Gran Jurado del Condado de Sacramento
2015-2016
From the annual report
The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.
📑 Year-End Report
The full consolidated volume; individual reports are listed below.
Individual reports (12)
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
Some law enforcement agencies in Sacramento County fail to use innovative domestic violence intervention best practices. These evidence-based practices demonstrate measurable results that have a positive impact on victims, families, law enforcement, and the community. These practices include: • Leadership at the executive level that prioritizes domestic violence • Countywide Domestic Violence Response Teams (DVRT) and active partnerships with domestic violence victim advocates • Specialized domestic violence training for patrol officers, first responders, and domestic violence investigators • Use of a field-based lethality risk assessment tool by patrol officers and first responders • Data collection and tracking system
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Demonstrate their commitment to addressing domestic violence adequately by having fully functional domestic violence units that focus on response, investigations, follow-up, tracking and collection of comprehensive domestic violence data.
F2:
Not all law enforcement departments in Sacramento County participate in active partnerships among police, prosecutors, victim advocates, social service agencies, and community organizations to reduce the incidence of domestic violence.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Establish partnerships with domestic violence advocacy groups and provide comprehensive domestic violence specialized training for all patrol officers and detectives.
F3:
Coordinated and accessible domestic violence services for victims and their families have been proven to be most effective.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Develop, expand, and support the use of domestic violence victim advocates in law enforcement domestic violence calls and field investigations.
F4:
The comprehensive and coordinated approaches to domestic violence found at both Citrus Heights Police Department and Elk Grove Police Department are model programs that protect victims and create safer communities. 46
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
Use a field-based lethality risk assessment tool.
Recomendaciones adicionales
1
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R5:
Evaluate the effectiveness of a Family Justice Center or similar models. 47
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
27 hallazgos
F1:
DRR fails to collect the hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding debts owed to the County.
F2:
DRR management rarely uses reports to manage collection activity and workload.
F3:
DRR management fails to work together effectively to manage the Department and the revenue collection activities.
F4:
The Board and CEO have not exhibited any apparent concerns or provided adequate oversight for the collection of revenue through the DRR.
F5:
DRR did not use a competitive bid process to secure services on the County’s behalf. The Board of Supervisors approved and awarded a $4.4 million contract for the development of the DMACS.
F6:
DRR failed to monitor its revenue recovery system and adjust collection efforts to reduce the outstanding debt.
F7:
DRR has failed to meet its proposed revenue recovery collection goals of 38% and has not considered any other cost-effective revenue collection alternatives.
F8:
DRR does not have an established method for monitoring agency client accounts.
F9:
DRR does not provide its agency clients with updates of debtor account collections on a regular basis.
F10:
DRR’s established payment policy guidelines are not consistently followed.
F11:
DRR does not review debtor account activity to assess collectibility or regularly use the FTB Tax Offset Program to successfully improve revenue recovery.
F12:
Revenue collected by DRR with incomplete debtor account information is not being posted to debtor accounts in the DMACS when received.
F13:
DRR does not have the tools or reports to verify daily payment transactions and/or identify payments received with inadequate debtor account information.
F14:
DRR rarely distributes funds held in the Unallocated Trust Account to its agency clients.
F15:
DRR does not reconcile the issues associated with the over 53,000 transactions in the Unallocated Trust Account.
F16:
DRR does not have a policy or procedure for processing payments that are missing debtor account information.
F17:
DRR has no plan to reconcile and close the Unallocated Trust Account.
F18:
The DMACS creates duplicate accounts and/or charges which DRR staff is unable to explain or resolve.
F19:
Resolution of duplicate debtor accounts and/or charges does not appear to be a DRR priority.
F20:
There is evidence of debtors’ payments to DRR on duplicate accounts.
F21:
Approximately 30,000 debtor accounts are due refunds in excess of $1.4 million.
F22:
DRR does not consider processing refunds due on accounts established before July 2015 as a department priority.
