Gran Jurado del Condado de Riverside

2019-2020

7 informes

From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
View the full annual report (PDF)
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (7)
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 9 hallazgos
F1: Some limited cost savings from the KPMG County Transformation Project were substantiated by documentation provided to the Grand Jury, e.g., in Purchasing and Fleet Services. Other areas where savings may have occurred, such as in the Sheriff’s Department, have not been demonstrated. Moreover, assertions by the EO to the Board of Supervisors of greater savings exceeding the cost of the Project have not been supported and are questionable.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: “Summarize strategic planning workshop outputs…
F2: The implementation process for Workday did not secure a commitment by users to change business practices to accommodate the system. This contributed to its failure and has cost the County more than $8 million. Additional costs may result from possible litigation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Assist COUNTY in developing business case and scenario analysis documents…
F3: KPMGs recommendations and implementation work has resulted in the County becoming more data driven and performance focused. The County has become more transparent in the achieving these objectives by publishing Key Performance Indicator (KPI) data in annual budget documents. However, achievement levels of KPIs has not been reported in published budget reports for the years after 2017-2018 and does not appear at all in the newly formatted Recommended Budget for 2020-2021.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Assist COUNTY in its efforts to provide training to COUNTY employees regarding enhanced use of workflow and workload analysis toolsets as well as statistical sampling and lean process analysis.” The Grand Jury requested that the EO provide: “Deliverables specified in KPMG contract Amendment #1: a- Board of Supervisors strategic planning workshop summary, b- Training materials, c- Business case scenario analysis”35 The EO responded with the following: “Answer: KPMG Contract Amendment No. 1 was presented to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, March 29, 2016. Including the Form 11, report and video of Board Workshop held on Tuesday, March 29, 2016.36 Related Attachments: (F) DVD with video of Board Workshop held on Tuesday, March 29, 2016 **to be delivered next week to the Grand Jury offices** (G) 2016-03-29 Board of Supervisors – Public Agenda (H) KPMG Amendment No 1 Form 11 & Report “ The Grand Jury is very puzzled by this answer. It essentially says that deliverables specified by Amendment 1 that was approved on March 29, 2016 were provided in the same meeting in which the Amendment was approved. Also, as noted above, the Scope of Work itself provided to the Grand Jury is dated eight months after the Amendment was approved. The Grand Jury reviewed Contract Amendment No. 1 including Form 11, as provided by the EO, the online video of the Board meeting (workshop) held on the afternoon of March 29, 2016, and the final report from the original contract from KPMG discussed in that workshop. The Grand Jury found no evidence of anything resembling the deliverables specified. Note also that KPMG contract amendments may be in conflict with Board of Supervisors Policy A-18, which states 34 Amendment 1, pp. 4-6 35 Email to the EO from the Grand Jury, Dec 4, 2019 36 Email response from the EO to the Grand Jury, Jan. 9, 2020 24 “The department head shall be responsible for the satisfactory performance of the contract requirements by the contractor. This includes contract monitoring… and contractor evaluation…The establishment of a quantifiable objective is an essential element of the contract development process to enable evaluation.”37 Although this policy is directed to department heads and departments, the Board itself contradicted that policy which governs County departments by not specifying quantifiable (and, therefore, measurable) objectives (deliverables) in the KPMG contract amendments. County Performance Unit (CPU) KPMG’s Scope of Work in Amendment 4 includes “County Performance Unit Implementation Support…to contain costs, enhance outcomes, and improve efficiency.”38 The Submittal to the Board of August 28, 2018 by the EO, referred to previously, states “A key tenet to achieving reductions in spend and ensuring that county departments continue with transformation initiatives recommended by the consultant is the new County Performance Unit (CPU). The CPU is a management tool within the Executive Office to help create a culture driven by performance, accountability, and data-driven decisions. Assistant CEOs will work with county departments to assess performance and identify further efficiencies across departments countywide. The ACEO’s, portfolios and departments develop strategic objectives and KPIs aligned with the county’s LiftUp RivCo and Vision 2030 outcomes. …The CPU tool offers greater support of the transformation efforts both in the Executive Office and departments.”39 The Submittal also states: “The CPU initiative monitors the various transformation initiatives to ensure accountability and performance are consistently measured. CPU reviews strategic, operational and financial performance of departments and uses a central data-driven analysis and tracking hub within the Executive Office.” 37https://www.rivcocob.org/boardpolicies/policy-a/POLICY-A18.pdf viewed 7/23/20 38 Amendment 4, Attachment A-4, p. 6 39 Submittal to the Board of Supervisors, “County Transformation Project Updates”, August 28, 2018, p. 9 25 In other words, this was a very important part of implementing monitoring, and measuring initiatives of the Project. When the Grand Jury inquired of the EO about the current status of the CPU, we received the following answer was provided. “The CPU initiative was transitioned from the consultant to the Executive Office team. The initiative resulted in over 300 KPIs which was as a result of working closely and collaboratively with all county departments. These KPIs are reflected in the County’s Recommended/Adopted budget … It was decided that instead of creating a separate unit called CPU, and hiring additional staffing, that the CPU function be embedded in the job duties of the Executive Office analysts. In addition to review of the data in the Recommended budget, the KPIs are also being reviewed and validated at yearend. This year again, we’ll go through the KPI validation process as part of our yearend process to ensure the key performance indicators are still providing the intended outcome and it’s aligned with the county, and portfolio objectives.” So, the CPU, this “key tenet to achieving reductions in spend and ensuring that county departments continue with transformation initiatives recommended by the consultant” has been disbanded, and instead of being driven by Assistant CEOs, it has now been reduced to monitoring of data by EO analysts as part of their other job duties. To repeat, the Grand Jury was advised by the EO that “updates [to the Board of Supervisors] were verbal, there are no documents available to provide.” Reporting the Results to the Board of Supervisors The EO reported to the Board in the afore-mentioned meeting of June 25, 2019 on progress to date on 2019 KPMG recommendations coming out of the entire Project. The Grand Jury asked the EO for evidence on eight of the recommendations reported as “Complete”. The Grand Jury found that the evidence of completion provided on two of the recommendations was satisfactory. However, the following six, as described by the EO, are of concern: (Information Technology) (IT3) RECOMMENDATION: “Conduct IT inventory and develop Total Cost of Ownership model” REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. On-going process to deal with IT procurement and software and hardware inventory.” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY: “Implemented ServiceNow and are implementing RivcoPro to better manage procurements and inventory” 26 CONCERN: The “Total Cost of Ownership model” was not provided. An “on-going process” does not indicate completion, nor does “implementing RivcoPro”. (IT4) RECOMMENDATION: “Define IT talent management plan (Hiring, Retention, and Succession Planning)” REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. Designed new hiring methodology” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY: “Implemented use of IT staffing firms to help find hard to recruit employees. They must transfer to County employment within 3 months. This has created flexibility and increased hiring speed.” CONCERN: Use of IT staffing firms is not a new hiring methodology and does not address retention and succession planning. (Planning) (PL3) RECOMMENDATION: “Document key process steps and decision making (sic) framework” REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. Implemented Case Planner Ownership framework and process…” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY (sent Jan. 9, 2020): “Working with the Transportation Department and will follow-up with an answer (PENDING)” CONCERN: Nothing from the Transportation Department or regarding Planning was provided to the Grand Jury. (PL7) RECOMMENDATION: “Improve planner workload management (i.e. electronic trackers, PLUS)” REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. …Implemented Case Planner Ownership framework and process…” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY (sent Jan. 9, 2020): “Working with the Transportation Department and will follow-up with an answer (PENDING)” CONCERN: Nothing from the Transportation Department or regarding Planning was provided to the Grand Jury. (PL14) RECOMMENDATION: “encourage more independent decision making that weighs risk and benefits: REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. Implemented Case Planner Ownership framework and process…” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY (sent Jan. 9, 2020): “Working with the Transportation Department and will follow-up with an answer (PENDING)” CONCERN: Nothing from the Transportation Department or regarding Planning was provided to the Grand Jury. (Note that all three Planning recommendations (PL3, PL7, and PL14) cited the same evidence of completion - “Case Planning Ownership and Process”, which was promised and never received. 