2025-2026 Riverside County Civil Grand Jury: Continuity/Compliance Report

Recommendations 8

• R1
  The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that at least one medical professional be assigned at least part time to HHCYC. Dedicated, on-site behavioral health support should be expanded to 24-hours daily. Response: Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. HHCYC does not currently have certified medical staff on-site. However, HHCYC has established a partnership with Riverside University Health System (RUHS) to ensure necessary medical care is accessible to youth. RUHS Behavioral Health: Behavioral Health services are not on-site 24 hours per day. As of March 2025, a Behavioral Health Specialist lll is assigned to the site full-time on a 9/80 schedule (9 a.m.–6:30 p.m., working alternating Fridays), while the Transitional Age Youth Peer Support Specialist is on-site Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. A Senior Clinical Therapist and an additional Clinical Therapist are currently in recruitment to expand this team. Prior to March, Behavioral Health provided evening coverage four days per week (Monday through Thursday) with two staff per evening.
• R2
  The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the City of Banning train additional city employees to manage the Administrative City Clerk’s election duties when the Administrative City Clerk is unavailable to assist the public no later than December 1, 2025. Response: Will be evaluated given staffing and operational considerations. Cross-training and additional training can allow City staff to meet needs in the absence of a City employee normally performing a particular function. When possible, the City agrees that cross-training and supplemental training should be supported. There are, however, practical limitations on this concept, including the availability of staff to serve in such roles, with additional limitations arising based on job descriptions and/or collective bargaining agreements that can limit the scope of such opportunities. The City will further investigate available staffing and training opportunities in support of the Administrative City Clerk. Follow-up: The Deputy City Clerk was questioned about availability of staff to address election duties and said staff is now trained to assist the Administrative City Clerk. No further follow-up is necessary. 2. 2024–2025 March Joint Powers Authority: Mission Accomplished, Time to Dissolve Report Date: June 18, 2025 Response Received: July 29, 2025 Summary of Report: The Grand Jury asked for responses from the March Joint Powers Authority (MJPA), the County of Riverside, and the cities of Moreno Valley, Perris and Riverside in regard to the report titled: March Joint Powers Authority: Mission Accomplished, Time to Dissolve. The 2024–2025 report addressed thirteen findings and ten recommendations that the Grand Jury asked the MJPA for responses. The MJPA agreed with six findings, partially disagreed with five and disagreed wholly with two. Concerning the recommendations, they replied that one needed further study and the other ten will not be implemented. See Table 7 in appendix. The County of Riverside was asked to respond to two findings and three recommendations. The County of Riverside agreed with one finding and disagreed partially with the other and would not implement the three recommendations. The three cities were asked to respond to one finding and one recommendation. Moreno Valley disagreed partially, and Perris and Riverside agreed with the one finding and all the cities would not implement the one recommendation. See Table 8 in appendix. The MJPA was asked for follow-up on findings 3,4, and 11 and recommendation 5. The MJPA responses are as follows: 11 Findings:
• R3
  DPSS should contact the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to identify any flexibilities in following the provisions of the Foster Youth Bill of Rights. Providing staff members with the ability to limit the children’s use of cell phones, reject their refusal to receive prescribed medications, or attend school, will give them greater influence in preventing disruptive episodes. DPSS should provide all communications between CDSS on this matter to provide evidence that they have pursued this issue. Response: Recommendation has been implemented. At HHCYC, staff confers with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) through regular technical assistance calls 14 regarding complex-care youth. Examples of topics discussed during these calls include placement preservation, emergency removals, hospital release, 14-day notices soon to expire or expired. When issues arise, CDSS also provides tailored training to HHCYC to assist in developing protocols and harm reduction techniques. As a result of regular consultation with CDSS, HHCYC is expanding implementation of a motivational system to modify behaviors including mitigating the inappropriate use of cell phones, refusing to attend school, AWOLing, medication non-adherence and youth behaviors that present a danger to themselves and others. HHCYC is updating its Standard Operating Procedures to reflect these efforts.
• R4
  The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that DPSS pursue the use of outside transportation services for taking children to school. DPSS should provide documented evidence of contact with at least two transportation services. In the interim, there should be an avoidance in using personal vehicles for transporting children. Response: Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. HHCYC ensures a well-structured staffing schedule that allows staff to transport youth to school and offsite appointments while maintaining appropriate on-site staffing ratios and supervision.