F23:
Significant issues were identified during the DOF auditors’ initial system review, preliminary findings were discussed with DRR management but a final report was never submitted to the Board for approval.
F24:
Issues regarding potential fraud and other irregularities were identified during the DOF auditors’ subsequent system review. DRR obstructed the release of any subsequent findings and/or a subsequent final report, which should have been submitted to the Board for approval.
F25:
DRR terminated any further action by the DOF auditors during both system reviews. 25
F26:
There is inadequate monitoring of unlimited user access rights to the DMACS debtor account and collection data.
F27:
There is no oversight of the individuals with unlimited user access rights to the DMACS.
Recomendaciones adicionales
27
No vinculadas a hallazgos específicos.
R1:
DRR should employ alternative solutions to recover the hundreds of millions in outstanding debt owed to the County.
R2:
DRR should develop and use collection activity reports to effectively manage DRR’s collection activities and workload.
R3:
DRR management should work together to manage and improve the department’s revenue collection efforts and reduce the outstanding debt owed to the County.
R4:
The Board and CEO should consider a management review of the Department of Revenue Recovery. Sacramento County Bid Policy Bid or No-Bid: That is the Question. Sacramento County policy is to use a competitive selection process before contracting for services. A decision was made in this case to dispense with the competitive selection. DRR elected to proceed with a $4.4 million no-bid contract to this former IT vendor, now software developer, and incur the expense for the design and development of the DMACS. We find that exempting contracts of this complexity, importance, and magnitude is very problematic. This is particularly true with the DMACS contract, which has been fraught with problems from the outset and has been dysfunctional for seven years at taxpayers’ expense.
R5:
The Board of Supervisors should require County agencies to use a competitive bid process to contract for services over a specified dollar amount. Revenue Collection Trends and Escalating Debt A Chart Speaks Louder than Words! The DMACS is entering its seventh year of operations, and DRR’s revenue collections consistently fail to reach its annual projected goals. Revenue collections continue to be inadequate because the DRR lacks the essential collection improvement tools. Analyzing the DMACS statistical data and accompanying figures conveyed a low growth for revenue recovery and the resultant rapidly escalating delinquent debt. The DRR proposal explicitly indicated that DRR, and the DMACS, would proliferate the revenue recovery rate from 32% to 38% by 2011. Recovery is 6%, not anywhere near the target. Conversely, the chart below depicts the Debt Management and Collection System’s annual revenue recovery rates have, in fact, failed to achieve the 2008, pre-conversion value of $45 million. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE RECOVERY ANNUAL REVENUE RECOVERED VERSUS NET UNCOLLECTED DEBT 18
R6:
DRR should regularly monitor its revenue collection system and adjust collection efforts to reduce the outstanding debt owed to the County.
R7:
DRR should consider other cost-effective replacement alternatives for the DMACS. Ineffective Revenue Collection, Account Monitoring, and Reporting Focus on the Bottom Line! During the investigation, the Grand Jury learned that after an account is established in the Debt Management and Collection System, the Department of Revenue Recovery does not actively monitor or conduct periodic collection activity reviews of debtor accounts. To date, a collection matter may be reviewed and/or corrected only if a debtor or County client employee contacts DRR for customer assistance. DRR has established payment plans based on an individual’s ability to pay. DRR’s payment plan policy has specific guidelines, but these guidelines are inconsistently applied. Additionally, our investigation revealed that it is common for a debtor to pay minimal amounts, which results in the debtor taking several years to satisfy the debt without consequence. DRR utilizes the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) Tax Offset Program to collect funds on debtor accounts that are beyond 120 days delinquent. Most of the debtor accounts referred to FTB are deemed uncollectible and returned to DRR for further disposition. Despite the unlikely probability of recovering any revenue from these uncollectible accounts, DRR restores them to the DMACS. Witness testimony further verified the DMACS does not produce delinquent account activity reports, which could serve to direct collection staff and improve their revenue collection activity. DRR’s waste of collection resources on uncollectible debtor accounts remains problematic. 19
R8:
DRR should establish a method for monitoring agency client accounts.
