Ventura County Grand Jury
2017-2018
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
53 findings
F01:
The JF was built in 2003 at a cost of $65 million, largely paid for by federal grants. The complex sits on a five-acre parcel in the community of El Rio. The facility is certified by the BSCC for a maximum rated capacity of 420 4 Annual Detention Report youth (240 in detention and 180 in commitment). Prior to completion, the commitment side was designed to house three special populations, including older juveniles in a work program. (Ref-03, Ref-04)
F02:
In California, juvenile arrests decreased 62 percent between 2008 and 2014. (Ref-05)
F03:
In Ventura County, juvenile arrests decreased 58 percent between 2008 and 2014 (from 7,329 arrests in 2008 to 3,058 in 2014). (Ref-06)
F04:
The average daily population at the JF from 2014-2017 was 89.68. Average Daily Population Totals - Calendar Year Format Detention 2014 2015 2016 2017 Commitment 2014 2015 2016 2017 January 35 36 42 36 January 55 44 46 46 February 43 46 35 40 February 55 52 45 48 March 52 41 35 50 March 46 47 49 55 April 39 38 42 54 April 48 48 44 54 May 45 43 39 51 May 48 54 54 52 June 47 37 33 46 June 54 52 52 54 July 50 36 39 45 July 56 49 50 53 August 43 32 35 41 August 51 50 38 52 September 42 42 31 45 September 47 51 41 49 October 34 43 34 43 October 47 54 48 44 November 28 35 40 48 November 49 52 55 46 December 31 37 32 34 December 39 42 53 45 Annual Avg. 40.75 38.83 36.42 44.42 Annual Avg. 49.58 49.58 47.92 49.83 Facility Annual Average 2014-2017 4 Year Average 2014 2015 2016 2017 90.33 88.42 84.33 94.25 89.68
F05:
On December 4, 2017, there were 88 youth in custody (50 in detention and 38 in commitment).
F06:
The JF is budgeted for 275 staff (125 sworn staff and 150 support staff). However, on December 4, 2017, there were 13 unfilled positions. The Grand Jury was advised that due to the unfilled positions, all 88 youth were housed together in detention, with none in commitment.
F07:
While the JF has three safety cells, they are rarely used. The Grand Jury was advised only one cell was used on one occasion in the last year.
F08:
The JF does not currently have a PREA manual. VCPA does not have a PREA manual per County Counsel’s advice, however, it recognizes the importance of PREA and its concepts and strives to incorporate them into their practices and policies.” (Ref-01) Annual Detention Report 5
F09:
Despite having no PREA manual, the JF staff follow the spirit of the act: All youth lodged in the JF are screened to assess their risk of sexual victimization. An orientation is completed with all hired staff including contractors and Community Based Organizations regarding the PREA Act. Upon booking, every youth detained in the facility is required to view a video about sexual victimization (available in both Spanish and English). The staff supervision ratio for sexual abuse victims has been reduced from 1:10 to 1:8.
F10:
According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, while local law enforcement agencies with a juvenile facility or lock-up are not mandated to comply with PREA, they may want to do so voluntarily to avoid liability. (Ref-07)
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends VCSO and VCPA consider seeking accreditation to become fully compliant with PREA standards in order to avoid potential liability and to qualify for federal and state grant monies. (C-02, C-12)
F11:
Per the VCPA website, the agency mission is: “To promote community safety through a system of graduated sanctions that balance services to the victim, the offender, and the community.” (Ref-02)
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends VCPA consider reviewing its mission statement’s assertion regarding victim services, as it appears to be incongruent with current practices. (C-03, C-04)
F12:
Historically, VCPA has had numerous resources that were purposely designed for offender accountability and victim reparation. Facilities and programs including Work Furlough for adults; Juvenile Restitution Project; and Work, Education, Restitution & Competency for juveniles have been eliminated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends VCPA consider reviewing its mission statement’s assertion regarding victim services, as it appears to be incongruent with current practices. (C-03, C-04)
F13:
As of December 4, 2017, VCPA was not providing any programming involving victim reparation to adult or juvenile probationers, in custody or out of custody.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends VCPA consider reviewing its mission statement’s assertion regarding victim services, as it appears to be incongruent with current practices. (C-03, C-04)
F14:
Over the past several years, VCPA has reduced resources available to victims of minor crime, i.e., theft, vandalism, driving under the influence, etc., resulting in fewer services to victims, including those seeking restitution. The VCPA website refers all victims of crime to the Ventura County District Attorney (DA). The DA’s office prioritizes victim assistance based on the severity and nature of the crime and states that in some cases the court will proceed to sentencing without giving the DA’s office the opportunity to contact the victim. (Ref-02, Ref-08) Ventura Youth Correctional Facility (VYCF)
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends VCPA consider reviewing its mission statement’s assertion regarding victim services, as it appears to be incongruent with current practices. (C-03, C-04)
F15:
The VYCF, located in Camarillo, was built in 1962. In 2011, VYCF housed 1,200 committed youth from various counties across the state. From 2012 to 2017, the population at VYCF declined dramatically. (Ref-05, Ref-09)
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation -DJJ, investigate chronically unused space at the juvenile facilities and consider developing plans to re-purpose the facilities so that underutilized space is minimized. (C-01, C-05)
F16:
On November 29, 2017, the facility housed 200 youth in seven of 12 housing units, leaving five units unoccupied. Of the 200 youth housed at VYCF on November 29, 2017, there were 38 youth in one general housing unit, despite the desired goal from the Farrell Decree of 32 per unit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation -DJJ, investigate chronically unused space at the juvenile facilities and consider developing plans to re-purpose the facilities so that underutilized space is minimized. (C-01, C-05)
F17:
Despite the decline in population at VYCF and throughout all DJJ institutions, costs are increasing. In March 2018, California’s governor 6 Annual Detention Report proposed a 1 percent increase in spending across adult prisons and the state’s youth correctional system. He also proposed an increase in the age of jurisdiction for DJJ from 23 to 25. (Ref-09, Ref-14)
F18:
There are no safety cells in use at VYCF.
F19:
The VYCF has a PREA manual, and the PREA Act has been integrated into its policies, procedures, and the Youth Rights Handbook. Additionally, it has a compliance manager on-site who reports to a PREA coordinator at the DJJ in Sacramento. (Ref-01)
F20:
There are no working cameras used for surveillance at VYCF. When a use- of-force incident occurs, staff are required to video the incident with a hand-held video camera. All videos involving the use of force are reviewed and critiqued on-site and also sent to the DJJ in Sacramento for review.
