Santa Clara County Grand Jury

2003-2004

26 reports

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings
F1: Inform the applicant of what information is needed to determine eligibility and why that information is needed.
Page 3
F2: Review the rights and responsibilities for the program with the applicant.
Page 3
F3: Explain to the applicant their responsibility to promptly report correct and complete information to the EW regarding any change in status or income.
Page 3
F4: Document the applicant’s level of understanding of their reporting responsibilities.
Page 3
F5: Advise the applicant of the criminal penalties for making false statements or failing to report information which might affect eligibility. The Intake Investigation Referral process is known as Fraud Early Detection (FRED); its primary intent is to prevent fraud before it happens, but it may also reduce the number of overpayment calculations and collections. The EW refers a case to FRED when a fraud alert appears in the case file or the information provided by the applicant is clearly inconsistent or in conflict with other information known to the agency and the EW is unable to resolve this inconsistency or conflict with an explanation from the client or a third party contact. A FRED referral is required in the following situations: • The father is unknown for any of the children for whom aid is requested. • The whereabouts of any of the absent parents is unknown. 3 • The applicant has not cooperated at any time in the past with the DA’s Family Support Division. • The absent parent’s child was conceived while the family was on CalWORKS. • Identification provided by the applicant appears to be false. The California CDSS Manual, Section 20-007.21, states that “a Special Investigative Unit (SIU) shall be established and organized for the purpose of investigating suspected welfare fraud and suspected violations of law in connection with matters for which [County Welfare Department] CWD has responsibility. The SIU shall be a separate organization, independent of organizations performing eligibility and benefit determination functions.” Under Authority and Responsibility, “the SIU shall investigate any activity, particularly during intake, which may constitute welfare fraud and have access to all CWD files, records, and personnel relevant to the investigations they conduct.” Minimum personnel standards require that each supervisor and investigator be a peace officer. Each of California’s 58 counties can decide where to assign responsibility for their SIUs. According to the State Fraud Investigation Report (January—March 2003), Special Investigative Units (SIU) are located in county welfare departments (27), district attorney offices (20), a cooperative between welfare departments and DA offices (9) and sheriff offices (2). In July 1993, in an effort to improve services, the County SSA transferred the SIU investigative responsibility for welfare fraud to the DA. A plan of cooperation was established that included the transfer of existing SIU personnel to the DA’s office. The merging of the SIU staff and a number of DA investigators created the Public Assistance Fraud Division (PAFD). PAFD is comprised of three investigative units–FRED, General Fraud, and the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS). FRED provides early interaction with questionable new assistance applications to determine fraud before the applicant si granted any type of benefits; General Fraud investigates complex fraud cases which require more investigation, and IEVS matches applicant/beneficiary names and social security numbers contained in various state and federal welfare files with state employment records. In FY 2002-2003, the PAFD received 2,554 fraud referrals. Approximately 95% of fraud referrals are from SS—the remaining 5% came from a variety of sources, such as the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, community complaints, local law enforcement, and other governmental agencies. The state tracks by county the percentage of applicants that are referred for investigation of potential welfare fraud. The 1998-99 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury requested an audit of their Department of Social Service fraud investigation rate—at the time, 5% compared to a median rate of 13.5% for other southern California counties, and a statewide average of 7.9%. The Los Angeles County Grand Jury’s ensuing report stated there was no reason to assume that the rate of case referrals should be lower in Los Angeles County than elsewhere. The report concluded: “with proper protocols and staff training, the investigation referral rate should mirror that found in other comparable counties or the statewide average.” 4 Comparative statistics from the CDSS 1st Quarter Report, January—March 2003 (Appendix A) shows that statewide 15% of applicants were referred to FRED. The County had approximately half the applicants for CalWORKS (6,224) as San Diego County (10,693); however, the County referred only 269 (4%) of their applicants to FRED while San Diego County referred 4,115 (38%). Evidence of fraud sustained (proven to be true) totaled 15,303 (36%) statewide, 232 (50%) in the County, and 1,517 (32%) in San Diego County. Increasing the number of referrals for investigation will result in identifying a higher number of fraudulent applications. Detecting fraud earlier, at the application stage, makes it easier to prevent or recover overpayments than after benefits are issued and cases are closed. For example, the County had 6,224 applicants in the first quarter of 2003—at a 4% rate, about 269 were referred. However, using the 15% state referral rate, about 934 would have been referred by the County. Using San Diego’s 38% rate, the number would have been 2,365 or nine times as many. If we apply the San Diego lower fraud sustained rate of 32% (as opposed to 50% in the County), about three times as many applicants would be screened out. At a meeting with the Grand Jury, the Director of SSA stated that his department purposely does not refer large numbers of applicants to investigations like other counties, but said that other counties substantiate less fraud. He further explained that the department did spot check visits to verify information. In interviews with SSA department members, the philosophy was articulated that the preference is to give the benefit of the doubt in awarding benefits to prevent hardship to children. The County SIU prepared a report estimating how much money was saved by FRED in fiscal year 2002-2003. Information and averages were based on data from the Social Services Agency (see Appendix B). According to the County Welfare Fraud Case Issuance Statement for the year 2002, over $1 million dollars, representing CalWORKS overpayments, were paid on 157 cases. San Diego County has been using a more aggressive approach to fraud prevention and detection since 1997. That approach has been designated as Project 100 (P-100). As part of San Diego’s eligibility verification process for CalWORKS applicants, even if there is no obvious reason for denial, the PAFD investigator makes a home visit to the applicant’s address and a voluntary walk-through of the applicant’s residence is requested. The investigator then reports his findings to the Eligibility Worker (EW) for the EW to evaluate the information and determine eligibility. If the information obtained by the investigator adversely affects CalWORKS, the EW sends out a Notice Of Action. If the applicant refuses to cooperate with the investigator’s interview (except for the walk-through), the investigator notifies the EW regarding the applicant’s refusal to cooperate and the EW closes the case. If an applicant wishes to withdraw his request for aid, the investigator includes that information in his response to the EW and it is the EW’s responsibility to re-contact the applicant to determine if he/she wishes to sign a withdrawal form. Finding I Santa Clara County has one of the lowest FRED referral rates in the state, which leads to a greater number of fraud cases not being detected, thus resulting in overpayment of benefits. Higher referral rates to FRED statewide result in a higher total number of sustained fraud cases. Savings from a greater denial of unlawful benefits could amount to millions of federal, state and county dollars.