R9:
DRR should provide its agency clients with updates of debtor account collection activity on a regular basis.
R10:
DRR should consistently follow their established guidelines for payment plans.
R11:
DRR should review debtor account activity to determine collectibility and use the FTB Tax Offset Program regularly to effectively improve revenue collections. Unallocated Trust Account: Credit Where Credit is Due! The Grand Jury review of DRR operations uncovered a DMACS account labeled the Unallocated Trust Account (UTA). This DRR account consists of millions of dollars in debtors’ payments that have not been posted to specified debtors’ accounts in the Debt Management and Collection System. On a daily basis, the Department of Revenue Recovery cashiers credit debtor payments with specified account information into the DMACS. However, it is not unusual for DRR cashiers to process a debtor payment without this account information and post it in the UTA. Very little effort is undertaken by the Department of Revenue Recovery’s cashiers to search the DMACS and locate a specific debtor account, and credit the debtor payment instead of the UTA. Payments posted to the Unallocated Trust Account remain there until a debtor contacts DRR to report a dispute on their DMACS account. The DMACS does not produce a daily transaction record or exception report to validate debtor payments were credited to a particular account or posted to the UTA, which requires another division within DRR to manually research and credit the payment to the correct debtor account in the DMACS. Over 53,000 transactions of unresolved debtor payments, although not credited, have been received and deposited into the UTA. That recovered revenue exceeds $5 million on behalf of DRR agency clients. The funds remain undistributed because of missing debtor account or client information. DRR does not consider the research and posting of these payments to be a priority. Our investigation did not find any policy or reason why DRR deposits these payments in the UTA instead of returning the payment to the debtor requesting account information. Absent a DRR policy or procedure regarding the timely handling of insufficient debtor account information, the delay of posting debtor payments and subsequent distribution of this revenue will remain unresolved. 21
R12:
A debtor account should be identified and matched in the DMACS before payments can be posted in an established time frame.
R13:
DRR should develop and implement a daily transaction/exception report that will list daily collections, the accounts where payments were applied, and identify the payments with inadequate debtor account information that were deposited in the Unallocated Trust Account.
R14:
DRR should distribute the funds held in the Unallocated Account to its agency clients.
R15:
DRR should reconcile the over 53,000 transactions in the Unallocated Trust Account by January 31, 2017.
R16:
DRR should implement a policy or procedure for processing payments that are missing debtor account information.
R17:
DRR should implement a plan to close the Unallocated Trust Account. Duplicate Accounts Divide and Conquer! During our investigation, we discovered that the DMACS has created over 12,000 duplicate accounts and account charges are valued in excess of $3 million. Several witnesses reported that the duplication of accounts and/or charges is a DMACS programming issue. Additionally, the same witnesses estimated that it would take approximately one year to manually identify and remediate these duplicate accounts and charges. As of December 2015, the DMACS debtor account duplication problem remains unresolved.
R18:
DRR should correct the reason(s) the DMACS is duplicating debtor accounts and/or charges.
R19:
DRR should prioritize the resolution of the duplicate debtor accounts and/or charges.
R20:
DRR should refund all monies owed to debtors that have made payments on duplicate accounts. Refunds for Overpayment Return to Sender! When an overpayment occurs in a debtor’s account, DRR is expected to issue a refund. Until recently, the DMACS did not have a way of reporting the overpayments. The Grand Jury determined that the only time these refunds are issued is when a debtor contacts DRR to dispute the account information and request a refund. DRR recently developed a report from the DMACS called the Refund Review Band (RRB). This RRB lists overpayments on debtor’s accounts. As of October 2015, the Grand Jury determined there were approximately 30,000 accounts due refunds in excess of $1.4 million. Witness testimony reported that due to the substantial number of refunds in the RRB, DRR staff was focusing its efforts on issuing refunds on debtor accounts from July 2015 to present. All refunds that existed on debtor accounts before July 2015 are not considered a DRR priority and these refunds remain on the debtor account without further action. It is inappropriate for DRR to hold money owed an individual and make no effort to pay anything back unless it gets a request. This raises serious ethical and potential legal questions.