F21:
The VYCF failed to meet minimum standards pursuant to BSCC Title 15, Section 1280 and Section 1245. The general overall condition of the facility was in disrepair and appeared to lack years of routine janitorial maintenance, as exhibited by the following: • The ceiling in the visiting area was stained, presumably from water damage. • The roof in the school area was partially torn off. • There were missing ceiling tiles, inoperative lighting, stained carpet, and peeling paint in the conference room. • The toilet bowl in the conference restroom was stained brown. • Both the men’s and women’s public restrooms were filthy. • There were spider webs and grease in the kitchen, as well as dust strings on exhaust fans above the food prep area. • The tennis court was determined to be unsafe for use.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
The Grand Jury recommends VYCF comply with BSCC Title 15, Section 1280 regarding minimum standards of cleanliness, repair, and safety. (C-06, C-09)
F22:
On November 29, 2017, VYCF staff stated there were no plans to address the unkempt conditions of the facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R06:
The Grand Jury recommends VYCF comply with BSCC Title 15, Section 1280 regarding minimum standards of cleanliness, repair, and safety. (C-06, C-09)
F23:
The VYCF failed to obtain accreditation for its on-site Mary B. Perry High School. The school is currently operating under a two-year probationary accreditation.
F24:
According to the VYCF, Youth Rights Handbook contraband includes: Cell phones and pagers Cigarettes/tobacco Controlled substances Drugs and drug paraphernalia Gambling or lottery materials Gang writing or materials Annual Detention Report 7 Money Sexually explicit drawings, pictures, or prints Weapons or explosives. (Ref 10)
F25:
On November 29, 2017, VYCF staff told the Grand Jury they used canines to conduct periodic searches of the facility and did not consider contraband to be a problem.
F26:
In February 2017, a counselor employed at VYCF was sentenced to 36 months’ formal probation and 180 days in the Ventura County Jail for smuggling cell phones into the facility and selling them to youth for profit over a seven-month period. (Ref-11)
F27:
In July 2017, VYCF purchased a full-body scanner for $300,000 that could be used to detect contraband. As of November 29, 2017, it had not been installed because of a disagreement with the correctional employees union over radiation exposure. Pre-Trial Detention Facility (PTDF)
F28:
The BSCC states the PTDF has a rated capacity of 828 inmates.
F29:
The PTDF website states the facility can house approximately 890 sentenced and un-sentenced inmates. (Ref-15)
F30:
The PTDF deputies explained that the PTDF housing capacity can vary by more than 100 inmates per day in what is termed overflow housing. The facility has 113 dayroom bunks that are in designated housing sections and used when the population goes over the BSCC rated capacity. The number of inmates housed on the dayroom bunks, or overflow, is tracked daily by the Daily Overflow Report.
F31:
On October 29, 2017, there were 831 inmates (815 males, 16 females) in custody at the PTDF. By October 30, 2017, the population had dropped to 818. Nonetheless, the Intake Unit was notably crowded, with at least 14 men and women waiting to be booked, and one inmate sleeping in one of the print/mugshot rooms.
F32:
The PTDF staff estimate that 20 percent to 30 percent of inmates are classified as mentally ill.
F33:
A large recreation area, or exercise yard, is located on the roof of the PTDF. It is enclosed by chain-link fencing and divided into separate compartments. Inmates are allowed out in the exercise yard for two 90- minute sessions per week. A drinking fountain is located outside the compartments; however, there is no free access to a toilet, as required by BSCC Title 24 Section 1231.2.10.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the VCSO comply with BSCC Title 24, Section 1231.3 regarding free access to toilet facilities in the exercise yard. (C-11) 12 Annual Detention Report
F34:
Many rival gang members are housed at the PTDF. They consist of not only local street gangs, but also active members of prison gangs as designated by the California Department of Corrections. One of the major challenges 8 Annual Detention Report with the inmate population at the PTDF is the number of different gangs that must be managed.
F35:
In the past year the VCSO purchased six programming chairs, at a cost of $1,600 each. The purpose of programming, or security, chairs is to provide therapeutic programming and education to high-security offenders. Per PTDF staff, the programming chairs are used as a motivational tool to reward good behavior, i.e., used to watch movies, instead of the intended purpose of providing a safe environment for inmate programming. (Ref-16)
F36:
The PTDF did not have a comprehensive PREA manual. (Ref-01, Ref-07, Ref-17) Todd Road Jail (TRJ)
F37:
Per BSCC, the TRJ currently has a rated capacity of 796 inmates. On September 27, 2017, there were 815 inmates in custody (582 males, 233 females). Of the 815 inmates, 201 were housed in bunk beds set up in an open area of the facility for the overflow population.
F38:
On a daily average the jail houses 30 to 40 inmates with serious psychiatric issues. (Ref-12)
F39:
On September 27, 2017, the TRJ met the facility requirements of BSCC Title 24. The facility interior and exterior were well maintained. Each of the quads, cells, and showers appeared to be clean. Restrooms were in good repair. Particularly impressive was the jail’s 10,000-square-foot kitchen and bakery. The kitchen prepares more than 2,500 meals daily for staff and inmates, including those on dietary restrictions, yet still maintained cleanliness standards.
F40:
Many rival gang members are housed at TRJ. They consist of not only local street gangs, but also active members of prison gangs designated by the California Department of Corrections.
F41:
The TRJ has 12 new programming chairs at a cost of $1,600 each. According to TRJ staff, the programming chairs have proven useful to both faculty and inmates, particularly when instructing rival gang members. Safety of both staff and inmates is increased, and the inmates learn how to socialize and assimilate with each other. (Ref-16) Port Hueneme Police Department (PHPD)
F42:
On January 29, 2018, PHPD failed to meet minimum standards required by BSCC Title 15, Section 1280. The temporary holding cells had peeling paint and graffiti and lacked general cleanliness, with litter on the floor.
F43:
On January 29, 2018, PHPD was understaffed by five of the 22 authorized sworn officers. The January 2018 calendar displayed numerous sign-ups for overtime shifts that month.
F44:
On January 29, 2018 there was only one sworn officer at the PHPD holding facility. Annual Detention Report 9
F45:
The PHPD separates juvenile offenders from adults in temporary detention by placing them in the sergeant’s office or the staff breakroom. The juvenile offenders have no direct access to toilet facilities. If a juvenile needs to use the toilet, he or she must be escorted either into the secure cell area where adults are kept, or to the toilets in the public lobby, where the juvenile’s confidentiality could be jeopardized. Santa Paula Police Department (SPPD)
F46:
On February 12, 2018, SPPD failed to meet minimum standards required by BSCC Title 15, Section 1280. The building was in poor condition. The paint on the exterior and interior walls was chipped and peeling, and graffiti was found in the holding cells. Ceiling panels were missing, wiring in the evidence room was exposed, and fixtures did not provide sufficient light.
F47:
Due to increased sales tax from the passage of Measure T, planning is now underway for Santa Paula officials to renovate the existing SPPD building and expand it from 7,123 square feet to 13,455 square feet.
F48:
On February 12, 2018, SPPD was understaffed by eight of 34 authorized sworn officers. At times, sworn officers are required to work as dispatchers. In addition to regular dispatch duties, dispatchers may be assigned to monitor inmates in holding cells.
F49:
On February 12, 2018, one cell at SPPD had a blind spot due to the angle of the camera. The inmate was not visible to any SPPD staff. Other Holding Facilities
F50:
Of the 10 city holding facilities visited, only Oxnard Police Department (OPD), Simi Valley Police Department (SVPD), and Camarillo Police Department had up to date fire-life safety certificates available at the time of the Grand Jury inspection. Fire inspections are required once every two years. (BSCC Title 15, Section 13146.1(a)(b)).
Related Recommendations (1)
R07:
The Grand Jury recommends that all adult jails and holding facilities incorporate biennial fire-life safety inspections into maintenance schedules. (C-18) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Board of Supervisors (C-01, C-13, R-01) Ventura County Sheriff (C-11, C-12, C-13, R-02, R-05, R-07) City Council, City of Port Hueneme (C-14, C-16, C-17, C-18, R-03, R-07) City Council, City of Santa Paula (C-15, C-16, C-17, C-18, R-03, R-07) City Council, City of Oxnard (R-03) City Council, City of Simi Valley (C-17, R-03, R-07) City Council, City of Ojai (C-18, R-07) City Council, City of Ventura (C-17, C-18, R-03, R-07) City Council, City of Camarillo (C-17) City Council, City of Thousand Oaks (C-17, C-18, R-07) City Council, City of Moorpark (C-17, C-18, R-07) City Council, City of Fillmore (C-17, C-18, R-07) Responses Requested From: Ventura County Probation Agency (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, R-02, R-04) Ventura Youth Correctional Facility (C-05, C-06, C-07, C-08, C-09, R-06)
F51:
The 10 city holding facilities visited did not have policies or procedures incorporating PREA standards.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that PHPD, SPPD, OPD, SVPD and VPD consider incorporating PREA standards into their policy and procedure manuals. (C-17)
F52:
The SVPD is the only city police agency in the County that does not use body cameras. City officials state the city’s low crime rate does not justify the expense.
F53:
The 2016-2017 Grand Jury found that body cameras have become a law enforcement best practice. (Ref-13) Conclusions Juvenile Facility (JF) C-01. The Grand Jury concluded that the JF has been seriously underutilized since 2008 due to its design limitations. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-04, FA-05,
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F01:
In December 2004, the City adopted Resolution No. 12,739, establishing CFD No. 4 and Ordinance No. 2677 to levy a special tax assessment to pay unfunded costs relating to the infrastructure and maintenance of Seabridge. (Att-01)
F02:
CFD No. 4 is a non-bonded district for services and maintenance with no sunset clause. Annual assessments can increase up to a maximum of 2 percent each year. (Ref-02)
F03:
The MOU between the City and the County includes an annual payment of $100,000 for the added value the Channel Islands Harbor provides to Seabridge property owners. (Ref-03)
F04:
The Grand Jury could not locate a budget expenditure related to the $100,000 the County receives annually for the added value the harbor brings to Seabridge. (Ref-04)
F05:
Proposition 218 was approved by State voters in November 1996 as “…a means of curbing perceived abuses in the use of assessments and property-related fees, specifically the use of these revenue-raising tools to pay for general governmental services rather than property-related services.” (Ref-05)
F06:
A Ventura County Star article, dated April 19, 2018, reported: “Currently, Seabridge residents pay $1.6 million every year to the District; half of that goes toward Harbor Patrol.” It further reported: “This past year, residents saw their Community Facilities District payments increased by 27 percent.” (Ref-06)
F07:
Over a period of three consecutive fiscal years, the Channel Islands Harbor Patrol’s (Harbor Patrol) budget increased 18 percent. Seabridge Community Facilities District No. 4
F08:
In fiscal year 2013-2014, the City budgeted $543,000 for Harbor Patrol services. The actual costs for that fiscal year were $678,000.
F09:
In fiscal year 2014-2015, the City budgeted $545,000 for Harbor Patrol services. The actual costs for that fiscal year were $654,000.
F10:
In fiscal year 2015-2016, the City budgeted $720,000 for Harbor Patrol services. The actual costs for that fiscal year were $736,000.
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that the City strive to eliminate fluctuations in County pass-through funds and budgeting shortfalls. (C- 02, C-05)
F11:
The City reported the 2015 CFD No. 4 budget showed some improper charges. The City later corrected its statement regarding improper charges by indicating the comment was referring to a Land Maintenance District and not CFD No. 4.