Page 3
FI: Santa Clara County has one of the lowest FRED referral rates in the state, which leads to a greater number of fraud cases not being detected, thus resulting in overpayment of benefits. Higher referral rates to FRED statewide result in a higher total number of sustained fraud cases. Savings from a greater denial of unlawful benefits could amount to millions of federal, state and county dollars.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson
Page 2
FI: County human services departments have been slow compared to other counties in implementing performance measures that evaluate end results for their programs and contracts. Most existing performance measures only quantify the amount of service rendered, several do not match the departmental missions, and some programs are not measured at all.
FII: Some, but not all County human services departments recognize that recidivism is an important performance measure.
FIII: Performance measurements in several important human service areas are not scientifically rigorous.
FIV: Data bank systems in the County (such as Promise) exist that could be used to improve the rigor and effectiveness of performance measures. CSE has the capability to locate best-practice information for application to County human services functions.
Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F2001: Recommendation II DFCS should enforce and verify mandatory attendance at Cultural Competency/Awareness training classes for all DFCS staff no later than June 30, 2005. Finding III The Best Practice Committee has met twice, on January 14, 2004, and March 30, 2004, for two- hour sessions. No specific work plans or goals have been established to date.
Page 1
F2003: Director of SSA, December 15, 2003. Board of Supervisor’s Chair of the Children, Seniors and Families Committee, December 17,
Page 4
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 10 Appendix A County of Santa Clara Social Services Agency Department of Family and Children’s Services Best Practice Protocol Overview The “Best Practice” initiative has been established to assist the Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) in developing service and process improvements which will enable DFCS to better respond to the needs of our clients and to foster stronger partnerships with stakeholders in the community. The Committee on Best Practices will provide a vehicle for effective discussion of service issues and process improvements which can be implemented to increase accountability and to provide more effective and efficient service to DFCS clients. Purpose of the DFCS Best Practice Protocols Inquiries, comments and complaints may be initiated by a wide array of sources--Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) clients and kin, the community at large, the media, other government officials and staff–and may be directed to a variety of offices for resolution -- DFCS staff and administration, Social Services Agency (SSA) Administration, the State Ombudsperson’s Office or the Office of the Ombudsperson for DFCS. Once issues are raised, it is important that they be reviewed thoroughly in a collaborative manner which involves community stakeholders so that appropriate action can be taken. Further, existing policies and practices need to be evaluated in the context of this case-based review; this will ensure that service trends can be identified and solutions reached and implemented consistently on a department-wide basis. This will complement the DFCS service delivery redesign process now underway to strengthen and enhance working relationships with families, their communities, the court, and public and private sector service providers. Identifying and implementing “best practices” will support many of the guiding principles behind the service redesign effort. The redesign responds to recommendations made in management audits regarding staff turnover rates, caseload equalization, continuity of services to families and overrepresentation of children of color in the system. The DFCS redesign will result in lower caseloads, one worker per family, improved family finding and enhanced placement service. Complaint Handling While complaints may be received in numerous ways, rapid communication to all responsible parties is critical. In order to ensure that this communication occurs, three points of contact have been established within SSA. • Received by Office of the Ombudsperson– Complaints received by the Office of the Ombudsperson will be reviewed and handled with impartiality and confidentiality. No change is proposed in how the Office of the Ombudsperson conducts fact-finding reviews of complaints. If consideration by the Committee on Best Practices is recommended, the issues raised will be forwarded to the DFCS Administrative Support Bureau for inclusion in the Committee’s work program. • Received by DFCS staff– Complaints received by DFCS staff which cannot be resolved at the line level will be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsperson for handling. Complaints which raise ethical issues will be handled by the Director, DFCS. • Received by SSA Administration– Complaints received by SSA Administration will be referred to the Office of the Ombudsperson and, if appropriate to the Office of the Director, DFCS, for timely report back on the status of complaints. Handling of Complaints Which Raise Ethical or Personnel Issues Any issue which raises ethical or personnel concerns will be handled through the appropriate County personnel process. Resolution of confidential personnel matters will not be agendized for the Committee on Best Practices discussion or information. Committee on Best Practices A committee on Best Practices has been established to provide practice review, development and monitoring. This Committee will provide broad representation from the community and County stakeholders. The work of the Best Practice Committee will be coordinated by the DFCS Administrative Support Bureau, under the direction of the Office of the Director, DFCS. The role of the Committee on Best Practices is to identify practice issues and trends, which may lead to
Page 2
FI: In the sample of complaints reviewed, there were communication problems between DFCS social workers and family members of children under the custody of DFCS.