• R5
  The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the March Joint Powers Authority dissolve its Utility Authority no later than July l, 2028. The recommendation requires further analysis. Have gas services been transferred to SoCal Gas? Response: As previously stated, SoCal Gas has not yet assumed control of the Authority’s natural gas system. Authority staff and SoCal Gas are actively collaborating on a transition plan, with initial implementation steps anticipated over the next year. Follow-up: The FY 24/25 audit report is being presented to the Commission in March or April of 2026. The 2026-2027 Grand Jury should follow-up with the MJPA about the transition of the natural gas system and SoCal Gas. 3. Harmony Haven, Who’s Watching the Kids? Report Date: April 29, 2025 Response Received: July 29, 2025 Summary of Report: Due to the shortage of quality housing for foster care children in Riverside County, the Board of Supervisors (the Board) approved the purchase in 2023 of a facility to be used as a short-term transitional housing for children awaiting placement. The sense of urgency to locate a suitable facility was prompted by the evidence of children sleeping in offices or short-term housing while awaiting placements. The 121-acre property formerly known as Childhelp, in Beaumont, was purchased for $26 million by the County of Riverside to be used as transitional housing for foster children. This facility is now known as Harmony Haven Children and Youth Center (HHCYC). It is a 48-bed residential campus providing short term care and therapeutic support for youth impacted by abuse and neglect.1 HHCYC is licensed to house children for ten days or less. Unfortunately, some children at HHCYC exceed this time frame due to the inability to quickly place them in a suitable foster home. Since its opening, HHCYC has evolved in its operations to strengthen security, increase staffing, and improve transportation modes for children among other operational procedures. While there have been operational improvements, there is room for more enhancements and efficiencies. The purpose of this report was to address deficiencies in the current operation of HHCYC along with recommendations for improvement. The Grand Jury asked for responses from the County of Riverside (the County) in regard to the report titled: Harmony Haven, Who’s Watching the Kids? The 2024-–2025 report addressed six findings and six recommendations that the Grand Jury asked the County for responses. The County agreed with three findings, partially disagreed with two and disagreed wholly with one. Concerning the recommendations, they replied that three will be implemented and three will not be implemented. The County was asked for follow-up on findings and recommendations. See Table 9 in appendix. The County responses are as follow: Findings: F-I: There are no regularly scheduled, certified medical professionals on staff at HHCYC. On site behavioral health specialists are on call for emergencies and present less than 24 hours a day. 13
• R6
  The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the following activities be considered at HHCYC: • Gym – offer children various sports such as basketball, volleyball, and table tennis as well as dance, exercise, movies, lectures, and guest speakers. • Classrooms – offer instruction on computer use, art, and music, as well as life fundamentals such as, how to create a resume, present oneself at a job interview, and develop proper speaking skills. • Pool (once refurbished) – offer swimming lessons, water polo, exercise classes. • Farm – place animals such as sheep, goats, therapy horses, chickens, and ducks on the property to teach children about the responsibility of feeding, grooming, and basic care of animals. Invite animal rescue organizations to bring in their animals for the day. • Occupations – Invite guests who can speak about different trades that the children can pursue. • Assign murals throughout the grounds that children can design and paint. Response: Recommendation has been implemented. HHCYC organizes a range of structured, engaging activities to keep youth active, stimulated, and socially connected. Youth participate in programming both on-site and off-site, with a focus on holistic development. Follow-up: No further action is necessary. 15 4. In Custody Homicide at Site B Blamed on Prisoner Identification Errors Report Date: April 30, 2025 Response Received: May 19, 2025 Summary of Report: The Riverside County Sheriff is responsible for the safety and security of inmates, staff, and the community. The Sheriff’s Department and Riverside County Board members may hear from citizens who believe the system fails to assure protection. In a recent gathering, protesters were seen carrying signs: “Under Bianco: Record In-Custody Deaths!” Various media reports since 2022 have highlighted the numbers and problems with in-custody deaths in Riverside County jails. Therefore, the California Attorney General has an ongoing civil rights investigation. According to one report, an inmate death in Riverside County, which occurred at the Larry D. Smith facility in Banning, California, while in the custody of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department brought the total in-custody deaths to six (6) during 2024. Riverside County’s Sheriff said in a recent interview, “RSO (Riverside Sheriff’s Office) personnel…. do a commendable job taking care of our inmates and protecting them from themselves. We do an industry-leading fantastic job in our corrections division and are not responsible for any of these deaths.” On the contrary, the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) became aware of an incident that resulted in an in-custody homicide, which could have been prevented if the Sheriff’s