggestions from staff I can influence matters above me 16.7% 83.3% 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 336 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 indicates 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 feels 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 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 offices17. It is of equal importance that top management responds 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 • 17 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. • 337 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 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 338 lapses in the policies and procedures, however, they do not feel it is necessary to rectify these deficiencies. Clerical staff performs 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 is 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 office assistants regarding Department policies and procedures and enforcement of these procedures. Exhibit 5.2 Survey Responses Regarding Department Rules and Regulations Question Agree Disagree Department rules and regulations are clear 22% 78% Department rules and regulations are consistently 18% 82% enforced Source: Audit survey of CPS social worker and office assistant staff 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 339 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. Training 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 340 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. 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 believes 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 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.

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. Response to F54: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Respondent recognizes that the Grand Jury was responding to concerns with the past budget processes between the DGS and the CAO’s Office. The FY02/03 budget process allowed much better interaction between the Department and the CAO office as mentioned above in F53. The CAO Budget Analyst assigned to the Department of General Services was able to work with the DGS more efficiently and effectively on the FY 02/03 budget due to better and timelier budget information from the department. The CAO works primarily with the department head and chief budget analyst and expects that they in turn will work with their 131 department managers for needed information. For some prior DGS budgets, under former DGS directors, the Analyst was called upon to actually create parts of the DGS budget because of inadequate, inaccurate, unsupportable, and untimely budget information. In prior years the department requested budget exceeded funding available as determined by the Chief Administrative Officer. Consequently additional work was required to determine priorities, since the department did not prioritize items in the request. Additional work was required to identify what budget request components could be reduced or eliminated in order to finalize the budget plan for the subject budget year. In the immediate preceding years, the prior department heads refused to identify and recommend adjustments to bring the requested budget plan down to the level specified by the Chief Administrative Officer, i.e. the level of funding available to General Services. The Pioneer Park Septic System project was not included in the CAO Recommended Budget because sufficient funding was not available during the subject year. The Parks CIP consisted of a variety of projects throughout the County. The department head was requested to recommend priorities based on information from department staff and the Parks Commission. The Parks CIP request exceeded funding available, and the CAO was advised that "nothing could be cut". Because of the significant expenditures already incurred at Pioneer, and other higher priority projects identified at Pioneer and elsewhere, it was decided to recommend delay of the proposed septic system needed if a restroom were to be built in close proximity to the nearby ball field location. Funding was left for the restroom as seed money and as a placeholder in case additional funding or project savings from other projects became available. The "seed money" could also be used to initiate first steps in restroom project planning, design, etc., prior to construction. Actual construction would occur in a subsequent year when funding was available. It's not unusual for the annual CIP budget to include funding for only a phase of a proposed project. CAO budget recommendations are developed based on the information provided by the department.

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). Response to F55: The respondent agrees with the finding. 132

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 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." Response to F56: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. The Department of General Services was not clear as to whether any funding was to be allocated for the development of a Facilities Master Plan in the FY 2001/2002. The County Administrator included this set aside in the Department 15 budget before the final budget adoption in September 2001 and included a discussion of the issue in the proposed budget. This respondent believes that both the Facilities Division and the Real Property Planning Division were fully informed as to the prospect of developing such a plan. This planning process has just now been initiated and both Divisions are full participants. 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). Response to F57: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F58: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F59: The respondent agrees with the finding. 133

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. Response to F60: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F61: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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 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. Response to F62: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F63: The respondent partially disagrees with the finding. This finding is correct with the exception of the statement that the corridor was deeded to El Dorado County. The corridor was purchased by a joint power’s authority with State and Federal funding. 134

Section 205 of County Resolution 228-84 identifies those county employees who may potentially invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission. Response to F64: Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Section 205 of Resolution 228-84 originally identified those employees who were eligible for Civil Service status and those who were exempt from Civil Service. While many of the named exclusions still apply, changes resulting from the adoption of the Charter and revisions to Ordinance 2.60.010, et seq. update and supercede Section 205 of Resolution 228-84. Resolution 228-84 is in process of comprehensive amendment.

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. Response to F65: Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. However, the finding appears to address several different procedures and Respondent provides the following clarification to ensure that its response is understood in context. The first sentence is inaccurate. The second sentence is generally accurate, in that parties invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission based on established procedures administered by the Director of Human Resources, acting in the capacity of Executive Officer of the Civil Service Commission. The Commission serves as an appellate body that reviews decisions made by department heads or actions taken by other County personnel. Matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission are brought to it through appeals by employees as prescribed in rules, policies or Memoranda of Understanding. Proceedings before the Commission are initiated through HRD. However, in receiving such filings, the HRD is, in fact, acting on behalf of the Commission and as part of the Commission’s process, not separately from the Commission. The finding states: "There is not a provision for the direct filing of complaints with the Commission." and “HRD attempts to resolve employee complaints before they are brought to the Commission.” Respondent agrees with both statements. It is true there is no “direct filing” with the Commission, and the commission supports this process in part because it minimizes the possibility that improper ex parte contacts can occur. This is consistent with the Commission's role as a reviewing body, rather than a body having initial jurisdiction to decide or resolve complaints. However, if the statement is intended to indicate that an 173 appeal which is properly the subject of Commission review is not filed directly with the Commission, but with HRD, Respondent notes that the Director of HRD acts as the Executive Officer to the Commission and that the filing, therefore, is with the Commission. With respect to the last sentence of the finding, efforts to resolve complaints are often made through the grievance procedure or through the informal processes of bringing a problem to the HRD's attention in order to have appropriate review and expeditious resolution, if possible. In these cases, HRD's efforts usually are to attempt to facilitate a resolution between the employee and the affected department, rather than to resolve the complaints directly. In cases of discipline, discrimination, or matters within the purview of the Commission, efforts at resolution of the appeal may continue after an appeal is filed. However, those efforts are made concurrent with the processing of the appeal to a hearing, not as a separate effort that defers the appeal process, although hearings before the Commission may be scheduled or continued when desired by both the County and the employee to facilitate discussions. It is correct that employee complaints generally reach the Commission only as a last resort since the Commission is the final reviewing body that is empowered to act only after completion of all other applicable review processes. Employees are not dissuaded from exercising their appeal rights to the Commission and are advised of those rights in any appealable proceedings.

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. Response to F66: The respondent agrees with the finding.

The Commission has authority to cause subpoenas duces tecum to be issued for matters within its lawful jurisdiction. Response to F67: The respondent agrees with the finding. The Commission may also issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses only.

The Commission is empowered only to affirm, modify or reverse decisions of the “appointing authority,” generally the department heads, in disciplinary actions. Response to F68: The respondent agrees with the finding. 174

Findings and decisions of the Commission in disciplinary actions are final and binding, subject only to judicial review. Response to F69: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F70: Respondent disagrees partially with the finding. Respondent agrees that contested hearings before the Commission do not occur frequently. The Commission’s jurisdiction is invoked when appeals are filed. However, Respondent disagrees that this means that the Commission is not used to its full capacity. In fact, the Commission diligently works to its “full capacity” when hearing appeals, but the first sentence suggests that the commission should be hearing even more appeals, which does not make sense in the context of a complaint driven appeal process. Under the Charter and other governing regulations, the Commission acts as an appellate reviewing body, a court of "last resort" within the County personnel system as suggested in F65. If few appeals are filed, this could be construed that the Department of Human Resources is effectively resolving matters, thus obviating the need for appeals. The function of the Commission is to serve as a forum when the parties cannot otherwise resolve their complaints or grievances. The fact that this does not occur frequently is not an indication that the Commission is underutilized. The better the system works, then the less frequently the parties should need to resort to the Commission.

On occasion, properly requested information has not been provided to the Commission in a timely manner. Response to F71: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. There may have been isolated instances (for example, 2 or 3 in the past several years) when information requested by the Commission has not been timely provided by departments other than the Department of Human Resources. The commission does not anticipate further problems obtaining relevant documents.

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; • 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. Response to F72: Respondent agrees with the finding. The Respondent does agree with the bulleted points and notes again that it is appropriate to avoid direct communications with employees in order to prevent improper ex parte communications. (See comment regarding F65.) Respondent disagrees with any negative implication contained in the finding or any implied suggestion that circumstances should be otherwise, given the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission is an adjudicatory body whose jurisdiction is prescribed by Charter Section 502.3. It functions essentially as an appellate hearing body that operates only in the context of formal proceedings. No role is assigned to the Commission to become involved in or to resolve employee complaints or grievances at an earlier stage of the process. Therefore, there is no need or appropriate role for communications between employees and the Commission, confidential or otherwise, in the absence of formally initiated proceedings before the Commission. In fact, receipt of such communications could prejudice the Commission's performance of its role as an adjudicatory body should an appeal later be filed.

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. Response to F73: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F74: The respondent agrees with the finding. The respondent has not way of knowing the practices of Barton Hospital, but has no reason to believe that the finding is other than stated.

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. Response to F75: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F76: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F77: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The Tahoe Manor is not a Mental Health facility but an elderly residential placement facility. Although the physical layout could be improved by being larger, overall it is above average for a board and care facility.

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. Response to F78: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F79: The respondent disagrees partially with the finding. The County’s requirement for payment processing does not discourage providers from contracting with the County. The Department has not experienced any refusal by any contractor to participate with the County as a result of invoice processing protocols.

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. Response to F80: The respondent agrees with the finding.

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. Response to F81: The respondent agrees with the finding.

The 2002 Facility evaluation and inspection of Tahoe Manor has not yet been conducted. Response to F82: The respondent agrees with the finding. 246