FII: The Administration of DFCS could not demonstrate that all DFCS personnel had participated in Cultural Competency/Awareness training, as required by the SSA director’s mandate of July 26, 2001.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2001: Recommendation II DFCS should enforce and verify mandatory attendance at Cultural Competency/Awareness training classes for all DFCS staff no later than June 30, 2005. Finding III The Best Practice Committee has met twice, on January 14, 2004, and March 30, 2004, for two- hour sessions. No specific work plans or goals have been established to date. Recommendation III DFCS should increase the number of meetings initially from quarterly to monthly, and provide workplans and measurable goals that will give the Best Practice Committee the ability to make recommendations to the Director of the DFCS. Finding IV Parent orientation classes are mandatory for South County DFCS clients only, even though the majority of children are removed from families residing in San Jose. Recommendation IV DFCS should institute mandatory parent orientation classes countywide for families entering the child dependency system. Finding V The current RFQ Protocol, dated April 14, 2004, for the proposed Ombuds contract includes the same oversight and monitoring by the DFCS which the director of the SSA previously described as a “conflict of interest.” 9 Recommendation V-A The County Executive and the Board of Supervisors should establish a policy and procedure to provide independent oversight of the Office of the Ombudsperson. Recommendation V-B The Ombuds should submit an annual report, independent of DFCS, to the Board of Supervisors. Finding VI The Ombuds contract was not monitored on a consistent basis. Recommendation VI The SSA should revise the current RFQ Protocol to establish independent, unannounced, and scheduled performance, as well as financial audits, of the Ombuds contract to provide oversight and contract compliance. Finding VII The Office of the Ombudsperson has been without an independent contractor since November 21, 2003. Recommendation VII The Ombuds contract should be awarded as soon as possible. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 8th day of June,
FIII: The Best Practice Committee has met twice, on January 14, 2004, and March 30, 2004, for two- hour sessions. No specific work plans or goals have been established to date.
FIV: Parent orientation classes are mandatory for South County DFCS clients only, even though the majority of children are removed from families residing in San Jose.
FV: The current RFQ Protocol, dated April 14, 2004, for the proposed Ombuds contract includes the same oversight and monitoring by the DFCS which the director of the SSA previously described as a “conflict of interest.” 9
FVI: The Ombuds contract was not monitored on a consistent basis.
FVII: The Office of the Ombudsperson has been without an independent contractor since November 21, 2003.
Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R2003: Director of SSA, December 15, 2003. Board of Supervisor’s Chair of the Children, Seniors and Families Committee, December 17,
Page 7
R2004: ________________________________ Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 10
Page 4
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
FI: The San Jose and County governments have negotiated generous pension programs that have an increasingly large negative impact on their budgets. These defined-benefit programs rely on future increases in the financial markets to pay pension benefits. The government is responsible for any shortages in fund performance.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 13 References Documents Bay Area Rapid Transit website: http://www.bart.gov/about/bod/bodmembers.asp. Board of Directors Meeting and Workshop Meeting Minutes, 2003 and 2004. Don Gage, Chair, Board of Directors, VTA, letter to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, February 11, 2004. Greg Perry, VTA Policy Advisory Committee, “VTA Costs Are Out of Control,” San Jose Mercury News, January 28, 2004. “LRT Ridership Projections,” Transportation Agency Transmittal Memorandum, June 17, 1987. Measure A ½ Cent Transit Sales Tax, Official Ballot for the November 7, 2000, County General Election. Peter Cipolla, VTA General Manager, VTA Memorandum entitled “Opinion/Editorial article regarding VTA in January 28, 2004 San Jose Mercury News,” January 29, 2004. Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor – BART Extension to Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation [signed by VTA (1/27/04) and the Federal Transit Administration (3/2/04)]. “Transportation Injustice – Why BART-to-San Jose cost overruns will devastate bus and rail service,” Transportation and Land Use Coalition, March 6, 2003, http://transcoalition.org/. Interviews County Supervisor, September 11, 2003. County Supervisor, October 10, 2003. County Supervisor, November 6, 2003. County Supervisor, May 20, 2004. Executive Director, Mineta Transportation Institute, November 6, 2003. Executive Director, Transportation and Land Use Coalition, Oakland, CA, January 20, 2004, and May 13, 2004. Interviews - Continued Research Director, Mineta Transportation Institute, October 1, 2003. San Jose City Council Member, December 12, 2003. San Jose City Council Member, December 18, 2003. VTA CFO, September 16, 2003. Meetings Attended VTA Board and committee meetings. VTA Chief of Staff, Chief Operating Officer, Deputy Director of Service and Operations Planning General Counsel, Transportation Policy and Program Manager, Board Secretary, Controller, Principal Transportation Planner Congestion Management Program, Director Marketing and Customer Service, BART Deputy Project Manager, April 12, 2004. Appendix A Metrics for Four Options for Increasing Capacity in the I-880/I-680 Corridor Daily Riders Cost per New Rider Capital Cost ($M) Oper. Cost/Yr ($M) MTC VTA MTC VTA MTC VTA MTC VTA Rapid Bus Service to Fremont, Etc. 5,000 6,800 $10 $30 $20 $379 $12 $28 Light Rail to meet BART at Warm Springs 8,500 37,661 $22 $15 $500 $1,514 $14 $42 Expanded Commuter Rail 4,600 24,354 $35 $23 $470 $1,521 $10 $38 BART to San Jose 11,500 39,300 $100 $33 $4,053 $4,112 $18 $65 Ridership and cost figures for adding transit capacity to the I-880/I-680 Corridor are from the MTC as referenced in a TALC document, and were updated by VTA to provide more equivalent scenarios. The numbers are very dependent on the assumptions used and can be skewed by differences in details and biases in the comparisons. For instance, a large portion of the difference in the ‘Cost per New Rider’ for the ‘Rapid Bus Service’ is the inclusion in the VTA model of the construction of dedicated highway fly-overs for buses. Appendix B VTP2030 Transit