27 (Animal Services) (AS6) RECOMMENDATION: “Continue to enhance mobile technology capabilities to facilitate activities and develop a supporting Chameleon training strategy to ensure consistent staff proficiency” REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. New technologies have been purchased and deployed…” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY: “The department has deployed I-pads with each Field Officer. Training has been delivered on proper use/input of information into WEB Chameleon. All Field staff should be inputting information for each activity into the WEB Chameleon System at this time. SOP’s have been developed and pushed out to end users in the training. Mobile credit card machines are being purchased from Elavon (Ingenico Link 2500). The initial purchase will be for eight (8) machines and delivery is expected by the end of January. These will be distributed to our primary users, with training on how to use them. SOP’s will be developed, and training provided once the machines arrive. A specific policy and procedure for monetary transactions by the licensing and animal control officers has been written and provided to these employees.” CONCERN: While the Grand Jury acknowledges the deployment of iPads, the implication regarding mobile credit card machines is that deployment was the result of the KPMG recommendation. KPMG, in its Countywide Strategic Review dated July 2017, made no mention of field payments or mobile credit card machines when it published Recommendations AS6. In fact, the 2018-2019 Riverside County Civil Grand Jury wrote a report entitled “Riverside County Department of Animal Services Improved Efficiency for County Animal Control Officers”.40 The Grand Jury found: • “Lack of Policy for Handling Payment of Fees in the Field”, and • Cumbersome and Unsafe Procedures for Processing Fee Payments”. The report recommended • The Riverside County Department of Animal Services should have a policy and procedure regarding the acceptance of payments in the field for services by animal control officers”, and • County animal control officers should be issued a tablet with a credit card reader to process payments made in the field. Supplying this tool would reduce the County’s legal and safety liability exposure of 40 https://countyofriverside.us/Portals/0/GrandJury/GrandJury2018- 2019/Riverside_County_Dept_of_Animal_Services.pdf?ver=2019-06-12-132609-057, viewed 5/26/20 28 its field staff. This will be an inexpensive solution that eliminates cash handling and improves the efficiency, convenience and safety of ACO’s.” The Grand Jury finds it misleading to credit the Project and KPMG recommendations for addressing this issue. Obstacles and Complicating Factors Appointed Versus Elected County Officials As a General Law County under the California Constitution, Riverside County has five elected officials in addition to the elected Board of Supervisors: • The Assessor-Clerk-Recorder • The Auditor-Controller • The District Attorney • The Sheriff, Coroner and Public Administrator • The Treasurer and Tax Collector Because these officials are elected by the voters, they are, essentially, answerable to the voters and not to the Board of Supervisors or the County Executive Officer. The exception is that the Board sets the discretionary budget for each of these officials’ departments, meaning the budget for funds controlled by the Board and not coming from outside agencies, such as the State or Federal Government. Note that the total discretionary budget for the County (dubbed NCC or Net County Cost), is about $700 million each year out of a total County budget of around $6 billion, most of which is designated for specific purposes by outside agencies. The result is that the Board, and thus the Executive Office, has only limited authority to tell agencies and departments run by elected officials what to do. So, in this Project, the Board and EO could ask these agencies and departments to cooperate with KPMG’s investigation and to follow their recommendations, but could only use their budget authority and not direct supervisory authority to make that happen. That, of course, limited their ability to effect Change Management in these agencies and departments, as opposed to the rest of County departments where there is ultimate authority over hiring and firing as well as budgets. High Turnover and a Highly Charged Political Atmosphere The period following KPMG’s initial recommendations for Criminal Justice in March 2016 and especially following their recommendations in July 2017 was one of significant political turmoil in Riverside County. The Fourth District Supervisor died unexpectedly in December 2016, and his replacement was appointed in May 2017 to fill the position. The County Executive Officer retired in August of 2017 and was replaced by the chief assistant. The First 29 and Second District Supervisors both announced they would not run for reelection and would retire in January of 2019. Both were primary driving forces behind the KPMG County Transformation Project. The Sheriff with whom the Project began was succeeded by a new Sheriff in 2019. The heads of key agencies and departments have left and been replaced since the Project began, including HR, DPSS, and the EDA. There has also been significant turnover of middle management and staff in key departments, such as HR. Thus, initiatives coming out of KPMG’s recommendations were to be led and managed by new people who may not have had the background or made commitments to these initiatives. They would not have gone through the process of development of the recommendations and initiatives, including the information gathering and discussion process and all the thought processes of their development. Also, certainly, leaders in new positions want to put their own stamp on their organizations. This would, naturally, have led to delays and, possibly, changes in direction in implementing recommendations and initiative from the Project. Conflicting Incentives In looking at projects like this one involving major change, there can be conflicting incentives for management and staff to accept and implement the recommendations of outside consultants. On the one hand if senior leadership is pressing for large budget reductions and greater efficiencies, then major changes to accomplish these must be considered and accepted to preserve one’s job. On the other hand, embracing major changes can imply that one was deficient in one’s job for not initiating these changes in the first place. The Grand Jury was informed that in some cases department heads agreed to publicly announce only some of the savings and efficiencies achieved from the Project. In addition, it is well known, particularly in government, that acknowledging savings can have the negative result of having one’s budget cut in succeeding budget cycles. This can result in losing funding for other initiatives that a department or agency might want or losing staff. For these reasons, there may be benefits and cost savings from the Project that County management and staff are unwilling to acknowledge or wish to take credit for themselves rather than attributing them to the KPMG County Transformation Project. Going Forward The Grand Jury makes a number of recommendations in this report for the future regarding 30 • How to assure competitive bidding on large contracts with outside service providers • Ensuring commitment to follow-through on major operational changes before incurring large financial obligations, such as for software projects • Specifying measurable deliverables from outside contractors • Publishing achievement levels in departments of KPIs • Establishing an independent agency to report on the achievement of objectives for major projects in the County • Re-constituting the County Performance Unit to continue with its original mission In the Board of Supervisors meeting of June 25th, 2019, during KPMG’s final presentation, participants were very outspoken in emphasizing the importance of following up on the Project after KPMG’s departure.41 One Supervisor said “…unless we follow recommendations then we won’t realize potential savings or efficiencies.” The County CEO said “It’s up to us… to make sure … departments are following up and implementing some of the better practices that we have identified.” The Board Chair, in wrapping up the presentation said “The next step is the follow-up… We cannot let the items [that you have found] die. It’s going to fall on the five of us and our CEO to make sure that those items stay front and center …and that all the money we have spent on your firm… we get even more out of it.” Five months after this Board meeting, the Grand Jury asked a high ranking official in the EO what reports or actions have been provided to the Board of Supervisors or requested to follow-up and track the progress of the Project. The reply was “none”. When the Grand Jury asked why, the response was “because the Board has not asked”. Most importantly, the County in its actions should not treat the KPMG County Transformation Project as if it were over and done. It is highly likely there are still benefits to be achieved and money to be saved from the Project in areas that the Grand Jury was unable to investigate. The current COVID-19 crisis will certainly delay many major initiatives until the situation stabilizes to a “new normal”. However, it would seem particularly urgent now to look for cost savings considering the budget pressures being caused by the COVID-19 crisis. By continuing to implement, monitor, and track the recommendations from the Project through a re-constituted CPU and with strong support from the Board and the EO, the County can still avoid the Project being permanently labeled as wasteful. BOS mtg, June 25, 2019, starting about 30 minutes into video 31
F4: Even though the KPMG contract cost expanded to more than 54 times the size of the original contract, the County sought no additional bids for any of the additional amendments.