R21:
DRR should use the Refund Review Band effectively and issue refunds for all overpayment monies in an established time frame.
R22:
DRR should elevate the department’s priority for the refund of all overpayments. Audit Unit’s Review of the System Did the County Get What it Paid For? In early 2014, the County’s Department of Finance (DOF) internal audit unit (auditors) began the initial system review of the DMACS. This system review was the result of DRR’s failure to provide sufficient debtor financial documentation in support of DRR’s request to discharge debtor accounts deemed uncollectible. The auditors’ findings, along with the preliminary report, identified a significant number of issues involving supporting documentation for uncollectible debtor account write-offs, absence of debtor account information, and user access to the DMACS. After the initial system review was completed, the auditors presented DRR with a report of their preliminary findings which were discussed with management. DRR management instructed the DOF to cease the release of the auditors’ preliminary report until DRR had an opportunity to do its own internal system review. The Grand Jury was concerned with the manner in which DRR interfered with the release of the DOF auditors’ report. In November 2014, the auditors continued their system review. During this phase of the system review, the auditors informed the DOF audit management that several system and internal financial accounting control issues were occurring in DRR with the DMACS. It was the auditors’ belief that there could be potential fraud and other financial irregularities. Subsequently, the auditors were directed to immediately cease their system review. No further system review has been performed; no final report was ever issued, and no discussion was held with County executives.
R23:
DOF should submit the initial DRR system review report to the Board for its review and approval.
R24:
DOF auditors should prepare a report for the subsequent DRR system review and present it to DRR and the Board for review and approval.
R25:
DOF should follow all County audit reporting standards when conducting a department review. Poor Monitoring and Oversight of User Access Rights DRR Oversight, Unseen! During the auditors’ system review of the DMACS, they identified several individuals with unlimited user access rights to the DMACS debtor account and collection activity data, without DRR oversight or monitoring. While DRR has taken action to curtail the unlimited user access rights for most DRR employees, it is significant to note that County IT staff and the DMACS developer continue to have unlimited user access rights to the DMACS account and collection activity data. Furthermore, the individuals with unlimited user access rights to the DMACS account and collection activity data can adjust, delete, or modify debtor accounts and collection activity and make changes to the general ledger without restriction, tracking, or department authorization.
R26:
DRR should monitor and control all user access to the DMACS debtor accounts and collection data with written authorization that includes time limits and revocation of the user access rights upon completion of tasks to be performed.
R27:
DRR should provide oversight for the County IT and the contract developer’s unlimited user access rights. 26
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
7 hallazgos
F1:
There is little accountability or administrative control of fire permit cards.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The District should develop written policies and procedures for issuing, completing and tracking fire permit cards, including sequential numbers printed on the cards.
F2:
There is no written procedure for communication or coordination between the building departments and the Fire Inspectors about a passing fire inspection.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The District should develop a written procedure to notify the appropriate building department of the final fire inspection approval.
F3:
Supervising Fire Inspectors do not make scheduled or unannounced field reviews of inspectors’ work after the initial probation period unless there is a question by the inspector or a complaint is filed.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Supervising Fire Inspectors should conduct regularly scheduled and unannounced field inspections and evaluations of the Fire Inspectors.
F4:
There is no formal written procedure for Fire Inspectors to report any offer of gratuities or bribes by property owners or contractors.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R4:
The District should develop a written policy and procedure to identify and report conflicts of interest and potential bribery situations.