Investment Plan [amounts in millions of dollars, after loans and operating subsidies] Federal & Total State Funds Measure A Unfunded % Measure A Funds Allocation Cost (on hold) Funding Cost Funded BART to San Jose & Santa Clara $4,112 $1,590 $2,453 $69 98% Downtown East Valley $550 $550 $0 100% Bus Rapid Transit $50 $33 $17 66% Caltrain Service Upgrades $171 $155 $16 91% New Rail Corridors Study $1 $1 $0 100% New Rail Corridors (TBD Phase 1 funded) $1,220 $188 $1,032 15% Airport People Mover Connector $400 $222 $178 56% Caltrain - South County $100 $61 $39 61% Rt. Bus Service Improvements $2 $2 $0 100% Dumbarton Rail $278 $44 $234 16% Palo Alto Inter-modal Station $200 $50 $150 25% ACE Upgrade $22 $22 $0 100% Caltrain Electrification $650 $233 $417 36% Totals $7,756 $1,590 $4,014 $2,152 72% Total Regional Discretionary Unfunded % Non-Measure A Funds Allocation Cost Funding Funding Cost Funded STIP funds allocated to BART above $0 =$107-$107 $0 $0 - Zero Emission Buses $277 $277 $0 100% Highway Projects $1,852 $446 $1,406 24% Expressway Projects $416 $150 $266 36% Local Streets $288 $230 $58 80% Intelligent Systems $140 $28 $112 20% Sound Walls $10 $10 $0 100% Paving $510 $202 $100 $208 59% Bicycle $85 $32 $53 38% Pedestrian $113 $37 $0 $76 33% Landscape $0 $0 $0 - Totals $3,691 $239 $1,273 $2,179 41% Total Outside VTA Unfunded % Totals Cost Funding Funding Cost Funded ALL Funds $11,447 $1,829 $5,287 $4,331 62% BART $4,112 $1,590 $2,453 $69 98% All Except BART $7,335 $239 $2,834 $4,262 42% All Measure A Except BART $3,644 $0 $1,561 $2,083 43% Totals without funding BART $7,335 $239 $5,287 $1,809 75% Measure A without funding BART $3,644 $0 $4,014 ($370) 110% 17 Figure 1 VTA Ridership History 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 0 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Fiscal Year 18 pihsrediR launnA latoT Bus Caltrain Light Rail OUTREACH Altamont Express Light Rail Shuttles ACE Shuttles Dumbarton Express Highway 17 Express Figure 2 VTA Ridership History 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Fiscal Year 19 pihsrediR launnA latoT Bus Caltrain Light Rail OUTREACH Altamont Express Light Rail Shuttles ACE Shuttles Dumbarton Express Highway 17 Express Figure 3 I-880/I-680 Corridor Mass Transit Options $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 Rapid Bus Light Rail Commuter Rail BART 20 )M$( stsoC latipaC $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 )M$( stsoC gnitarepO launnA VTA Capital Cost TALC Capital Cost VTA Oper. Cost/Yr TALC Oper. Cost/Yr Figure 4 VTA 30 Year Funding Allocation $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 R T t o S a n J o s e & S a nt a Cl ar a Hi g h w N a e y w P L r i g o h j e t c R t s ail C orri d or s D o w C n a t o ltr w a n i n E a st V all e y E x p p P o r e r a t s v P s i n w e g o a p y l e P M r o o j e v c e t s r C o n n e ct or B us es Ot h c e y r c R l e a , i P l L e o d c a e l s S tri t a r P e n a e , l t o S s o A u lt o n d I n w t e a r l - l s m o d al St at I i o n n t elli g e nt S y st e m s B A Air Bi 21 )M$( nalP tnemtsevnI Unfunded Portion VTA Funding Figure 5 Alternate 30 Year Funding Allocation without BART $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 T t o S a n J o s e & S a nt a Cl ar H a i g h w N a e y w P L r i o g j h e t c R t s ail C orri d or s D o w C n a t o ltr w ai n n E a st V all e y E x p P o r e r a t s v P s i n w e g o a p y l e P r M oj o e v ct e s r C o n n e ct or B u s e s Ot h e y r c R l e a , i P L l o e c d a e l s S tr t i r a e P n e a , t s l S o o A u lt n o d I w nt a e l r l - s m o d al St a I t n i o t e n lli g e nt S y st e m s R p c B A Air Bi 22 )M$( nalP tnemtsevnI Unfunded Portion VTA Funding
Page 2
FI: The VTA Board, as currently constituted of appointed members from elected bodies in the County, does not provide direct voter representation on transportation issues, makes accountability remote, provides for conflicts in responsibilities, and overextends Board members performing both their elected and appointed responsibilities. 12
FII: The VTA Board as currently constituted is too large and its members too transient to efficiently provide management oversight to VTA. As a result, the VTA Board has not reacted to the present budget problems with diligence, has depleted the financial reserves in the system, and has borrowed against future tax revenues rather than resolving an ongoing operational deficit.
FIII: The VTA Board has proceeded with a transit capital improvement plan that cannot accomplish all that was promised in Measure A.
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 6 References Charts A. Total authorized IHSS cases in Santa Clara County. B. IHSS population by age. C. IHSS provider wage costs. D. Providers’ wage and benefits history. E. Public authority wage increases for selected California counties (1999-2004). Interviews March 3, 2004 – meeting with Director of Adult and Aging Services, SSA Chief Financial Officer and IHSS Program Manager. Telephone conversations and email communications with Deputy County Executive and Director of Adult and Aging Services. Documents County FY 2005 Recommended Budget, www.sccgov.org. Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program, http://www.ltcfeds.com. Governor’s Budget Proposals for The In-Home Support Services Program, http://www.savehomecare.org. Legislative Committee: FY 2004-05 Governor’s Proposed Budget, Review Impacts on Santa Clara County. Public Authority/Nonprofit Consortium RTE, IHSS, Attachment 4 and 4i, PA/NPC Hourly Rate. SCC SSA Department of Aging and Adult Services IHSS Data. Residual vs. Personal Care Service Program (PCSP) Funding, Director, Adult and Aging Services, SSA. Chart A - Total Authorized IHSS Cases 10,000 8625 9,000 7674 8,000 7,000 6251 6,000 5307 4799 5,000 4259 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 8 sesaC SSHI Chart B - IHSS Population by Age 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 to 6 7 to 18 19 to 44 45 to 64 65 to 79 80 + Recipient Age (as of January 2004) 9 Chart C - IHSS Provider Wage Costs ($M) $80 72 $70 $60 47 $50 $40 32 28 $30 23 $20 $10 $0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 10 )noillim $( stifeneB dna segaW redivorP Chart D - Provider Wage and Benefits History $12 $10.50 $10 $9.50 $9.25 $8.50 $8 $7.25 $6.75 $6.25 $5.75 $6 $5.15 $5.00 $4.75 $4 $2 $0 11 stifeneB dna segaW redivorP Dental & Vision Benefits VHP Health Benefits ECO Passes 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Chart E - Wage Increases for Providers (selected California counties) $12 $10 $8 $6 $4 $2 $0 Alameda Contra Los San San Mateo Santa Clara Costa Angeles Francisco 12 segaW redivorP 1999 2000 2001 2002
Page 1
FII: There is currently no oversight of providers to prevent financial abuse.