F5: The County paid KPMG a considerable hourly rate for tens of thousands of hours of work without quantifiable deliverables – just “assistance”. This was in conflict with Board Policy A-18 which directs how County departments must contract for professional services. For some of the deliverables specified in the KPMG contract Amendment 1, the EO provided the Grand Jury no evidence that they were actually completed or received by the County. Thus, it appears that the County did not receive what it paid for in these instances.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Board of Supervisors establish an agency that is independent of any department to, among other possible duties, perform financial and operational audits verifying the completion, claimed benefits, and adherence to policy of projects undertaken in the County. Such an agency should choose which projects it will audit, and report its findings publicly to the Board of Supervisors. The agency could be part of the Auditor Controller’s Office, or akin to the Internal Audit department in many 33 California Counties or an Inspector General’s Office in many other governmental entities. This should be completed by 6/30/2021. (Findings 5 and 7)
F6: A key initiative to achieving and following up on the objectives and
F7: Evidence provided to the Grand Jury to support reports by the EO to the Board of Supervisors of completion on some of KPMG’s recommendations was incomplete, dubious, misleading, or not provided at all. Thus, the veracity of information provided to the Board is questionable. 32
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The Board of Supervisors and the Executive Office re-examine the initiatives recommended in the KPMG County Transformation project, track and report on those still offering benefits and cost savings to the County, and direct departments and agencies to continue efforts to achieve those benefits and cost savings. The list of departments which should continue implementing KPMG’s recommendations should be completed by 3/31/21, and department efforts should continue indefinitely. (Findings 7 and 8)
F8: Despite adamant agreement by of the Board of Supervisors in KPMG’s Project closeout presentation, to diligently following-up on the Project
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: Despite adamant agreement by of the Board of Supervisors in KPMG’s Project closeout presentation, to diligently following-up on the Project recommendations, no such follow-up appears to have happened since that meeting.
F9: While the Grand Jury found some limited evidence of cost savings and other benefits, no evidence was provided that the KPMG County Transformation project came close to paying for itself. There still may be considerable savings and other benefits to be derived if the County follows up on recommended initiatives from the Project. However, unless and until new savings and benefits are realized, there is more justification to label the Project wasteful rather than beneficial.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: While the Grand Jury found some limited evidence of cost savings and other benefits, no evidence was provided that the KPMG County Transformation project came close to paying for itself. There still may be considerable savings and other benefits to be derived if the County follows up on recommended initiatives from the Project. However, unless and until new savings and benefits are realized, there is more justification to label the Project wasteful rather than beneficial. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends that:
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R20: The material also describes a process by which recruiting was fully centralized between February 2018 and April 2019. Although the figure for FY 2017-18 conflicts with that which was reported in HR’s FY 2019-20 budget (105 days),29 the material does appear to show that the new shared services model coincided with a decline in hiring times. What was not shown in the material was any detail on the Departments’ “ability to reduce duplicate human resources costs”. One way to validate that the new model was beneficial other than cost or staff savings would be the reaction of the departments being served in this way. The County requires that each department providing services to other departments conduct satisfaction surveys among the “users” or “customers” in other departments. The Grand Jury requested from the EO the past five years of survey results for Human Resources. However, the surveys for FY 2014 and 2015 ask different questions and report in a different format than those for 2017 and 2018, and 2017 and 2018 also report in a different format from one another. So, the Grand Jury was unable to determine if user satisfaction improved significantly from before the new model was implemented. (2016 results were not provided.) No other specific benefits from KPMG’s work in Human Resources were indicated to or identified by the Grand Jury. Information Technology (RCIT) KPMG made 11 recommendation to the Riverside County Information Technology Department (RCIT), labeled IT1 through IT11. A senior executive in RCIT, who worked in the Department throughout the Project, informed the Grand Jury that before KPMG made them, all recommendations were either implemented or planned for implementation by RCIT. In addition, the Grand 28 Attachment to “Submittal to the Board of Supervisors” entitled “COUNTY TRANSFORMATION PROJECT UPDATES”, p.4. 29 https://countyofriverside.us/AbouttheCounty/BudgetandFinancialInformation.aspx#gsc.tab=0 (viewed 7/18/20) 20 Jury was informed that KPMG published the recommendations even though RCIT encouraged them not to, and that KPMG’s work was not helpful to the Department. The Grand Jury also learned from several sources that there may have been considerable benefit because of KPMG recommendations in Health and Human Services (DPSS), particularly relating to improved service delivery and outcomes. The Grand Jury was unable to investigate these potential benefits due to time constraints. Project Governance and Management Project Governance refers to the rules and guidelines by which a project is to be run. Project Management is about applying the Governance rules of a project to enforce them, monitor them, and report on their execution. On smaller projects this is carried out by a Project Manager, while on larger projects (like the KPMG County Transformation Project) it is usually done via a Project or Program Management Office (PMO) consisting of a number of individuals. On this project, the County had neither an overall Project Manager or a PMO. KPMG assumed as much of the role as possible, however they had very little authority to enforce the rules. The EO had the official role of Project Manager, but the Grand Jury learned that meant primarily tracking and approving KPMG’s invoices and payments and tracking the Project budget. There were at least two such “Project Managers” in the EO during the Project, both of whom were interviewed by the Grand Jury. At least one portion of the Project, under Amendment 4, specified that KPMG assist the County in setting up a PMO in Human Resources.30 No Program Management Office was ever created in HR. The lack of effective Project Governance and Management was one of the causes of failings in the Project, including in the areas described below. Competitive Bids Even though the KPMG contract cost expanded to more than 54 times the size of the original contract, the County sought no additional bids for any of the additional amendments. This was justified in F11 supporting material (“Contract History and Price Reasonableness”) submitted by the EO for each Amendment, by citing the original RFP (Request for Proposal) and competitive bidding process for the original contract.31 The Grand Jury was advised by the Purchasing Department that there is no County policy regarding amendments to agreements for additional work except that the 30 KPMG Contract, Amendment 4, 31 “Contract History and Price Reasonableness” in the “Submittal to the Board of Supervisors” for Amendments 1 – 4, provided by the County Executive Office 21 agreement must contain terms that allow for changes to the agreement, which it did in the case of all Amendments. When the Grand Jury asked a former high-ranking County official why no additional bids were sought for amendments subsequent to the original KPMG contract, the response was that KPMG had developed the confidence of the Board, and the Board did not want another firm coming in with different ideas. That official also pointed out that no other “top tier” firms of the caliber of KPMG had bid on the original contract. The Grand Jury notes that other “top tier” firms may have been more interested in bidding on $40 million worth of work versus the original $761,000. While it may be marginally justified that KPMG continued the work they initially did in Public Safety, there is less justification to have them begin in ten, (and eventually 20) other County departments, having demonstrated no particular expertise in these from previous work in the County. Yet the County committed almost $24 million more to KPMG in these areas with no competitive bidding. Moreover, the Grand Jury questions the approach of paying a significant hourly rate for tens of thousands of hours of work with very few measurable deliverables – just “assistance”. While KPMG’s “blended” hourly rate was typical for the “Big 4” consulting firms,32 certainly KPMG, or almost anybody would be thrilled to agree to such a sweet deal, when all they had to do was show up and help as best they could, but not be held accountable for the results (accountable meaning getting paid or not paid based on results). Besides stipulating specific results in the various departments, perhaps an additional approach the County could have taken would have been to break up the amendments by the various departments. Then, after coming to agreements with department heads on which of the KPMG recommendations would be implemented, allowing the departments to hire outsiders to assist them, while holding the departments accountable to the expenditures and results. Departments may have hired KPMG or gone elsewhere. However, at least there would have been the opportunity to see if the County could have paid less for the same or more productive services. Change Management One of the areas the County neglected during the Project is Change Management. Change management is a collective term for all approaches to prepare, support, and train individuals and teams when their organization undergoes change. That change can be anything from procedures and processes, to major staff changes and systems changes. Change management has become a discipline unto itself due largely to the natural 32 See, e.g., https://blog.embarkwithus.com/what-are-the-fees-hourly-rates-of-accounting-consulting- firms viewed 7/23/20 22 resistance of people to new processes, systems, expectations, and the way they do their jobs.33 The KPMG County Transformation project, as can be seen from KPMG’s initial recommendations, involved a