F5:
There is no ongoing periodic or refresher ethics training for Fire Inspectors.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R5:
The District should implement periodic ethics training for all Fire Inspectors and Supervising Fire Inspectors.
F6:
Fire Inspectors and Supervising Fire Inspectors are not required to complete FPPC Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interest) to identify and report potential conflicts of interest.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R6:
Fire Inspectors and Supervising Fire Inspectors should complete the FPPC Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interest).
F7:
A Fire Inspector’s continuous assignment to the same geographic area may lead to inspection irregularities. 60
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R7:
The District should consider negotiating a geographic assignment rotation program for Fire Inspectors.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
3 hallazgos
F1:
Inmates who need mental health services are at an increased risk for re-incarceration and/or psychiatric hospitalization if they are not linked to community mental health services during the critical 24-72 hours after release.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
Expand collaborative efforts to minimize the numbers of mentally ill inmates who are released during hours when services are not available. Key participants are: • Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office • Sacramento County Division of Behavioral Health Services • Sacramento County Superior Court • Sacramento County Probation Department • Sacramento Police Department
F2:
Mentally ill inmates released during non-business hours and at night when they cannot access services are more at risk for recidivism and exacerbation of mental health symptoms.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
Explore the possibility of a transition resource center near the jail where released inmates can connect with service providers, including Triage Navigators, especially after normal business hours.
F3:
The Mail Jail data system does not flag those inmates who received mental health services during incarceration.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
Revise the tracking system to incorporate the actual numbers of mentally ill inmates in the system, services provided, and the effectiveness of Triage Navigator services upon release. 54
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
4 hallazgos
F1:
The Trustee acted contrary to conflict of interest laws, by voting and/or participating in Twin Rivers Unified School District Board of Trustee (TRUSD Board) and Highlands Community Charter & Technical Schools Board of Directors (HCCTS Board) discussions and entering into a contract in which the Trustee had an alleged financial interest.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R1:
The Twin Rivers Unified School District Board of Trustee (TRUSD Board) should ensure that no trustee serves as a representative on any board or TRUSD Board position/office where there is a potential conflict of interest.
F2:
The TRUSD Board failed to provide clear direction and oversight regarding the duties and responsibilities of a trustee appointed to represent the TRUSD Board on the HCCTS Board.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R2:
The TRUSD Board President and Superintendent should ensure that board members receive training every two years on conflict of interest laws and that this training occur immediately for all new board members. All trainings should be documented in records maintained by TRUSD Board.
F3:
The TRUSD Board violated public trust by inadequately addressing the allegation of conflict of interest on the part of a Trustee.
Recomendaciones relacionadas (1)
R3:
The TRUSD Board President and Superintendent should review Board policy and bylaws and make necessary changes to clearly specify the authority and responsibilities involved when the Board appoints a Board representative to a charter board of directors.
F4:
The TRUSD Superintendent failed to take actions needed for the TRUSD Board to clarify and adhere to Board policy regarding conflict of interest laws pertaining to public officials. 38
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos & Recomendaciones
1 hallazgos
F2:
Overall, Sacramento County agreed that the availability of long-term, non-acute 24-hour care is inadequate in Sacramento, and noted that this situation is not unique to this county. The conversion of many privately operated long-term, non-acute 24 hour care programs to other types of care has reduced capacity over the last ten years in Sacramento County and elsewhere. Sacramento has the additional challenge that existing local facilities are utilized heavily by other counties. They also acknowledged the increased impact on law enforcement personnel when interacting with emergency rooms. The County asserted that it has made significant commitments and investments to provide relief and appropriate treatments for the mentally ill; it has developed procedures to reduce the impact on law enforcement personnel when interacting with emergency rooms; and it is embarking on an increased collaboration with health care providers and law enforcement to alleviate those impacts. Sacramento County stated that they have implemented, or plans to implement all of the
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Vista rápida
Detalles completos →
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.
Hallazgos y recomendaciones aún no extraídos.