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 12 References Documents 2001 Annual Report of The Office of Citizen Complaints, an agency reporting to the San Francisco Police Commission. Adopted budget for the IPA, Office of the City Manager, Budget Director. City of Long Beach Citizen Police Complaint Commission Annual Report 2001. City of Sacramento Office of Police Accountability 2002 Year End Report. City of San Diego Citizen’s Review Board on Police Practices Annual Report 2002. IPA website: http://www.ci.san-jose.ca.us/ipa/home.html, including the following reports – • City of San Jose Office of the Independent Police Auditor 2003 Mid-Year Report; • City of San Jose Office of the Independent Police Auditor … Year End Report for the years 1994 to 2003; • A Student’s Guide to Police Practices. May 2000 IPA Newsletter. Office of Independent Police Auditor Brochure. Police shooting flowchart, SJPD. San Jose Mercury News, “Mending police, public relations,” April 28, 2004. San Jose Municipal Code 8.04 (Independent Police Auditor). San Jose Police Department Citizen Complaint and Commendation Procedures Brochure. San Jose Police Department Internal Affairs Unit Complaint Process flyer. San Jose Police Department Internal Affairs Unit Guidelines. Interviews Independent Police Auditor and Assistant Independent Police Auditor, January 15, 2004. Independent Police Auditor, October 3, 2003. Lieutenant, San Jose Police Department Internal Affairs Unit, September 24, 2003. San Jose City Council Member, December 12, 2003. San Jose City Council Member, December 18, 2003. San Jose Police Department Police Chief and Lieutenant, Internal Affairs Unit, March 1, 2004.
Page 3
FI: The IPA reports contain valuable data, but only minimally satisfy the Municipal Code requirements to “include statistical analysis documenting the number of complaints sustained and the actions taken.” The reports could be made even more informative with changes and additions.
FII: The IPA reports commingle the details and statistics of Department Initiated Complaints and Citizen Initiated Complaints.
FIII: The IPA reports do not provide comparisons of the number of complaints filed against officers in comparable cities. 10
FIV: It is not clear in the IPA reports if complaints from multiple complainants, from multiple incidents, or multiple allegations are combined or treated separately.
FV: Review of citizens’ allegations of officer misconduct showed that many of the complainants were under the influence of alcohol or drugs, were mentally ill, or were being detained for serious violent felonies.
FVI: An allegation of excessive use of force is a serious charge. The number of such allegations is published in the IPA report but there is no clarification as to the eventual findings regarding the citizens’ allegations.
FVII: Several investigative reports were not completed by the IPA for more than several months, causing the subject officer and complainant uncertainty about the outcome.
FVIII: The Council has never requested a performance audit of the IPA function.
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R2004: ________________________________ Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 12
Page 4
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
FI: The Domestic Violence Council has 13 committees but not one is dedicated to the issue of housing and the number of beds.
FII: According to all interviewed parties who provide housing or services, the fifty-eight (58) emergency housing beds in Santa Clara County are not adequate for the domestic violence victims and their children in this County. However, there was insufficient data available to determine the adequacy of the current 58-bed inventory.
FIII: While the individual committee annual reports list achievements, the Domestic Violence Council’s annual workplan does not. It provides no easy way to measure against the prior year’s goals.
Findings & Recommendations 5 findings
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 9 References Documents California Penal Code, "Article 2: Local Assistance Centers for Victims and Witnesses, Section 1385-1385.10. California State Board of Control, Pamphlet: "How to Enforce Your Restitution Order as a Civil Judgment." County of Santa Clara Department of Revenue, FAX re: Victim Restitution Recovery, 5 Years, February 17, 2004. County of Santa Clara, Department of Child Support Services, website: scvmed.org/channel/ Department of Probation, "Projected Revenue FY 03." Department of Probation: Booklet: Restitution in Probation. Department of Probation: Description of Responsibilities, "Deputy Probation Officer I, II and III." Judicial Council of California, Pamphlet: "Crime Victims' Compensation." Office of the District Attorney, DRAFT "Notice of Failure to Pay." San Jose Mercury News, "Counties Rated on Use of Funds for Crime Victims," March 9, 2004. Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, Pamphlet: "General Information, Victim Compensation Program." Victim Compensation Board, Chart and Diagram: "Adult Restitution." Victim Witness Assistance Center, "Informational Pamphlet." Victim Witness Assistance Center, "Summary of Victim Witness Assistance Center Contracts for FY 03-04;" "Dollar Amount of Compensation Awarded in Each County;" "Dollar Amount of Compensation Awards Processed in Each Verification Center;" "Statement of Loss Questionaire." Victim Witness Assistance Center, Diagram: "Revenue Generated by the Criminal Justice System." Victim Witness Assistance Center: "Victim Compensation Quick Reference Guide." 10 Interviews Director of Victim Witness Assistance Center, September 3, 2003, September 23, 2003. Department of Probation, October 31, 2003, December 15, 2003. Department of Revenue, November 4, 2003. Office of the District Attorney, January 30, 2004, February 4, 2004. Numerous telephone discussions with all of the above offices.