number of significant changes in County operations. The Grand Jury learned that while some departments embraced KPMG’s recommendations, resistance to even have KPMG gather data and work with departments was widespread such that it was reported to the Grand Jury that one agency leader instructed those in his “portfolio” (a collection of agencies and departments) not to cooperate with KPMG and give them as little as possible. In both very large amendments to their contract (Amendment 1 for $15,730,000 and Amendment 4 for $20,300,000), KPMG’s Scope of Effort included providing support and assistance to the County in Change Management related activities. In Amendment 4 under Human Resources Transformation Support, Change Management is named and defined specifically, as shown in the section of the Amendment shown below. Note, however, that KPMG’s work was to “Support” and “Assist” the County in these activities. Aside from the questionable wisdom of formulating a contract in this way, discussed above under Competitive Bids, Change Management was ultimately the responsibility of the County. Certainly, one could expect some resistance among a population of around 20,000 County employees. There was also the factor of the Board’s and the EO’s authority over departments with elected heads (See Obstacles and Complicating Factors below.) Nevertheless, the County’s inability to manage change in some areas appears to have been a factor limiting the success of the Project and may have contributed to the turnover in in several key departments. Project Deliverables Amendment 1 to the KPMG contract, under “CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE”, calls for the Contractor (KPMG) to “complete the following 33 See, e.g., “The Theory and Practice of Change Management”, Fifth Edition, John Hayes, 2020, and “Managing Change in Organizations: A Practice Guide”, Project Management Institute, 2012. Transformation Support tasks as directed by the COUNTY:” Following are some of those tasks:34
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 9 hallazgos
F1: Some limited cost savings from the KPMG County Transformation Project were substantiated by documentation provided to the Grand Jury, e.g., in Purchasing and Fleet Services. Other areas where savings may have occurred, such as in the Sheriff’s Department, have not been demonstrated. Moreover, assertions by the EO to the Board of Supervisors of greater savings exceeding the cost of the Project have not been supported and are questionable.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: “Summarize strategic planning workshop outputs…
F2: The implementation process for Workday did not secure a commitment by users to change business practices to accommodate the system. This contributed to its failure and has cost the County more than $8 million. Additional costs may result from possible litigation.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: Assist COUNTY in developing business case and scenario analysis documents…
F3: KPMGs recommendations and implementation work has resulted in the County becoming more data driven and performance focused. The County has become more transparent in the achieving these objectives by publishing Key Performance Indicator (KPI) data in annual budget documents. However, achievement levels of KPIs has not been reported in published budget reports for the years after 2017-2018 and does not appear at all in the newly formatted Recommended Budget for 2020-2021.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Assist COUNTY in its efforts to provide training to COUNTY employees regarding enhanced use of workflow and workload analysis toolsets as well as statistical sampling and lean process analysis.” The Grand Jury requested that the EO provide: “Deliverables specified in KPMG contract Amendment #1: a- Board of Supervisors strategic planning workshop summary, b- Training materials, c- Business case scenario analysis”35 The EO responded with the following: “Answer: KPMG Contract Amendment No. 1 was presented to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, March 29, 2016. Including the Form 11, report and video of Board Workshop held on Tuesday, March 29, 2016.36 Related Attachments: (F) DVD with video of Board Workshop held on Tuesday, March 29, 2016 **to be delivered next week to the Grand Jury offices** (G) 2016-03-29 Board of Supervisors – Public Agenda (H) KPMG Amendment No 1 Form 11 & Report “ The Grand Jury is very puzzled by this answer. It essentially says that deliverables specified by Amendment 1 that was approved on March 29, 2016 were provided in the same meeting in which the Amendment was approved. Also, as noted above, the Scope of Work itself provided to the Grand Jury is dated eight months after the Amendment was approved. The Grand Jury reviewed Contract Amendment No. 1 including Form 11, as provided by the EO, the online video of the Board meeting (workshop) held on the afternoon of March 29, 2016, and the final report from the original contract from KPMG discussed in that workshop. The Grand Jury found no evidence of anything resembling the deliverables specified. Note also that KPMG contract amendments may be in conflict with Board of Supervisors Policy A-18, which states 34 Amendment 1, pp. 4-6 35 Email to the EO from the Grand Jury, Dec 4, 2019 36 Email response from the EO to the Grand Jury, Jan. 9, 2020 24 “The department head shall be responsible for the satisfactory performance of the contract requirements by the contractor. This includes contract monitoring… and contractor evaluation…The establishment of a quantifiable objective is an essential element of the contract development process to enable evaluation.”37 Although this policy is directed to department heads and departments, the Board itself contradicted that policy which governs County departments by not specifying quantifiable (and, therefore, measurable) objectives (deliverables) in the KPMG contract amendments. County Performance Unit (CPU) KPMG’s Scope of Work in Amendment 4 includes “County Performance Unit Implementation Support…to contain costs, enhance outcomes, and improve efficiency.”38 The Submittal to the Board of August 28, 2018 by the EO, referred to previously, states “A key tenet to achieving reductions in spend and ensuring that county departments continue with transformation initiatives recommended by the consultant is the new County Performance Unit (CPU). The CPU is a management tool within the Executive Office to help create a culture driven by performance, accountability, and data-driven decisions. Assistant CEOs will work with county departments to assess performance and identify further efficiencies across departments countywide. The ACEO’s, portfolios and departments develop strategic objectives and KPIs aligned with the county’s LiftUp RivCo and Vision 2030 outcomes. …The CPU tool offers greater support of the transformation efforts both in the Executive Office and departments.”39 The Submittal also states: “The CPU initiative monitors the various transformation initiatives to ensure accountability and performance are consistently measured. CPU reviews strategic, operational and financial performance of departments and uses a central data-driven analysis and tracking hub within the Executive Office.” 37https://www.rivcocob.org/boardpolicies/policy-a/POLICY-A18.pdf viewed 7/23/20 38 Amendment 4, Attachment A-4, p. 6 39 Submittal to the Board of Supervisors, “County Transformation Project Updates”, August 28, 2018, p. 9 25 In other words, this was a very important part of implementing monitoring, and measuring initiatives of the Project. When the Grand Jury inquired of the EO about the current status of the CPU, we received the following answer was provided. “The CPU initiative was transitioned from the consultant to the Executive Office team. The initiative resulted in over 300 KPIs which was as a result of working closely and collaboratively with all county departments. These KPIs are reflected in the County’s Recommended/Adopted budget … It was decided that instead of creating a separate unit called CPU, and hiring additional staffing, that the CPU function be embedded in the job duties of the Executive Office analysts. In addition to review of the data in the Recommended budget, the KPIs are also being reviewed and validated at yearend. This year again, we’ll go through the KPI validation process as part of our yearend process to ensure the key performance indicators are still providing the intended outcome and it’s aligned with the county, and portfolio objectives.” So, the CPU, this “key tenet to achieving reductions in spend and ensuring that county departments continue with transformation initiatives recommended by the consultant” has been disbanded, and instead of being driven by Assistant CEOs, it has now been reduced to monitoring of data by EO analysts as part of their other job duties. To repeat, the Grand Jury was advised by the EO that “updates [to the Board of Supervisors] were verbal, there are no documents available to provide.” Reporting the Results to the Board of Supervisors The EO reported to the Board in the afore-mentioned meeting of June 25, 2019 on progress to date on 2019 KPMG recommendations coming out of the entire Project. The Grand Jury asked the EO for evidence on eight of the recommendations reported as “Complete”. The Grand Jury found that the evidence of completion provided on two of the recommendations was satisfactory. However, the following six, as described by the EO, are of concern: (Information Technology) (IT3) RECOMMENDATION: “Conduct IT inventory and develop Total Cost of Ownership model” REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. On-going process to deal with IT procurement and software and hardware inventory.” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY: “Implemented ServiceNow and are implementing RivcoPro to better manage procurements and inventory” 26 CONCERN: The “Total Cost of Ownership model” was not provided. An “on-going process” does not indicate completion, nor does “implementing RivcoPro”. (IT4) RECOMMENDATION: “Define IT talent management plan (Hiring, Retention, and Succession Planning)” REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. Designed new hiring methodology” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY: “Implemented use of IT staffing firms to help find hard to recruit employees. They must transfer to County employment within 3 months. This has created flexibility and increased hiring speed.” CONCERN: Use of IT staffing firms is not a new hiring methodology and does not address retention and succession planning. (Planning) (PL3) RECOMMENDATION: “Document key process steps and decision making (sic) framework” REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. Implemented Case Planner Ownership framework and process…” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY (sent Jan. 9, 2020): “Working with the Transportation Department and will follow-up with an answer (PENDING)” CONCERN: Nothing from the Transportation Department or regarding Planning was provided to the Grand Jury. (PL7) RECOMMENDATION: “Improve planner workload management (i.e. electronic trackers, PLUS)” REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. …Implemented Case Planner Ownership framework and process…” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY (sent Jan. 9, 2020): “Working with the Transportation Department and will follow-up with an answer (PENDING)” CONCERN: Nothing from the Transportation Department or regarding Planning was provided to the Grand Jury. (PL14) RECOMMENDATION: “encourage more independent decision making that weighs risk and benefits: REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. Implemented Case Planner Ownership framework and process…” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY (sent Jan. 9, 2020): “Working with the Transportation Department and will follow-up with an answer (PENDING)” CONCERN: Nothing from the Transportation Department or regarding Planning was provided to the Grand Jury. (Note that all three Planning recommendations (PL3, PL7, and PL14) cited the same evidence of completion - “Case Planning Ownership and Process”, which was promised and never received. 