F12:
In September 2014, the City completed the CFD No. Seabridge at Mandalay Bay Evaluation of Reserve Fund report. The report showed a reserve-fund balance of $2.9 million. The report recommended a reserve-fund balance of $2.6 million, two times larger than CFD No. 4’s annual operating budget. (Att-02)
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends the City consider avoiding the regular use of CFD No. 4 reserve funds to balance its budget. (C-02, C-03)
F13:
The Reserve Fund Summary includes costs related to County Harbor Patrol capital equipment, seawall and public walkways/docks, harbor entrance dredging, parks, landscaping, hardscaping, structures, and storm drain filters. (Att-02)
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends the City consider avoiding the regular use of CFD No. 4 reserve funds to balance its budget. (C-02, C-03)
F14:
The Reserve Fund Summary states, “The Reserve Fund balance is supposed to be established for extraordinary or infrequently occurring expenses.” (Att-03)
Related Recommendations (2)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends the City consider avoiding the regular use of CFD No. 4 reserve funds to balance its budget. (C-02, C-03)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends the City revise the list of potential issues that might require funding from the CFD No. 4 reserve-fund account, ensuring that the list only includes extraordinary or infrequently occurring expenses. (C-02, C-03)
F15:
The City increased reserve-fund assessments in the unlikely event that the Corps stopped providing dredging of the harbor entrance at no cost to the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends the City review the need for the CFD No. 4 assessment for Channel Islands Harbor dredging services. (C-04)
F16:
In the history of Seabridge, the Corps has never charged for Channel Islands Harbor dredging services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends the City review the need for the CFD No. 4 assessment for Channel Islands Harbor dredging services. (C-04)
F17:
The reserve-fund report concluded, “If the Reserve Fund is able to rise next year; then, it would be appropriate [for the City and County] to consider a reduction in the annual fees or taxes.” This has not been done to date. The City is completing an updated evaluation of the CFD No. 4 reserve fund. (Att-03)
F18:
On February 13, 2018, Seabridge residents delivered a petition to the City requesting that a ballot measure entitled Ordinance Reducing Special Tax in Community Facilities District No. 4 be placed on the ballot for the November 6, 2018, general election. The City Council unanimously approved the petition. (Att-04) Conclusions C-01. The Grand Jury concluded there is no expenditure within the Channel Islands Harbor Patrol’s budget related to the $100,000 charged by the County annually to CFD No. 4. (FA-03, FA-04, FA-05) Seabridge Community Facilities District No. 4 3 C-02. The Grand Jury concluded that during a three-year period, the City underbudgeted for County services. As a result, CFD No. 4 reserve funds were used to address the budget shortfalls. (FA-06, FA-07, FA- 08) C-03. The Grand Jury concluded County Harbor Patrol – Capital Equipment, Parks Landscaping, Hardscaping and Structures and storm drain filters are ordinary and frequently occurring expenses and should not be paid using the CFD No. 4 reserve fund. (FA-12, FA-13) C-04. The Grand Jury concluded the City is collecting assessments from Seabridge residents for dredging services already provided by the Corps without charge. (FA-14, FA-15) C-05. The Grand Jury concluded that fluctuations in the City’s budget pass- through and shortfalls created a dependency on the CFD No. 4 reserve- fund account. This dependency prevented a reduction in the annual assessments. (FA-06, FA-07, FA-08, FA-10, FA-11, FA-13) C-06. Seabridge CFD No. 4 assessment has increased in recent years by as much as 27 percent. The Grand Jury concluded this is in conflict with the Seabridge MOU, which limits annual assessment increases to no more than 2 percent above the previous year. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-09,
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F01:
The County General Plan Hazards Appendix [2013] has identified 20 dams whose failure could cause inundation, possibly leading to loss of life or property damage. (Ref-01)
F02:
Sixteen dams in the County are under the jurisdiction of the DSOD, with inundation areas identified in case of failure. (Ref-02)
F03:
The OES has identified 14 dams that could have a significant impact on County residents in the event of dam failure. Ten of these dams are in the County: Bard Reservoir, Casitas Dam, Lake Eleanor, Lake Sherwood, Las Llajas, Matilija Dam, Runkle Debris Basin, Santa Felicia Dam (Lake Piru), Senior Canyon, and Linaloa Lake. There are four in Los Angeles County: Bouquet Canyon Dam, Castaic Dam, Pyramid Dam and the Westlake Reservoir. (Ref-03)
F04:
Both the State and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulate large dams, although each uses different criteria for the oversight, inspection, and disaster planning required. (Ref-04)
F05:
As a result of the failure of the Oroville Dam spillway, the State ordered new and more detailed inspections of approximately 100 dams within the state. The State rated Castaic, Bouquet Canyon, and Santa Felicia as “Fair,” and Matilija as “Poor.” (Ref-05)
F06:
A dam with a “Fair” rating is defined by the DSOD as follows: “No existing dam safety deficiencies are recognized for normal loading conditions. Rare or extreme hydrologic and/or seismic events may result in a dam safety deficiency. Risk may be in the range to take further action. Additional DOSD criteria can include the following: • Dam has a long-standing deficiency that is not being addressed in a timely manner 2 Ventura County Dam Safety • Dam is not certified and its safety is under evaluation • Dam is restricted and operation of the reservoir at the lower level does not mitigate the deficiency.” (Ref-05, Ref-06) Matilija Dam
F07:
The Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) owns and operates the Matilija Dam [capacity 3,800 acre-feet], which received a “Poor” rating by the DSOD. The DSOD rating was based on concerns as to the ability of the dam, specifically issues related to the wing walls, to withstand a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. While the analysis did not appear to indicate complete failure, it indicated a likelihood of significant weakening. VCWPD’s subsequent analysis did not indicate the same level of damage. Even so, the VCWPD, with concurrence from DSOD, agrees that removing the upper wing walls could significantly stabilize the dam. For that reason, VCWPD has applied for a $2-million hazard mitigation grant from FEMA to remove the wing walls. The district is continuing its quarterly monitoring program of the dam and will be taking core samples later this year to ensure that it has up-to-date information as to the dam’s integrity.
F08:
The VCWPD is working on a plan to remove Matilija Dam. The plan faces technical and environmental challenges and has yet to be finalized or approved by regulatory agencies. The VCWPD would use property tax money and is seeking additional funding to complete the demolition. Depending on the method used to dismantle the dam and dispose of the sediment, the costs could range from $111 million to $208 million. Funding has not been obtained, and the removal has not been environmentally cleared. (Ref-07, Ref-08)
F09:
There are roughly 8 million cubic yards of debris behind Matilija Dam. There is a concern that a big storm will push huge amounts of mud and water over the top, overwhelming bridges, culverts and roads below. (Ref-09) Castaic Dam
F10:
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) operates the Castaic Dam [capacity 323,700 acre-feet]. It has identified three areas that contribute to the “Fair” rating and potential weaknesses in the dam. All three areas are currently being analyzed, with alternatives for remediation expected to be developed in 2018 or 2019. Subsequent to that, a plan, including funding, will be developed. Bouquet Canyon Dam
Related Recommendations (2)
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that the OES track the progress of remedial action taken at Matilija Dam, Santa Felicia Dam, Castaic Dam, and Bouquet Canyon Dam. Reports of progress should be made to the BOS annually. (C-01, C02, C-03, C-04, C-05)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that the OES work more closely with DSOD to monitor and evaluate safety for dams in or affecting Ventura County. (C-10)
F11:
The Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power (DWP) owns and operates the Bouquet Canyon Dam in Los Angeles County. The dam has a capacity of 36,500 acre-feet, approximately the same size as the St. Francis Dam, on the same watershed. The DWP reported that the DSOD “Fair” rating for the Bouquet Canyon Dam was based on a 2002 seismic Ventura County Dam Safety 3 stability evaluation “…which did not take into account the improved dam characterization techniques and methodologies that were made after the outdated 2002 evaluation….” The DWP voluntarily lowered the level of water in the dam and undertook more seismic studies. It also improved and added to its safety monitoring systems. (Ref-10, Ref-11) Santa Felicia Dam (Lake Piru)
Related Recommendations (2)
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that the OES track the progress of remedial action taken at Matilija Dam, Santa Felicia Dam, Castaic Dam, and Bouquet Canyon Dam. Reports of progress should be made to the BOS annually. (C-01, C02, C-03, C-04, C-05)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that the OES work more closely with DSOD to monitor and evaluate safety for dams in or affecting Ventura County. (C-10)
F12:
The United Water Conservation District (UWCD) owns and operates Santa Felicia Dam on Lake Piru [capacity 100,000 acre-feet]. The “Fair” rating is primarily due to deficiencies in the dam’s outlet that could result in damage should a “Maximum Credible Earthquake occur before the UWCD completes planned upgrades….” The district is currently designing improvements to the existing outlet and spillway. Environmental clearance is scheduled for 2018, with construction to begin in 2019 at a cost of more than $100 million.