Page 2
FI: Many county agencies are involved in setting and collecting restitution, yet none has oversight authority over the process. 7
FII: Statistics for the last five years show a county restitution collection rate of about 40% of the dollars owed.
FIII: State prison parolees are, in practice, outside the restitution collection system.
FIV: The state formula for disbursing monies to victim assistance centers is based on rates of a few selected crimes, primarily those that are filed with DAs. The number of victims served is not the major factor in the formula.
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
FI: As a general rule, the county police agencies perform audits of their evidence rooms after there is a change in the senior management of the department or key evidence personnel. Department personnel not directly involved in the evidence handling or its supervision usually perform this audit. Many departments periodically use a spot check of records against the physical item to test the integrity of their control systems. 5
FII: Most police evidence and property rooms are overcrowded and the agencies have expanded secure storage by rehabilitating rooms within the stations, renting or purchasing temporary buildings, renting additional space, or have resorted to renting commercial public storage.
FIII: There is no procedure in place for documenting the change of custody that occurs when the police relinquish possession of evidence to the court for trial.
FIV: Some police evidence rooms do not vent narcotic holding areas separately from the main air conditioning systems.
FV: The lack of office automation in some evidence rooms increases the clerical workload, introduces the possibility of errors into the tracking system, and inhibits the timely identification of property records for final disposition.
FVI: Top management within the police agencies often stay clear of evidence rooms.
FVII: Most of the police agencies within the county are members of CAPE and SCRAPE and participate in procedural development, and network at educational development conferences provided by CAPE and SCRAPE. 7
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 5 References Documents California School Board Association web site: www.csba.org. Email from the California School Board Association dated November 21, 2003. FCMAT Management Review of the District Report dated May 11, 2001. East Side Union High School District Credit Card Policies and Procedures, 2001-2002. East Side Union High School District Credit Card Policies and Procedures, 2003-2004. East Side Union High School District web site: www.esuhsd.org. San Jose Mercury News, March 14, 2004, pg. 8B, Academic Performance Index scores. Interviews Chief Operating Officer, East Side Union High School District, March 17, 2004. Director of General Services, East Side Union High School District, April 14, 2004. District Auditor, East Side Union High School District, April 13, 2004. Former Superintendent, East Side Union High School District, April 21, 2004. Superintendent, East Side Union High School District, March 17, 2004, and April 13, 2004. Meetings Attended District Board of Trustees Meeting January 5, 2004. Figure 1 Total District Credit Card Usage $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 7 htnoM rep degrahC tnuomA latoT 69-luJ 79-naJ 79-luJ 89-naJ 89-luJ 99-naJ 99-luJ 00-naJ 00-luJ 10-naJ 10-luJ 20-naJ 20-luJ 30-naJ 30-luJ 40-naJ 40-luJ 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 htnoM rep desU sdraC fo rebmuN Fiscal Crisis and Total Amount ($) Management Number of Cards Used Assisstance Team Audit Report New Superintendent New Policy Appendix A East Side Union High School District Credit Card Policies and Procedures 2001-2002 § For emergency purchase of supplies and materials § For travel and conference expenses supported with the following documentation submitted with a monthly statement: o Approved Travel and Conference form completed with actual expenses o Registration forms o Travel Itinerary o Meals receipts § For supplies not available in the district warehouse § For business meeting expenses supported with the following documentation submitted with the monthly statement: o Meeting Agenda o List of Attendees o Receipts § NOT FOR purchase of EQUIPMENT over $500 (i.e. computers, printers, TV’s) § For use with vendors not accepting Purchase Orders § Not for personal purchases § Monthly purchase limit is $10,000 § Single purchase limit is $3000 § Submit monthly statements, original receipts, and invoices to the Business Office by the 15th of each month (example: Statement dated June 24th is due by July 15th) o Do not hold statements because of missing receipts and/or disputed item(s) o Attach “Statement of Questioned Item” form as documentation for missing receipt and/or disputed item(s) § Accounts over 30 days past due will be suspended § Accounts over 60 days past due will be cancelled and referred to the General Counsel, Deputy Superintendent, and/or Asst. Supt. Of Business Services for further disciplinary action § Repeated misuse of credit card is cause for cancellation (i.e. equipment purchase) § Credit card purchases will be charged to pre-approved General Fund accounts (i.e. “481- 4310” and “481-5210”) unless indicated otherwise on the monthly statement 8 Appendix B (with changes from 2001-2002 underlined) East Side Union High School District Credit Card Policies and Procedures 2003-2004 Credit Cards May Be Used For: § Approved emergency purchase of supplies and materials § Approved travel and conference expenses supported with the following documentation submitted with a monthly statement: o Copy of Travel and Conference form completed with actual expenses o Registration forms o Travel Itinerary o Itemized Meals receipts § Business meeting expenses supported with the following documentation submitted with the monthly statement: o Meeting Agenda o List of Attendees o Itemized Receipts § Vendors that do not accept Purchase Orders § Supplies not available in the district warehouse Credit Cards May Not Be Used For: § Personal purchases § Entertainment § Supplies available in the district warehouse § Equipment over $500 (i.e. computers, printers, TV’s) Credit Card Limits: § Monthly purchase limit: $3,000 – Principals and Directors $5,000 – Cabinet, Superintendent § Single purchase limit: $1,500 – All Credit Card Clearing Procedures: § Submit monthly statements, original receipts, and invoices to the Business Office by the 15th of each month (example: Statement dated June 24th is due by July 15th) o Do not hold