27 (Animal Services) (AS6) RECOMMENDATION: “Continue to enhance mobile technology capabilities to facilitate activities and develop a supporting Chameleon training strategy to ensure consistent staff proficiency” REPORTED TO BOARD: “Complete. New technologies have been purchased and deployed…” RESPONSE AND EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO GRAND JURY: “The department has deployed I-pads with each Field Officer. Training has been delivered on proper use/input of information into WEB Chameleon. All Field staff should be inputting information for each activity into the WEB Chameleon System at this time. SOP’s have been developed and pushed out to end users in the training. Mobile credit card machines are being purchased from Elavon (Ingenico Link 2500). The initial purchase will be for eight (8) machines and delivery is expected by the end of January. These will be distributed to our primary users, with training on how to use them. SOP’s will be developed, and training provided once the machines arrive. A specific policy and procedure for monetary transactions by the licensing and animal control officers has been written and provided to these employees.” CONCERN: While the Grand Jury acknowledges the deployment of iPads, the implication regarding mobile credit card machines is that deployment was the result of the KPMG recommendation. KPMG, in its Countywide Strategic Review dated July 2017, made no mention of field payments or mobile credit card machines when it published Recommendations AS6. In fact, the 2018-2019 Riverside County Civil Grand Jury wrote a report entitled “Riverside County Department of Animal Services Improved Efficiency for County Animal Control Officers”.40 The Grand Jury found: • “Lack of Policy for Handling Payment of Fees in the Field”, and • Cumbersome and Unsafe Procedures for Processing Fee Payments”. The report recommended • The Riverside County Department of Animal Services should have a policy and procedure regarding the acceptance of payments in the field for services by animal control officers”, and • County animal control officers should be issued a tablet with a credit card reader to process payments made in the field. Supplying this tool would reduce the County’s legal and safety liability exposure of 40 https://countyofriverside.us/Portals/0/GrandJury/GrandJury2018- 2019/Riverside_County_Dept_of_Animal_Services.pdf?ver=2019-06-12-132609-057, viewed 5/26/20 28 its field staff. This will be an inexpensive solution that eliminates cash handling and improves the efficiency, convenience and safety of ACO’s.” The Grand Jury finds it misleading to credit the Project and KPMG recommendations for addressing this issue. Obstacles and Complicating Factors Appointed Versus Elected County Officials As a General Law County under the California Constitution, Riverside County has five elected officials in addition to the elected Board of Supervisors: • The Assessor-Clerk-Recorder • The Auditor-Controller • The District Attorney • The Sheriff, Coroner and Public Administrator • The Treasurer and Tax Collector Because these officials are elected by the voters, they are, essentially, answerable to the voters and not to the Board of Supervisors or the County Executive Officer. The exception is that the Board sets the discretionary budget for each of these officials’ departments, meaning the budget for funds controlled by the Board and not coming from outside agencies, such as the State or Federal Government. Note that the total discretionary budget for the County (dubbed NCC or Net County Cost), is about $700 million each year out of a total County budget of around $6 billion, most of which is designated for specific purposes by outside agencies. The result is that the Board, and thus the Executive Office, has only limited authority to tell agencies and departments run by elected officials what to do. So, in this Project, the Board and EO could ask these agencies and departments to cooperate with KPMG’s investigation and to follow their recommendations, but could only use their budget authority and not direct supervisory authority to make that happen. That, of course, limited their ability to effect Change Management in these agencies and departments, as opposed to the rest of County departments where there is ultimate authority over hiring and firing as well as budgets. High Turnover and a Highly Charged Political Atmosphere The period following KPMG’s initial recommendations for Criminal Justice in March 2016 and especially following their recommendations in July 2017 was one of significant political turmoil in Riverside County. The Fourth District Supervisor died unexpectedly in December 2016, and his replacement was appointed in May 2017 to fill the position. The County Executive Officer retired in August of 2017 and was replaced by the chief assistant. The First 29 and Second District Supervisors both announced they would not run for reelection and would retire in January of 2019. Both were primary driving forces behind the KPMG County Transformation Project. The Sheriff with whom the Project began was succeeded by a new Sheriff in 2019. The heads of key agencies and departments have left and been replaced since the Project began, including HR, DPSS, and the EDA. There has also been significant turnover of middle management and staff in key departments, such as HR. Thus, initiatives coming out of KPMG’s recommendations were to be led and managed by new people who may not have had the background or made commitments to these initiatives. They would not have gone through the process of development of the recommendations and initiatives, including the information gathering and discussion process and all the thought processes of their development. Also, certainly, leaders in new positions want to put their own stamp on their organizations. This would, naturally, have led to delays and, possibly, changes in direction in implementing recommendations and initiative from the Project. Conflicting Incentives In looking at projects like this one involving major change, there can be conflicting incentives for management and staff to accept and implement the recommendations of outside consultants. On the one hand if senior leadership is pressing for large budget reductions and greater efficiencies, then major changes to accomplish these must be considered and accepted to preserve one’s job. On the other hand, embracing major changes can imply that one was deficient in one’s job for not initiating these changes in the first place. The Grand Jury was informed that in some cases department heads agreed to publicly announce only some of the savings and efficiencies achieved from the Project. In addition, it is well known, particularly in government, that acknowledging savings can have the negative result of having one’s budget cut in succeeding budget cycles. This can result in losing funding for other initiatives that a department or agency might want or losing staff. For these reasons, there may be benefits and cost savings from the Project that County management and staff are unwilling to acknowledge or wish to take credit for themselves rather than attributing them to the KPMG County Transformation Project. Going Forward The Grand Jury makes a number of recommendations in this report for the future regarding 30 • How to assure competitive bidding on large contracts with outside service providers • Ensuring commitment to follow-through on major operational changes before incurring large financial obligations, such as for software projects • Specifying measurable deliverables from outside contractors • Publishing achievement levels in departments of KPIs • Establishing an independent agency to report on the achievement of objectives for major projects in the County • Re-constituting the County Performance Unit to continue with its original mission In the Board of Supervisors meeting of June 25th, 2019, during KPMG’s final presentation, participants were very outspoken in emphasizing the importance of following up on the Project after KPMG’s departure.41 One Supervisor said “…unless we follow recommendations then we won’t realize potential savings or efficiencies.” The County CEO said “It’s up to us… to make sure … departments are following up and implementing some of the better practices that we have identified.” The Board Chair, in wrapping up the presentation said “The next step is the follow-up… We cannot let the items [that you have found] die. It’s going to fall on the five of us and our CEO to make sure that those items stay front and center …and that all the money we have spent on your firm… we get even more out of it.” Five months after this Board meeting, the Grand Jury asked a high ranking official in the EO what reports or actions have been provided to the Board of Supervisors or requested to follow-up and track the progress of the Project. The reply was “none”. When the Grand Jury asked why, the response was “because the Board has not asked”. Most importantly, the County in its actions should not treat the KPMG County Transformation Project as if it were over and done. It is highly likely there are still benefits to be achieved and money to be saved from the Project in areas that the Grand Jury was unable to investigate. The current COVID-19 crisis will certainly delay many major initiatives until the situation stabilizes to a “new normal”. However, it would seem particularly urgent now to look for cost savings considering the budget pressures being caused by the COVID-19 crisis. By continuing to implement, monitor, and track the recommendations from the Project through a re-constituted CPU and with strong support from the Board and the EO, the County can still avoid the Project being permanently labeled as wasteful. BOS mtg, June 25, 2019, starting about 30 minutes into video 31
F4: Even though the KPMG contract cost expanded to more than 54 times the size of the original contract, the County sought no additional bids for any of the additional amendments.