Related Recommendations (2)
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends that the OES track the progress of remedial action taken at Matilija Dam, Santa Felicia Dam, Castaic Dam, and Bouquet Canyon Dam. Reports of progress should be made to the BOS annually. (C-01, C02, C-03, C-04, C-05)
R04:
The Grand Jury recommends that the OES work more closely with DSOD to monitor and evaluate safety for dams in or affecting Ventura County. (C-10)
F13:
Disaster response plans for all major dams are prepared using a standardized format prepared by the DWR and the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalOES). The plans are focused on inspections and notifications to the dam administration and appropriate authorities such as the County Office(s) of Emergency Services. The plans also include an inundation map prepared to State standards. (Ref-12)
F14:
The dam operators and OES do not hold public drills or distribute information to residents about potential inundation areas or evacuation routes.
Related Recommendations (2)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends that the OES consider working with dam owners and cities to develop and widely distribute dam failure inundation maps and other information to assist residents in planning for responses to dam failures. (C-06, C-07, C-08)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that the OES consider working with dam owners and cities to pursue placement of signage and sirens within the inundation areas. (C-07, C-08, C-09)
F15:
The Casitas Water District had a system of sirens and held periodic drills, which have been discontinued. The sirens were intended to provide warnings to the population in the inundation area below Lake Casitas in the event of a dam failure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends that the OES consider working with dam owners and cities to pursue placement of signage and sirens within the inundation areas. (C-07, C-08, C-09)
F16:
The UWCD has warning sirens in the Piru area. (Ref-13)
F17:
The OES has held incident exercises within the past two years with the operators of Santa Felicia Dam (Lake Piru) and Bard Reservoir Dam (Lake Bard). It also conducted a critical infrastructure site visits and decision- making exercises for managing threats leading to dam failure.
F18:
The OES uses VC Ready Alert [a reverse 911 system] as the primary tool to notify residents and businesses about potential dam failures and the need to evacuate. In the event of a dam failure or possible failure, VC Ready Alert would be supplemented by police, sheriff, and fire personnel delivering warnings in person. In the event of a major earthquake and loss of cell towers, VC Ready Alert may not work. VC Ready Alert requires voluntary registration and currently has approximately 75,000 registered users. About 250,000 users receive alerts through cell-phone carrier 911 registration. There may be significant duplication of the two lists. Alerts go out in both English and Spanish. Ventura County Dam Safety
F19:
The VC Ready Alert webpage is now in both English and Spanish. VC Ready Alert includes a language preference option. The OES also provides general information brochures in English and Spanish. (Ref-14, Ref-15) Conclusions C-01. The Grand Jury concluded that there are 14 dams, including four in Los Angeles County, that could cause significant loss of life and property damage in Ventura County if they failed. Of those, DSOD has identified four dams as having existing or potential deficiencies. (FA-01, FA-02, FA- 03, FA-04) C-02. The Grand Jury concluded that the VCWPD has identified structural issues regarding the Matilija Dam. The district is working to remove the dam. Pending obtaining funding and final approval of required environmental clearances, the dam may continue to be a threat. (FA-07, FA-08, FA-09) C-03. The Grand Jury concluded that the DWR has identified issues causing potential deficiencies in Castaic Dam and is working on a plan of action to fix them. Once a plan has been completed, funding and environmental clearances will be obtained. (FA-10) C-04. The Grand Jury concluded that the DWP does not concur with the DSOD rating for Bouquet Canyon Dam. However, DWP has taken some steps to improve the safety of the dam and the ability to respond to a disaster. The DSOD has not updated its biennial report on dam safety, so any modification of its rating of the Bouquet Canyon Dam is unknown at this time. (FA-11) C-05. The Grand Jury concluded that the UWCD appears to have a clear understanding of the possible deficiencies of the Santa Felicia Dam and is currently working on the design and environmental clearances for the remedial work. While its activities should be monitored, the UWCD seems to be responding to the concerns in a timely manner. (FA-12) C-06. The Grand Jury concluded that dam-disaster response plans reviewed follow state guidance. However, they provide little or no guidance beyond the process of notifying dam management and the OES. (FA-04, FA-13) C-07. The Grand Jury concluded that with limited exceptions, there does not appear to be any way of notifying people in potential inundation areas of pending disasters other than the phone and cell-phone alert systems. These systems are likely to fail in a major earthquake. (FA-14, FA-15, FA- 16, FA-17, FA-18) C-08. The Grand Jury concluded there does not appear to be any effort by the dam owners or the OES to educate the public as to potential inundation areas, evacuation routes, or what to do in the event of a dam failure. (FA- 14, FA-15, FA-16, FA-17, FA-18) Ventura County Dam Safety 5 C-09. The Grand Jury concluded that the OES’s main tools to notify the public in the event of a dam failure have been upgraded to include information in both English and Spanish. (FA-18, FA-19) C-10. The Grand Jury concluded that while inspections are required by the DSOD, there is no local monitoring or public awareness as to the status of the dams and the actions taken by their owners to improve their reliability and safety. (F-01, F-02, F-03, F-04, F-05, F-06) Recommendations R-01. The Grand Jury recommends that the OES track the progress of remedial action taken at Matilija Dam, Santa Felicia Dam, Castaic Dam, and Bouquet Canyon Dam. Reports of progress should be made to the BOS annually. (C-01, C02, C-03, C-04, C-05) R-02. The Grand Jury recommends that the OES consider working with dam owners and cities to develop and widely distribute dam failure inundation maps and other information to assist residents in planning for responses to dam failures. (C-06, C-07, C-08) R-03. The Grand Jury recommends that the OES consider working with dam owners and cities to pursue placement of signage and sirens within the inundation areas. (C-07, C-08, C-09) R-04. The Grand Jury recommends that the OES work more closely with DSOD to monitor and evaluate safety for dams in or affecting Ventura County. (C-10) R-05. The Grand Jury recommends the BOS direct the Public Works Department to provide technical assistance, as appropriate, to the OES, augmenting its expertise in dam safety and operation. (C-10) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Board of Supervisors (C-10, R-01, R-05) Responses Requested From: Ventura County Office of Emergency Services (C-01, C-06, C-07, C-08, C-09, C-10, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05) Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power (C-04, C-08, R-01) State Department of Water Resources (C-03, C-08, R-01) County of Ventura Watershed Protection District Board (C-02, C-08, R-01) United Water Conservation District (C-05, C-08, R-01) 6 Ventura County Dam Safety References Ref-01. Ventura County General Plan Hazardous Appendix October 22, 2013 https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/plans/General_Plan_Hazar ds_Appendix.pdf Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-02. Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California Alphabetically by County. https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-safety-of- dams/Files/Publications/Dams-Within-Jurisdiction-of-the-State-of- California-Alphabetically-by-County.pdf Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-03. Ventura County OES Webpage on Dam Failure http://www.readyventuracounty.org/dam-failure. Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-04. Flood Mitigation Plan for Ventura County, California, Ventura County Watershed Protection District. March 1, 2005. https://wcvc.ventura.org/documents/PDF/floodmitigationplan2005.pdf Accessed on April 18, 2018 Ref-05. Dam-Rating-Information-and-FAQs. https://www.water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of- safety-of-dams/Files/Publications/DSOD-Dam-Rating-Information-and- FAQs.pdf Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-06. Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California Alphabetically by County. https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-safety-of- dams/Files/Publications/Dams-Within-Jurisdiction-of-the-State-of- California-Alphabetically-by-County.pdf Accessed on April16, 2018 Ref-07. VCWPD website home page http://vcpublicworks.org/watershed- protection-district/watershed-protection-district Accessed on April16, 2018 Ref-08. Matilija Dam Removal and Ecosystem Restoration Project Funding Plan, April 2017. Matilija Dam Design Oversight Group. http://dev.matilija- coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Matilija-Funding- Plan_FINAL.pdf. Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-09. Ojai residents take stock of their blessings and vulnerability after surviving the Thomas fire. Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times, January Ventura County Dam Safety 7 8, 2018. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ojai-thomas- fire-20180108-story.html Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-10. List of Dams and Reservoirs in California, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in_California Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-11. St. Francis Dam, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam. Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-12. California DSOD and CalOES Sample Emergency Action Plan. https://www.water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-Safety-of- Dams/Emergency-Action-Planning Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-13. Piru Dam Alert Worries – No Advance Warning. Citizens’ Journal for Ventura County September 29, 2017. [http://citizensjournal.us/piru- dam-alert-worries-no-advance-notice/] Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-14. Warnings for Spanish speakers fall short in fire, advocates say. Kathleen Wilson, Arlene Martinez. Ventura County Star Dec. 30, 2017. http://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2017/12/30/warnings- spanish-speakers-fall-short-fire-advocates-say/971159001/ Accessed on April 16, 2018 Ref-15. VC Ready Alert website http://readyventuracounty.org/, Accessed on May 7, 2018 Bibliography Ventura County General Plan Hazardous Appendix October 22, 2013 https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/plans/General_Plan_Hazards_Appen dix.pdf (Accessed April16, 2018) Flood Mitigation Plan for Ventura County, California, Ventura County Watershed Protection District. March 1, 2005. https://www.ventura.org/wcvc/documents/PDF/floodmitigationplan2005.pdf (Accessed April16, 2018) Ventura County 2015 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Update). 2015. https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://104.197.39.132/uploads/Ve ntura_HMP_Main_Body_September_2015.pdf (Accessed April16, 2018) 8 Ventura County Dam Safety Dam Failure Inundation Areas Ventura County 2015 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Update). 2015. http://www.venturacountymhmp.com/documents (Accessed April 16, 2018) Dam Failure Inundation Areas, Thumbnails Ventura County 2015 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Update). 2015. http://www.venturacountymhmp.com/uploads/documents/4b.%20Flood_DamInu ndation_Thumbnails.pdf Accessed April 18, 2018) Ventura County Dam Safety 9 Glossary TERM DEFINITION BOS Ventura County Board of Supervisors CalOES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services County County of Ventura DSOD California Division of Safety of Dams DWP Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power DWR California Department of Water Resources FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Grand Jury 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OES Ventura County Office of Emergency Services State State of California UWCD United Water Conservation District VCWPD Ventura County Watershed Protection District 10 Ventura County Dam Safety
Findings & Recommendations
18 findings
F01:
The City contracts with the LADAC for animal control services. The
F02:
The LADAC views its role for the City as primarily issuing dog licenses and operating animal shelters. However, the City defers to the LADAC for all animal issues, unless a zoning permit is requested, or a complaint is filed with the City.
F03:
The agreement between the City and the LADAC limits inspections of facilities and patrolling by the LADAC to specific City requests. (Ref-01)
F04:
The agreement between the City and the LADAC excludes animal license enforcement services and the permitting of animal facilities. (Ref-01)
F05:
In the Addendum to the Agreement between the City and Los Angeles County, the City specifically uses an outdated version [August 2012] of the Los Angeles County Code, Title 10, Animals. (Ref-01, Ref-02)
F06:
The LADAC uses the current version [October 2016] of the Los Angeles County Code, Title 10, Animals, rather than the 2012 version used by the City. (Ref-03)
F07:
The City, not the LADAC, is responsible for enforcement of Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 2, Wild Animal Control. (Ref-04)
F08:
Thousand Oaks Municipal Code states no person shall have, keep, or maintain any wild animal without first obtaining a permit from the City. The code further establishes the City’s control of cages or other means of 2 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks confinement. However, should an animal escape confinement, the owner is required to immediately notify LADAC, not the City. (Ref-04)
F09:
Violations of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Title 6, Article 2, Wild Animal Control, may be prosecuted as an infraction punishable by fine, or as a misdemeanor and punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. All violations shall be a misdemeanor unless specific actions are taken by the City Attorney. (Ref-05)
F10:
Los Angeles County Title 10, Section 10.40.070, requires that ”…wild animals must be maintained in buildings, enclosed yards, paddocks, or cages, as specified by the Director, and must be kept at distances from adjacent buildings as specified in applicable zoning and health code laws.” It also establishes a fee structure and financial penalties for failure to register or otherwise comply with these requirements. (Ref-03)
F11:
In July 2017, officials of LADAC, State Fish and Wildlife and the Ventura County Sheriff’s deputies raided a house in a residential neighborhood of Thousand Oaks, finding 84 snakes including cobras, king cobras, at least one monocled cobra, and numerous other wild animals. Animal control officers also discovered a pool full of alligators at the house. (Ref-06, Ref- 07)
F12:
The owner of the house with the 84 snakes had permits for some of the reptiles at a facility in unincorporated Ventura County (County). The facility itself was permitted by both the County and State Fish and Wildlife. Information regarding permits in unincorporated parts of the County is not commonly shared with the City by the County Planning Department unless specifically required in the permit or related environmental documents.