statements because of missing receipts and/or disputed item(s) o Attach “Statement of Questioned Item” form as documentation for missing receipt and/or disputed item(s). Cardholder responsibility to clear as soon as possible – will remain in the unclear list/past due account list. Credit Card Suspension and/or Revocation: § Accounts over 30 days past due will be suspended by the Business Office § Accounts over 60 days past due will be cancelled by the Business Office and referred to the Superintendent of Schools for further action § Repeated misuse of credit card is cause for cancellation (i.e. equipment purchase) § Credit card purchases will be charged to pre-approved General Fund accounts unless indicated otherwise on the monthly statement 9 Credit Card Holder Personal Responsibility: § Each credit card holder will be held to the highest standards of protocol according to these Board Approved Policies and Procedures Authorized Card Holder Date Chief Financial Officer Date 10 Appendix C Table of Survey Responses Written Policies for CA School Reimbursement Cards Issued to Board Assn. School District Board Staff Board Staff Member Alum Rock Union Yes Yes No No Yes Berryessa Union Yes Yes No No Yes Cambrian Yes Yes No Yes Yes Campbell Union High Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Campbell Union Yes Yes No Yes Yes Cupertino Union Yes Yes No Yes Yes East Side Union High Yes Yes now No Yes Yes Evergreen No No No Yes Yes Franklin-McKinley Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fremont Union Yes Yes No Yes Yes Gilroy Unified Yes Yes No Yes Yes Lakeside Joint Yes Yes No Yes Yes Loma Prieta Joint Union Yes No No Yes Yes Los Altos Yes Yes No Yes Yes Los Gatos Union Yes Yes No Yes Yes Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High Yes Yes No Yes Yes Luther Burbank Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Metropolitan Education Yes Yes No Yes Yes Milpitas Unified Yes Yes No Yes Yes Montebello No Yes No No Yes Moreland Yes Yes No Yes Yes Morgan Hill Unified Yes Yes No Yes Yes Mount Pleasant Yes Yes No Yes Yes Mountain View-Los Altos Union High Yes Yes No Yes Yes Mountain View-Whisman Yes No No Yes Yes Oak Grove Yes Yes No Yes Yes Orchard Yes Yes No No Yes Palo Alto Unified Yes Yes No Yes Yes San Jose Unified Yes Yes No Yes Yes Santa Clara Unified Yes Yes No Yes Yes Saratoga Union Yes Yes No No Yes Sunnyvale Yes Yes No Yes Yes Union Yes Yes No No Yes
Page 1
FI: District-issued credit cards have been used inappropriately by District staff and by board of trustee members. The number of cards issued has now been limited to the top staff only in the District and written policies have been signed by those with cards.
FII: Several school districts within Santa Clara County do not have written policies regarding the reimbursement of expenditures by school board members nor the use of district-issued credit cards.
FIII: Only three school districts issue individual credit cards to their board of trustee members. All other districts in the County find it unnecessary to issue credit cards to board members.
Findings & Recommendations 9 findings
FI: Every voting machine is subject to manipulation by those inside or outside the process.
FII: Many computer novices, handicapped persons, and non-English speakers are uncomfortable with touch screen voting.
FIII: At the Registrar’s Office, in both the loading room and the general storage area for the machines, although a video record is kept, there is no electronic record of who enters, how long they are there or when they leave.
FIV: Loaded voting machines were delivered to polling places by a private trucking company and, in some cases, appear to have been left in unsecured areas.
FIX: Paper or absentee ballots are not provided at polling places as an alternative means of voting.
FV: The lack of a paper trail has caused many people to distrust electronic voting equipment. 7
FVI: Absentee ballots are unsecured when outside the physical control of the Registrar’s office.
FVII: To prevent electronic tampering from the outside, the individual voting machines and the entire system now stand alone electronically. No part of the system is ever connected to the Internet or similar electronic pathway for the transmission of information.
FVIII: The Registrar has been extremely conscientious, not only in working with citizens in the selection and ongoing operations of the electronic voting machines, but also in educating the general public in this new system of voting.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F2002: Physician Alert, West Nile Virus publication. Santa Clara County Vector Control District Overview Santa Clara County Vector Control District Audit Report, June 30, 2003. Santa Clara County Vector Control Assessment, Final Engineer’s Report, July 30, 1996 Suggested Language Concerning Nuisance for Inclusion in City Ordinances, Contra Costa County, January 30, 2003, DRAFT. “The Dark Side of Stormwater Management: Disease Vectors Associated with Structural BMPs,” Stormwater. “Stormwater, BMPs and Vectors: The Impact of BMP Construction on Local Public Health Agencies,” Stormwater. Interviews District Manager of Santa Clara County Vector Control District, November 13, 2003, January 28, 2004 and February 9, 2004. District Manager of Contra Costa County Vector Control District, November 18, 2003. Public Health Officer, November 18, 2003.
Page 2
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 7 References Documents The Grand Jury obtained the following documents, many undated, from the District Managers of the Santa Clara County and Contra Costa County Vector Control Districts and from the Public Health Officer of Santa Clara County. Administrative Citation Procedures, Contra Costa County, January 30, 2003, DRAFT. Authorizing Contra Costa County Mosquito and Vector Control District Field Employees to Issue Administrative Citations Relative to Public Nuisances and to Abate Such Nuisances, January 27, 2003, DRAFT. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Stormwater Management and Vector Breeding Habitats.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “West Nile Virus: Statistics, Surveillance and Control.” Initial Santa Clara County Mosquito-Borne Virus Surveillance and Response Plan, September,
Page 1
FI: Vector Control’s input is important to two current projects, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration and the Cal Trans placement of storm water collection devices. If not designed properly, each of these projects could lead to an increase in the county’s mosquito population.
FII: Vector Control currently lacks the authority to issue administrative citations for public nuisances that pose an immediate threat to health and safety. Contra Costa County’s Vector Control District provides a good model for achieving that authority.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 4 References Documents Airport Improvement Program Facts flyer, January 23, 2004. Contract between ShuttlePort California, LLC, and City Of San Jose, September 20, 2000. Ground Transportation Brochure, January 2004. Letter from TSA Management, March 12, 2004. Memo from Airport Operations Superintendent, Re: Rental Car Shuttle Bus Pilot Program, November 21, 2003. Memo from Airport Operations, Re: Bus Service Complaints, November 21, 2003. Two letters from Airport Operations Manager, December 11, 2003. Meetings Airport management staff, January 23, 2004, and April 20, 2004. Telephone conversations with Airport management, March 9, 2004, and March 10, 2004. Tours Grand Jury tour of Airport and facilities on November 17, 2003.
Page 1
Findings & Recommendations 3 findings
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 3 References Documents Charter of the City of Sunnyvale, as amended November 30, 1995. City of Sunnyvale Code of Conduct for Elected Officials. Ralph M. Brown Act, Govt. Code Section 54950, et seq. (Open Meeting Law) Report to Mayor and Council No. 0304 CA dated November 11, 2003. Video and written transcript of the October 7, 2003 Council meeting. Interviews Meeting with Sunnyvale City Attorney on January 27, 2004 Meeting with a Sunnyvale Council Member on March 24, 2004
Page 2
FI: The mayor was not authorized under the Charter or Code to unilaterally form an ad hoc investigative committee during the council meeting of October 7, 2003, without first requiring an investigation by the city manager and/or the city attorney.
FII: The City Charter does not explicitly bar the city attorney from offering unsolicited legal advice, either verbally or in writing, on matters before the Council.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
FI: There is no written policy governing where the SCVWD should publish notices. The SCVWD fulfilled the Brown Act Government Code requirements for publishing by placing the meeting notice in the San Jose Mercury News and San Jose Post Record and the SCVWD website; however, not all interested parties in the county read the San Jose Mercury News or San Jose Post Record.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
FI: For three years, the City of Palo Alto has not collected two large outstanding fines: $95,000 and $34,000.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
F2004: Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 8 Appendix A Number of Municipal Financial and Performance Audits Completed (in addition to the required external financial audit/CAFR) Municipality 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 Comments City of Campbell 0 0 0 City of Cupertino 0 0 0 City of Gilroy 3 3 1 IF, IP, EP City of Los Altos 1-2 1-2 3-5 IF, EP Town of Los Altos Hills 0 1-2 1-2 EP Town of Los Gatos 0 0 1 EP, CIM City of Milpitas 0 0 0 City of Monte Sereno 1 1 1 IF City of Morgan Hill 3-5 3-5 3-5 EF, IP, EP City of Mountain View 3-5 >5 >5 IF, EF, EP City of Palo Alto 3-5 3-5 3-5 EF, IP City of Santa Clara 0 5 0 EP City of Saratoga 0 0 0 City of Sunnyvale >5 >5 >5 EF, IP, EP Legend: IF – internal financial, EF – external financial, IP – internal performance, EP – external performance CIM – uses continuous improvement methodology 9 References Documents “An Audit of the Fleet Management Division of the General Services Department's Vehicle Replacement Program,” City Audit dated February 7, 2003. “Analysis of County Reserves, Fund Balance And Other Funding Issues Related to the FY2003- 2004 Budget,” Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corp. Financial Audit, June 12, 2003. “Custody Audit – Part II Internal Control Report,” County Audit dated March 27, 2003. “Management Audit of the Facilities Department Capital Programs Division of the General Services Agency,” County Audit dated January 14, 2002. Letter from the Acting Director of the General Services Agency, January 15, 2004. Letter from the Director of the Environmental Resources Agency, March 5, 2004. Management Audit of the Controller-Treasurer Department of the Finance Agency, June 27,
Page 1
FI: The City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara make effective use of internal and external financial and performance audits to improve the functioning of their government operations. Both were found to be diligent in following up on the findings and recommendations of the audits. 7
FII: The Office of the City Auditor of San Jose makes effective use of a risk analysis to focus audits on the most vulnerable areas of government operations and those functions with the potential for greatest savings.
FIII: Several cities in the County do not have financial and performance management auditing programs.
Findings & Recommendations 4 findings
FI: The agendas for all meetings were properly posted, according to established school board rules and in compliance with the Brown Act.
FII: The school district, working with the CBOC, eventually established a website, as required by Proposition 39.
FIII: The complainant was correct in that the minutes of the first two CBOC meetings did not list those in attendance. The record has been corrected for those two meetings. The attendance listing for the latest meeting was included in its minutes.
FIV: The annual report was published as required.
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
FI: The Department of Correction is spending an inordinate amount of time in trying to reconcile old and possibly incorrect and incomplete records to balance the Inmate Personal Fund; the County Auditor feels such a reconciliation will never happen.
FII: The present software used by the Department of Correction for the Inmate Personal Fund is provided by the commissary company currently servicing the Department. Whenever the commissary company is changed, a new software program will be instituted, which requires adapting the program to County records and extensive training of personnel.
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
FI: Neither the Homeless Coordinator nor the Collaborative is required to, nor do they, submit an annual report to the Board of Supervisors.
FII: As of the date of this report, the Collaborative has not held a formal meeting to discuss any recommended updates to the Five-Year Plan since the plan was originally approved in 2001.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
FII: The county’s corrective action plan that reduced food stamp error rates was funded with county money.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
FI: The District was late in arranging for independent financial and performance audits as required by its Measure G Bond.
Findings & Recommendations 1 findings
FI: There has been a reduction in total jail inmate population in the County since Proposition 36 was passed. However, there has been virtually no decrease in jail staffing and little corresponding savings.
Findings & Recommendations 2 findings
FI: No notations had been made on the Town’s corrected financial spreadsheets, for future reference, to ensure that the Election Amounts shown were for reference only and were not distributed by the RDA, but rather directly by the County to the taxing entities.
FII: RDA records are not listed as part of the Town’s Record Retention Policy.