F5: The County paid KPMG a considerable hourly rate for tens of thousands of hours of work without quantifiable deliverables – just “assistance”. This was in conflict with Board Policy A-18 which directs how County departments must contract for professional services. For some of the deliverables specified in the KPMG contract Amendment 1, the EO provided the Grand Jury no evidence that they were actually completed or received by the County. Thus, it appears that the County did not receive what it paid for in these instances.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Board of Supervisors establish an agency that is independent of any department to, among other possible duties, perform financial and operational audits verifying the completion, claimed benefits, and adherence to policy of projects undertaken in the County. Such an agency should choose which projects it will audit, and report its findings publicly to the Board of Supervisors. The agency could be part of the Auditor Controller’s Office, or akin to the Internal Audit department in many 33 California Counties or an Inspector General’s Office in many other governmental entities. This should be completed by 6/30/2021. (Findings 5 and 7)
F6: A key initiative to achieving and following up on the objectives and
F7: Evidence provided to the Grand Jury to support reports by the EO to the Board of Supervisors of completion on some of KPMG’s recommendations was incomplete, dubious, misleading, or not provided at all. Thus, the veracity of information provided to the Board is questionable. 32
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: The Board of Supervisors and the Executive Office re-examine the initiatives recommended in the KPMG County Transformation project, track and report on those still offering benefits and cost savings to the County, and direct departments and agencies to continue efforts to achieve those benefits and cost savings. The list of departments which should continue implementing KPMG’s recommendations should be completed by 3/31/21, and department efforts should continue indefinitely. (Findings 7 and 8)
F8: Despite adamant agreement by of the Board of Supervisors in KPMG’s Project closeout presentation, to diligently following-up on the Project
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: Despite adamant agreement by of the Board of Supervisors in KPMG’s Project closeout presentation, to diligently following-up on the Project recommendations, no such follow-up appears to have happened since that meeting.
F9: While the Grand Jury found some limited evidence of cost savings and other benefits, no evidence was provided that the KPMG County Transformation project came close to paying for itself. There still may be considerable savings and other benefits to be derived if the County follows up on recommended initiatives from the Project. However, unless and until new savings and benefits are realized, there is more justification to label the Project wasteful rather than beneficial.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: While the Grand Jury found some limited evidence of cost savings and other benefits, no evidence was provided that the KPMG County Transformation project came close to paying for itself. There still may be considerable savings and other benefits to be derived if the County follows up on recommended initiatives from the Project. However, unless and until new savings and benefits are realized, there is more justification to label the Project wasteful rather than beneficial. RECOMMENDATIONS The Grand Jury recommends that:
Recomendaciones adicionales 1

No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.

R20: The material also describes a process by which recruiting was fully centralized between February 2018 and April 2019. Although the figure for FY 2017-18 conflicts with that which was reported in HR’s FY 2019-20 budget (105 days),29 the material does appear to show that the new shared services model coincided with a decline in hiring times. What was not shown in the material was any detail on the Departments’ “ability to reduce duplicate human resources costs”. One way to validate that the new model was beneficial other than cost or staff savings would be the reaction of the departments being served in this way. The County requires that each department providing services to other departments conduct satisfaction surveys among the “users” or “customers” in other departments. The Grand Jury requested from the EO the past five years of survey results for Human Resources. However, the surveys for FY 2014 and 2015 ask different questions and report in a different format than those for 2017 and 2018, and 2017 and 2018 also report in a different format from one another. So, the Grand Jury was unable to determine if user satisfaction improved significantly from before the new model was implemented. (2016 results were not provided.) No other specific benefits from KPMG’s work in Human Resources were indicated to or identified by the Grand Jury. Information Technology (RCIT) KPMG made 11 recommendation to the Riverside County Information Technology Department (RCIT), labeled IT1 through IT11. A senior executive in RCIT, who worked in the Department throughout the Project, informed the Grand Jury that before KPMG made them, all recommendations were either implemented or planned for implementation by RCIT. In addition, the Grand 28 Attachment to “Submittal to the Board of Supervisors” entitled “COUNTY TRANSFORMATION PROJECT UPDATES”, p.4. 29 https://countyofriverside.us/AbouttheCounty/BudgetandFinancialInformation.aspx#gsc.tab=0 (viewed 7/18/20) 20 Jury was informed that KPMG published the recommendations even though RCIT encouraged them not to, and that KPMG’s work was not helpful to the Department. The Grand Jury also learned from several sources that there may have been considerable benefit because of KPMG recommendations in Health and Human Services (DPSS), particularly relating to improved service delivery and outcomes. The Grand Jury was unable to investigate these potential benefits due to time constraints. Project Governance and Management Project Governance refers to the rules and guidelines by which a project is to be run. Project Management is about applying the Governance rules of a project to enforce them, monitor them, and report on their execution. On smaller projects this is carried out by a Project Manager, while on larger projects (like the KPMG County Transformation Project) it is usually done via a Project or Program Management Office (PMO) consisting of a number of individuals. On this project, the County had neither an overall Project Manager or a PMO. KPMG assumed as much of the role as possible, however they had very little authority to enforce the rules. The EO had the official role of Project Manager, but the Grand Jury learned that meant primarily tracking and approving KPMG’s invoices and payments and tracking the Project budget. There were at least two such “Project Managers” in the EO during the Project, both of whom were interviewed by the Grand Jury. At least one portion of the Project, under Amendment 4, specified that KPMG assist the County in setting up a PMO in Human Resources.30 No Program Management Office was ever created in HR. The lack of effective Project Governance and Management was one of the causes of failings in the Project, including in the areas described below. Competitive Bids Even though the KPMG contract cost expanded to more than 54 times the size of the original contract, the County sought no additional bids for any of the additional amendments. This was justified in F11 supporting material (“Contract History and Price Reasonableness”) submitted by the EO for each Amendment, by citing the original RFP (Request for Proposal) and competitive bidding process for the original contract.31 The Grand Jury was advised by the Purchasing Department that there is no County policy regarding amendments to agreements for additional work except that the 30 KPMG Contract, Amendment 4, 31 “Contract History and Price Reasonableness” in the “Submittal to the Board of Supervisors” for Amendments 1 – 4, provided by the County Executive Office 21 agreement must contain terms that allow for changes to the agreement, which it did in the case of all Amendments. When the Grand Jury asked a former high-ranking County official why no additional bids were sought for amendments subsequent to the original KPMG contract, the response was that KPMG had developed the confidence of the Board, and the Board did not want another firm coming in with different ideas. That official also pointed out that no other “top tier” firms of the caliber of KPMG had bid on the original contract. The Grand Jury notes that