Correctional staff at the Robert Presley Detention Center had been more diligent in performing their duties and had followed the applicable policies and procedures. This report will explain what mistakes were committed during the booking and processing of a certain arrestee. That person later caused fatal injuries to another inmate at the SITE-B facility and has since been charged with murder. The investigation of that murder is “on-going.” The Grand Jury’s investigation was limited to the booking and processing procedures at the Robert Presley Detention Center (RPDC), specifically how arrestees are identified and classified for housing. Subsequently, the Grand Jury also reviewed the clearance and enrollment process at SITE-B, which apparently relied on the identification and classification information completed at RPDC. Findings: The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office was asked to respond to ten findings. They agreed with findings one and six through ten, they wholly disagreed with findings three, four and five. They partially disagreed with finding two. Follow-up: No follow-up on these findings is necessary. See Table 10 in appendix. Recommendations The Riverside County Sheriff's Office was asked to respond to nine recommendations. Recommendations one, two, six, seven and eight were implemented. Recommendations three, four and five will not be implemented. Recommendation nine will be implemented by 2027. Follow-up: Recommendation nine response by Sheriff Department is that it has been finalized with a vendor selected. It is on track for a 2027 implementation. The 2026–2027 Grand Jury may want to follow up on this matter. 5. Fraud Detection in Riverside County Grants Report Date: June 18, 2025 Response Received: September 22, 2025 Summary of Report: • In March 2023, irregularities were found in a Palm Springs subrecipient’s grant claim. • A deeper review revealed issues, leading to referral to the Auditor Controller, County Counsel, and District Attorney. • By October 2024, the subrecipient was indicted on fifty-three felony counts (fraud, theft, misappropriation, insurance fraud, perjury, money laundering), involving over $940,000 in funds. Civil Grand Jury Investigation • The Civil Grand Jury examined Riverside County’s grant administration for misconduct or malfeasance. Findings: • No evidence of misconduct by County employees. • Prior issues with the subrecipient could have triggered earlier investigation. • Reviewers raised concerns, but claims were still paid. • Political pressure during COVID-19 influenced claim approvals. • Fraud indicators became clear only when multiple claims were reviewed together. • HWS staff lacked formal fraud detection training. Follow up: No follow-up on these findings is necessary Recommendations: 1. Strict enforcement of policies to prevent unclear or undocumented claims (By Nov 1, 2025). 2. Management must address reviewers’ concerns more seriously (by Nov 1, 2025). 17 3. Review prior months’ claims when processing new ones (by Jan 1, 2026). 4. Mandatory fraud detection training for all grant claim staff (by Jan 1, 2026). Board of Supervisors’ Responses • Finding 1: Agreed – staff acted ethically under County policy. • Finding 2: Partially disagreed – HUD consultants (ICF) are reviewing processes. • Finding3: Agreed – concerns were followed up, but payments continued until evidence was conclusive. • Finding 4: Disagreed – HWS followed federal/state guidance appropriately. • Finding 5: Agreed – action taken once evidence was clear. • Finding 6: Partially disagreed – staff trained in compliance, but specialized fraud training is being added. • Recommendation 1: Will implement; mandatory training sessions by Oct 31, 2025. • Recommendation 2: Already implemented; staff concerns escalated to management. • Recommendation 3: Will implement; HUD consultants assisting, completion by Jan 1, 2026. • Recommendation 4: Will implement; fraud analytics certification training scheduled by Jan 1, 2026. See Table 11 in appendix. HWS Response to Grand Jury Status Inquiry
• R7
  The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Riverside County Board of Supervisors establish an election security task force to enhance a unified security environment surrounding elections no later than March 1, 2026. Response: The Registrar of Voters established an Elections Security Task Force in late 2025. Representatives from local, state, and federal agencies, as well as relevant County departments comprise the Task Force membership and will continue to convene in advance of election cycles. Recommendations: No further follow-up is necessary. 21 7. City of Palm Springs Lacked Proper Procedures for Vetting and Monitoring of Grants Report Date: June 23, 2025 Response Received: September 18, 2025 Summary of Report: The Grand Jury asked for responses from the City of Palm Springs (the city) in regards to the 2024–2025 Grand Jury Report: City of Palm Springs Lacked Proper Procedures for Vetting and Monitoring of Grants. Findings: The report addressed nine findings and ten recommendations. The city responded and agreed with findings one, two and six and disagreed wholly with three, four, five, seven, eight and nine. See Table 13 in appendix. Recommendations: The city has implemented recommendations one, three, four and five. They will implement recommendations six and seven by June 30, 2026 and recommendations two, eight and nine by December 31, 2026. Recommendation 10 will not be implemented. Follow up: The city was asked for follow-up on recommendations two, six, seven, eight and nine. Response:
• R12
  The MJPA does not have a succession plan for upper X management F13) The MJPA has over $40 X million in unrestricted funds Table 8 Total Reports 7 Total Findings Recommendations RCCGJ 2024-2025 Reports: