2025-2026 Grand Jury Report: Policy vs. Practice: An Investigation into Riverside County’s Workplace Discrimination Procedures

HR is failing to thoroughly and impartially investigate C-25 complaints.

HR has unofficially adopted a practice termed the “80/20 Rule” to screen C-25 complaints contrary to terms of Policy C-25.

Public safety agencies are not following Policy C-25 requirements to cross reporting and/or forward C-25 complaints to HR.

Public safety agencies are not following the Policy C-25 requirement to report disciplinary action related to C-25 complaints to HR.

HR is failing to take action to ensure compliance with Policy C-25 by the public safety agencies.

When complaints are declined without sufficient inquiry or when required investigative steps are not consistently followed, the protections promised by the policy cannot function as designed. This practice limits the County’s ability to identify patterns of misconduct and contributes to a growing perception among employees that reporting concerns may be ineffective. DDAA MOU 2023–2027 %20Clean.pdfchment A - 2023 - 2027 DDAA MOU - Clean.pdf-accessed March 16,2026 13 The lack of consistent investigative standards, insufficient oversight of public safety agency compliance, and the routine dismissal of complaints without adequate inquiry undermine the policy’s intent and contribute to employee perceptions that reporting discrimination or harassment is ineffective. These findings underscore the need for immediate corrective action to ensure C-25 complaints are handled in a manner that is fair, thorough, and consistent with County policy. The Grand Jury also identified significant compliance issues within certain public safety agencies. While county policy allows these agencies to conduct internal investigations in accordance with the Peace Officer Bill of Rights, the required coordination and reporting to County Human Resources has not been followed and, at times, refused. As the County remains the employer of record and ultimately bears responsibility under state and federal law, these gaps in reporting and oversight increase both organizational and legal risk. A policy designed to protect employees is only effective when it is applied consistently, transparently, and in accordance with its written requirements. Strengthening investigative procedures, ensuring comprehensive training, and reinforcing county wide reporting and oversight will restore the integrity of the Policy C-25 process and reaffirm the County’s commitment to maintaining a workplace that is safe, respectful, and accountable. FINDINGS F1. HR is failing to thoroughly and impartially investigate C-25 complaints. F2. HR has unofficially adopted a practice termed the “80/20 Rule” to screen C-25 complaints contrary to terms of Policy C-25. F3. Public safety agencies are not following Policy C-25 requirements to cross reporting and/or forward C-25 complaints to HR. F4. Public safety agencies are not following the Policy C-25 requirement to report disciplinary action related to C-25 complaints to HR. F5. HR is failing to take action to ensure compliance with Policy C-25 by the public safety agencies.