other “top tier” firms may have been more interested in bidding on $40 million worth of work versus the original $761,000. While it may be marginally justified that KPMG continued the work they initially did in Public Safety, there is less justification to have them begin in ten, (and eventually 20) other County departments, having demonstrated no particular expertise in these from previous work in the County. Yet the County committed almost $24 million more to KPMG in these areas with no competitive bidding. Moreover, the Grand Jury questions the approach of paying a significant hourly rate for tens of thousands of hours of work with very few measurable deliverables – just “assistance”. While KPMG’s “blended” hourly rate was typical for the “Big 4” consulting firms,32 certainly KPMG, or almost anybody would be thrilled to agree to such a sweet deal, when all they had to do was show up and help as best they could, but not be held accountable for the results (accountable meaning getting paid or not paid based on results). Besides stipulating specific results in the various departments, perhaps an additional approach the County could have taken would have been to break up the amendments by the various departments. Then, after coming to agreements with department heads on which of the KPMG recommendations would be implemented, allowing the departments to hire outsiders to assist them, while holding the departments accountable to the expenditures and results. Departments may have hired KPMG or gone elsewhere. However, at least there would have been the opportunity to see if the County could have paid less for the same or more productive services. Change Management One of the areas the County neglected during the Project is Change Management. Change management is a collective term for all approaches to prepare, support, and train individuals and teams when their organization undergoes change. That change can be anything from procedures and processes, to major staff changes and systems changes. Change management has become a discipline unto itself due largely to the natural 32 See, e.g., https://blog.embarkwithus.com/what-are-the-fees-hourly-rates-of-accounting-consulting- firms viewed 7/23/20 22 resistance of people to new processes, systems, expectations, and the way they do their jobs.33 The KPMG County Transformation project, as can be seen from KPMG’s initial recommendations, involved a number of significant changes in County operations. The Grand Jury learned that while some departments embraced KPMG’s recommendations, resistance to even have KPMG gather data and work with departments was widespread such that it was reported to the Grand Jury that one agency leader instructed those in his “portfolio” (a collection of agencies and departments) not to cooperate with KPMG and give them as little as possible. In both very large amendments to their contract (Amendment 1 for $15,730,000 and Amendment 4 for $20,300,000), KPMG’s Scope of Effort included providing support and assistance to the County in Change Management related activities. In Amendment 4 under Human Resources Transformation Support, Change Management is named and defined specifically, as shown in the section of the Amendment shown below. Note, however, that KPMG’s work was to “Support” and “Assist” the County in these activities. Aside from the questionable wisdom of formulating a contract in this way, discussed above under Competitive Bids, Change Management was ultimately the responsibility of the County. Certainly, one could expect some resistance among a population of around 20,000 County employees. There was also the factor of the Board’s and the EO’s authority over departments with elected heads (See Obstacles and Complicating Factors below.) Nevertheless, the County’s inability to manage change in some areas appears to have been a factor limiting the success of the Project and may have contributed to the turnover in in several key departments. Project Deliverables Amendment 1 to the KPMG contract, under “CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE”, calls for the Contractor (KPMG) to “complete the following 33 See, e.g., “The Theory and Practice of Change Management”, Fifth Edition, John Hayes, 2020, and “Managing Change in Organizations: A Practice Guide”, Project Management Institute, 2012. Transformation Support tasks as directed by the COUNTY:” Following are some of those tasks:34
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 2 hallazgos
F2: In prior terms, follow up of noncompliant responses to Civil Grand Jury reports has been inconsistently applied by the RCCGJ. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The RCCGJ recommends that starting in 2020, the incoming Civil Grand Jury establish the Continuity Committee as a standing committee, charged with: a) Reviewing the responses to the Recommendations of prior-term Civil Grand Jury reports for compliance with both the law and the intent of the Recommendations; b) The Maintaining all pertinent Civil Grand Jury required responses in a database.
Página 5
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The standing Continuity Committee shall be tasked with maintaining a database to monitor timeframe compliance, in accordance with CPC § 933.05(b), to: a) Review all responses to determine which have and have not met timeframe requirements; b) Categorize the timeframe noncompliant responses according to which element is missing; c) Identify in detail what is required from the respondent to remedy the timeframe noncompliant status; d) Identify the public officials or government agencies needing to respond; e) Respectfully request the Superior Court allow RCCGJ to send a follow-up letter to any noncompliant respondent, to solicit a response within thirty days.
F2019: Those grand juries issued 22 reports. Committee members read each report, noting the findings and the recommendations. They also studied the responses to those reports from the various respondents (governmental departments, agencies, etc.) and recorded that information. The collected data was entered into a document called the Continuity Matrix. Documents Reviewed by the 2019-2020 Riverside County Civil Grand Jury include: • California Penal Codes § 914.1, § 933, § 933.05(a), (b) • Riverside County Civil Grand Jury Procedures Manual (2019-2020) • Los Angeles County Continuity Report (2018-2019) • Mendocino County Continuity Report (2019-2020) • Orange County Continuity Report (2016-2017) • San Francisco County Continuity Reports (2001-2002) and (2018- 2019) • County of Riverside Web Page, Grand Jury - Past Reports & Responses (https://www.countyofriverside.us/Home/GrandJury.aspx) • “What’s the Civil Grand Jury, and What Does It Do?” Good Times Santa Cruz (online edition), July 3, 2018 (http://goodtimes.sc/santa- cruz-news/whats-civil-grand-jury/) DISCUSSION Overcoming Hurdles of Continuity Reporting The Civil Grand Jury has the responsibility of following up on previous Civil Grand Jury reports to ensure responding agencies comply with both the letter and the spirit of their report(s). Currently, documentation for the RCCGJ continuity process is limited as newly impaneled RCCGJ members are not aware or sufficiently familiar with 4 the details and information needed to commence such a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. The development of a process to enhance report oversight and reducing the burden of future Civil Grand Juries is long overdue. The 2019-2020 RCCGJ believes that a continuity report can provide valuable analysis of the archive of grand jury reports and their responses. This useful research tool for current and future grand juries will enhance their work for the public. Importance of a Matrix in Continuity Reporting Given the Civil Grand Jury’s limited term and the annual turnover in individual jurors, it is essential to develop an efficient tool to systematically gather and update responses to Civil Grand Jury findings and recommendations, and store this data in a centralized reporting repository. The Continuity Matrix, a software-based spreadsheet produced by the Continuity Committee, is the first step towards creating such a repository. The Continuity Matrix can benefit the citizens of Riverside County by: 1) Clearly identifying those agencies that have not responded within the mandated timeframes. 2) Identifying responses that did not correctly address the intent of the Civil Grand Jury’s Findings and/or Recommendations. 3) Identifying responses in which an agency provides the date for implementation of a recommendation. 4) Providing future grand juries with an efficient method of data collection and follow up. FINDINGS 1. The 2019-2020 RCCGJ has been unable to locate any previously issued continuity reports.
Página 4
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 15 hallazgos
F1: 5 Year Plan Х Х Х "EDA [with] Division, create a 5 year is strongly suggested.] "The Division does not have a 5 year plan"
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: 5 Year Plan but their agreement with all 5 findings
F2: 15-Day Rule is not a Positive Internal
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: EDA said most of their equipment "malfunctioning parking structure
F3: The Jail Commander can Override the
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: EDA said "funding is insufficient"
F4: Surface Parking Lots
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: Surface Parking Lots
F5: Americans with Disabilities Act
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: "EDA has reviewed the structure
F6: Return of money to inmates
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6: Return of money to inmates Not yet implemented but will be in Х х Х
F7: Vending machine snacks for staff
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7: Vending machine snacks for staff future
F8: Weighting of bid selection for
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R8: Weighting of bid selection for х Х X Not warranted or is not reasonable Commissary contractor Commissary contractor
F9: Indigent kits paid for by the vendor vendor
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R9: Indigent kits paid for by the Х Х X Not warranted or is not reasonable
F10: Inadequate Audits (RCSD)
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R10: Reports Not Properly Screened for Content Continuity RCSD stated it would not implement
F11: Impact on Citizens and Businesses Not warranted or is not reasonable Businesses
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R11: Impact on Citizens and Х Х Х
F12: Failure to Adhere to IWF &
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R12: Failure to Adhere to IWF & Х Х X Not warranted or is not reasonable Committee Bylaws and Policies Committee Bylaws & Policies
F13: Contractor Employee Background
F14: Reserve Funds Policy (a and b)
F15: See comment in the Notes column. x \mid x modify Policy 501.13 ...accounting firm occur following submission to rotation every three years" Corrections Standards Committee for approval (meeting scheduled for Aug 2018) RCCGJ2017-2018.02 Coachella Valley Cemetery (Report Issued: 04/23/2018) [CVPCD's response was prepared by Best Best & Krieger LLP]
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R15: IWF Policy and Bylaws
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The current patchwork of Franchise Area Agreements for green waste collection in unincorporated areas leaves several underserved rural, agricultural, ranching, and equestrian communities with no green waste disposal option, other than to send the green waste to County landfills instead of diverting it as the laws require.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: The Department of Environmental Health should provide the Board of Supervisors with all feasible recommendations to include the exercise of every available green waste option under Exhibit H previously unexercised under the Franchise Collection Agreement contracts. This should be completed by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3).
R3: The Civil Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Environmental Health to create a waste management committee including County unincorporated residents and green waste processors to implement comprehensive organic waste diversion and disposal programs that meet the needs of residents within all feasible unincorporated areas; and to publish an annual review detailing the progress in meeting the State and County green waste diversion and disposal legal requirements. This committee should be established by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3). 19
F2: The failure to provide green waste service to all feasible unincorporated communities impacts the County’s ability to meet diversion requirements under the law.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: The Department of Environmental Health should provide the Board of Supervisors with all feasible recommendations to include the exercise of every available green waste option under Exhibit H previously unexercised under the Franchise Collection Agreement contracts. This should be completed by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3).
R3: The Civil Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Environmental Health to create a waste management committee including County unincorporated residents and green waste processors to implement comprehensive organic waste diversion and disposal programs that meet the needs of residents within all feasible unincorporated areas; and to publish an annual review detailing the progress in meeting the State and County green waste diversion and disposal legal requirements. This committee should be established by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3). 19
F3: The Department of Environmental Health has not exercised the option available now and historically under Exhibit H of the Franchise Collection Agreements that would provide green waste service for residents of all feasible unincorporated areas of the County where trash is currently collected.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: The Department of Environmental Health should provide the Board of Supervisors with all feasible recommendations to include the exercise of every available green waste option under Exhibit H previously unexercised under the Franchise Collection Agreement contracts. This should be completed by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3).
R3: The Civil Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Environmental Health to create a waste management committee including County unincorporated residents and green waste processors to implement comprehensive organic waste diversion and disposal programs that meet the needs of residents within all feasible unincorporated areas; and to publish an annual review detailing the progress in meeting the State and County green waste diversion and disposal legal requirements. This committee should be established by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3). 19
F4: There are inconsistencies in the material that is allowed to be included in green waste bins, which contributes to organic green waste identified for diversion as defined in The RCLaw, being added to our landfills.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Department of Environmental Health should standardize the labeling of the green waste bin containers throughout all of the unincorporated areas of the County to ensure the consistent collection of green waste material. This should be completed by 3/1/2021 (Findings 4).
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 4 hallazgos
F1: The current patchwork of Franchise Area Agreements for green waste collection in unincorporated areas leaves several underserved rural, agricultural, ranching, and equestrian communities with no green waste disposal option, other than to send the green waste to County landfills instead of diverting it as the laws require.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: The Department of Environmental Health should provide the Board of Supervisors with all feasible recommendations to include the exercise of every available green waste option under Exhibit H previously unexercised under the Franchise Collection Agreement contracts. This should be completed by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3).
R3: The Civil Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Environmental Health to create a waste management committee including County unincorporated residents and green waste processors to implement comprehensive organic waste diversion and disposal programs that meet the needs of residents within all feasible unincorporated areas; and to publish an annual review detailing the progress in meeting the State and County green waste diversion and disposal legal requirements. This committee should be established by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3). 19
F2: The failure to provide green waste service to all feasible unincorporated communities impacts the County’s ability to meet diversion requirements under the law.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: The Department of Environmental Health should provide the Board of Supervisors with all feasible recommendations to include the exercise of every available green waste option under Exhibit H previously unexercised under the Franchise Collection Agreement contracts. This should be completed by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3).
R3: The Civil Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Environmental Health to create a waste management committee including County unincorporated residents and green waste processors to implement comprehensive organic waste diversion and disposal programs that meet the needs of residents within all feasible unincorporated areas; and to publish an annual review detailing the progress in meeting the State and County green waste diversion and disposal legal requirements. This committee should be established by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3). 19
F3: The Department of Environmental Health has not exercised the option available now and historically under Exhibit H of the Franchise Collection Agreements that would provide green waste service for residents of all feasible unincorporated areas of the County where trash is currently collected.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (2)
R1: The Department of Environmental Health should provide the Board of Supervisors with all feasible recommendations to include the exercise of every available green waste option under Exhibit H previously unexercised under the Franchise Collection Agreement contracts. This should be completed by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3).
R3: The Civil Grand Jury recommends the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Environmental Health to create a waste management committee including County unincorporated residents and green waste processors to implement comprehensive organic waste diversion and disposal programs that meet the needs of residents within all feasible unincorporated areas; and to publish an annual review detailing the progress in meeting the State and County green waste diversion and disposal legal requirements. This committee should be established by 3/1/2021 (Findings 1 – 3). 19
F4: There are inconsistencies in the material that is allowed to be included in green waste bins, which contributes to organic green waste identified for diversion as defined in The RCLaw, being added to our landfills.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The Department of Environmental Health should standardize the labeling of the green waste bin containers throughout all of the unincorporated areas of the County to ensure the consistent collection of green waste material. This should be completed by 3/1/2021 (Findings 4).
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones 5 hallazgos
F1: The District can no longer fund the law enforcement function solely through the fixed property tax.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1: The Board put forth a ballot measure for the November 2020 election or a special election to adequately fund the District.
F2: A flat, un-adjustable property tax to finance this ongoing cost-variable service requires going back to the voters repeatedly to raise the tax.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2: The ballot measure recommended by the Board include an appropriate escalator to keep up with the cost of the service, perhaps tying it directly to the price of the Sheriff ‘s services.
F3: Based on discussion with tax experts, it appears that the use of rubbish fund money may be in violation of Proposition 218 and the California Constitution, Section XIIIC, and Section XIIID, requiring that money designated for one function cannot be used for another.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3: Prior to the ballot measure, the Board get a legal opinion on whether their current "borrowings" can survive a challenge in court.
F4: The rubbish fund has less money available to clean up the community, such as graffiti abatement and removal.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4: The Board spend the proceeds of the franchise fee exclusively for community clean up.
F5: LAFCO has not written a Municipal Service Review (MSR), which was to be done every five years, since 2005.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5: LAFCO immediately conduct a Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the District and the surrounding communities, as written in the LAFCO Municipal Service Review Guidelines15.

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.