F13:
Information regarding permits in the unincorporated parts of the County is not shared with the City by State Fish and Wildlife. Despite the existence of State records of wild and dangerous animal permits, there is no listing of permits and permitted wild animals available to either cities or the general public. State Fish and Wildlife has a condition for denial of a permit, which is the requirement to comply with local ordinances, but does not require proof of compliance when they issue the permit. However, on the application, applicants must “certify under penalty of perjury…that all information on this application is true and correct and I am not violating any city or county laws.” State Fish and Wildlife does assist in investigations and responds to local government requests for specific information. (Att- 01, Att-02)
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends the City consider establishing a process to obtain information about applications made to State Fish and Wildlife to keep dangerous animals in and around the City. (C-02, C-03, C-07) Responses Responses Required From: City Council, City of Thousand Oaks (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R- 01, R-02, R-03) References Ref-01. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Los Angeles and the City of Thousand Oaks relating to Animal Care and Control Services, June 24, 2014. http://71.165.173.179/WebLinkPublic/0/doc/1093294/Page1.aspx Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-02. Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 1, Regulation of animals: Los Angeles County Code as [Thousand Oaks] City Code. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/thousandoaks_ca/ thecityofthousandoakscaliforniamunicipal?f=templates$fn=default.htm$ 3.0$vid=amlegal:thousandoaks_ca Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-03. Title 10, Animals of the Los Angeles County Code. October 2016. http://www.file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/dacc/195450_Title10- 20132.19.14.pdf Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-04. Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 2. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/thousandoaks_ca/ thecityofthousandoakscaliforniamunicipal?f=templates$fn=default.htm$ 3.0$vid=amlegal:thousandoaks_ca Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 5 Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-05. Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 2, section 6-1.206. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/thousandoaks_ca/ thecityofthousandoakscaliforniamunicipal?f=templates$fn=default.htm$ 3.0$vid=amlegal:thousandoaks_ca Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-06. After raid in Thousand Oaks, search widens for reptiles. John Scheibe, Ventura County Star, July 8, 2017. www.vcstar.com/story/news/2017/07/07/thousand-oaks-man-found- poisonous-snakes-remains-jail/460274001/ Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-07. Animal control officers uncover 80 snakes and a pool full of alligators at Thousand Oaks home. Joseph Serna and Matt Hamilton, Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2017. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-alligators-snakes- thousand-oaks-20170706-story.html Accessed April 25, 2018 Attachments Att-01. California Code of Regulations. § 671.1. Permits for Restricted Species Att-02. Excerpts from Fish and Game Manual for Applicants 6 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks Glossary TERM DEFINITION State Fish and Wildlife California Department of Fish and Wildlife City City of Thousand Oaks County County of Ventura Grand Jury 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury LADAC Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control State State of California Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 7 Attachment 01 California Code of Regulations § 671.1. Permits for Restricted Species 8 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks California Code of Regulations § 671.1. Permits for Restricted Species. (a) General. It is unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, maintain, sell, dispose of, or use for any purpose any animal restricted by Section 671 except as authorized in a permit issued by the department. (1) Limited Scope. A permit issued pursuant to this Section 671.1 does not supersede any federal, state, or local law regulating or prohibiting the animals or the activities authorized in the permit. Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 9 Attachment 02 Excerpts from Fish and Game Manual for Applicants 10 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 11
F14:
In 2014, the City determined it did not have sufficient cause to search neighboring properties where an albino monocled cobra was caught. The Grand Jury was unable to find any evidence that the State had provided the City with information that one of the neighboring residents had a State permit for the snake at a different address in the County. It was not until a July 2017 incident with another escaped cobra at the same location that the State apparently partnered with the City. Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 3
F15:
In the July 2017 incident involving 84 snakes, including a number of deadly cobras, the LADAC [acting as an agent of the City] referred a possible complaint of “felonious cruelty to animals” and twenty-six misdemeanors to the Ventura County District Attorney. (Ref-06)
F16:
The referral of the case to the District Attorney, in effect, ruled out action being taken against the snake owner for violation of City codes, as the District Attorney does not investigate or prosecute city code violations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends the City be more proactive in enforcing Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 2, Wild Animal Control, as lax enforcement poses a substantial risk to public safety. (C-04, C-05, C- 06)
F17:
In the July 2017 incident, the LADAC [acting as an agent of the City] did not refer the case to the City Attorney for action under Thousand Oaks Municipal Code. The department did, however, issue a strongly worded statement: “It appears that, despite the multiple levels of permits, approvals, and periodic inspections required, the permit holder was housing deadly venomous snakes in an unauthorized, densely populated, residential neighborhood, and in such a manner that they posed a substantial risk to public safety." (Ref-04, Ref-07) Conclusions C-01. The Grand Jury concluded the roles, responsibilities and communication between the City and the LADAC are not clearly defined and understood, resulting in confusion and gaps in enforcement. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-04, FA- 05, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08) C-02. The Grand Jury concluded there is a lack of communication between City, County, and State agencies regarding the permitting of wild and dangerous animals. (FA-12, FA-13, FA-14) C-03. The Grand Jury concluded there is no ongoing communication between the City and State except during specific investigations. Even in cases where a specific incident has occurred, information sharing may not be broad or complete. (FA-10, FA-11, FA-15) C-04. The Grand Jury concluded the City appears to request inspections of wild- animal sites only when there is unfavorable public attention. There appears to be little will to enforce or prosecute violations of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 2, Wild Animal Control. (FA-03, FA-07, FA- 18) C-05. The Grand Jury concluded that when the City has turned cases over to the District Attorney, City codes may not be enforced, as the District Attorney is not responsible for enforcing the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code. (FA- 07, FA-09, FA-16, FA-17) C-06. The Grand Jury concluded there have been instances where the LADAC has not referred cases to the City when wild animals posed a substantial risk to public safety. (FA-18) C-07. The Grand Jury concluded because the State does not require wild-animal permit applicants to provide any documentation that they have complied with local government ordinances, the regulation fails to insure that people 4 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks who are keeping state-permitted wild animals in the City also comply with the City’s laws. (FA-14) Recommendations R-01. The Grand Jury recommends the City seek to establish an effective partnership between LADAC and executive management of the City. (C- 01) R-02. The Grand Jury recommends the City be more proactive in enforcing Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 2, Wild Animal Control, as lax enforcement poses a substantial risk to public safety. (C-04, C-05, C- 06) R-03. The Grand Jury recommends the City consider establishing a process to obtain information about applications made to State Fish and Wildlife to keep dangerous animals in and around the City. (C-02, C-03, C-07) Responses Responses Required From: City Council, City of Thousand Oaks (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R- 01, R-02, R-03) References Ref-01. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Los Angeles and the City of Thousand Oaks relating to Animal Care and Control Services, June 24, 2014. http://71.165.173.179/WebLinkPublic/0/doc/1093294/Page1.aspx Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-02. Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 1, Regulation of animals: Los Angeles County Code as [Thousand Oaks] City Code. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/thousandoaks_ca/ thecityofthousandoakscaliforniamunicipal?f=templates$fn=default.htm$ 3.0$vid=amlegal:thousandoaks_ca Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-03. Title 10, Animals of the Los Angeles County Code. October 2016. http://www.file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/dacc/195450_Title10- 20132.19.14.pdf Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-04. Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 2. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/thousandoaks_ca/ thecityofthousandoakscaliforniamunicipal?f=templates$fn=default.htm$ 3.0$vid=amlegal:thousandoaks_ca Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 5 Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-05. Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 2, section 6-1.206. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/thousandoaks_ca/ thecityofthousandoakscaliforniamunicipal?f=templates$fn=default.htm$ 3.0$vid=amlegal:thousandoaks_ca Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-06. After raid in Thousand Oaks, search widens for reptiles. John Scheibe, Ventura County Star, July 8, 2017. www.vcstar.com/story/news/2017/07/07/thousand-oaks-man-found- poisonous-snakes-remains-jail/460274001/ Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-07. Animal control officers uncover 80 snakes and a pool full of alligators at Thousand Oaks home. Joseph Serna and Matt Hamilton, Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2017. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-alligators-snakes- thousand-oaks-20170706-story.html Accessed April 25, 2018 Attachments Att-01. California Code of Regulations. § 671.1. Permits for Restricted Species Att-02. Excerpts from Fish and Game Manual for Applicants 6 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks Glossary TERM DEFINITION State Fish and Wildlife California Department of Fish and Wildlife City City of Thousand Oaks County County of Ventura Grand Jury 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury LADAC Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control State State of California Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 7 Attachment 01 California Code of Regulations § 671.1. Permits for Restricted Species 8 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks California Code of Regulations § 671.1. Permits for Restricted Species. (a) General. It is unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, maintain, sell, dispose of, or use for any purpose any animal restricted by Section 671 except as authorized in a permit issued by the department. (1) Limited Scope. A permit issued pursuant to this Section 671.1 does not supersede any federal, state, or local law regulating or prohibiting the animals or the activities authorized in the permit. Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 9 Attachment 02 Excerpts from Fish and Game Manual for Applicants 10 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 11
F18:
C-05. The Grand Jury concluded that when the City has turned cases over to the District Attorney, City codes may not be enforced, as the District Attorney is not responsible for enforcing the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code. (FA- 07, FA-09, FA-16, FA-17) C-06. The Grand Jury concluded there have been instances where the LADAC has not referred cases to the City when wild animals posed a substantial risk to public safety. (FA-18) C-07. The Grand Jury concluded because the State does not require wild-animal permit applicants to provide any documentation that they have complied with local government ordinances, the regulation fails to insure that people 4 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks who are keeping state-permitted wild animals in the City also comply with the City’s laws. (FA-14)
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R06:
R-03. The Grand Jury recommends the City consider establishing a process to obtain information about applications made to State Fish and Wildlife to keep dangerous animals in and around the City. (C-02, C-03, C-07) Responses Responses Required From: City Council, City of Thousand Oaks (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, R- 01, R-02, R-03) References Ref-01. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the County of Los Angeles and the City of Thousand Oaks relating to Animal Care and Control Services, June 24, 2014. http://71.165.173.179/WebLinkPublic/0/doc/1093294/Page1.aspx Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-02. Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 1, Regulation of animals: Los Angeles County Code as [Thousand Oaks] City Code. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/thousandoaks_ca/ thecityofthousandoakscaliforniamunicipal?f=templates$fn=default.htm$ 3.0$vid=amlegal:thousandoaks_ca Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-03. Title 10, Animals of the Los Angeles County Code. October 2016. http://www.file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/dacc/195450_Title10- 20132.19.14.pdf Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-04. Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 2. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/thousandoaks_ca/ thecityofthousandoakscaliforniamunicipal?f=templates$fn=default.htm$ 3.0$vid=amlegal:thousandoaks_ca Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 5 Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-05. Thousand Oaks Municipal Code Title 6, Article 2, section 6-1.206. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/thousandoaks_ca/ thecityofthousandoakscaliforniamunicipal?f=templates$fn=default.htm$ 3.0$vid=amlegal:thousandoaks_ca Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-06. After raid in Thousand Oaks, search widens for reptiles. John Scheibe, Ventura County Star, July 8, 2017. www.vcstar.com/story/news/2017/07/07/thousand-oaks-man-found- poisonous-snakes-remains-jail/460274001/ Accessed April 25, 2018 Ref-07. Animal control officers uncover 80 snakes and a pool full of alligators at Thousand Oaks home. Joseph Serna and Matt Hamilton, Los Angeles Times, July 6, 2017. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-alligators-snakes- thousand-oaks-20170706-story.html Accessed April 25, 2018 Attachments Att-01. California Code of Regulations. § 671.1. Permits for Restricted Species Att-02. Excerpts from Fish and Game Manual for Applicants 6 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks Glossary TERM DEFINITION State Fish and Wildlife California Department of Fish and Wildlife City City of Thousand Oaks County County of Ventura Grand Jury 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury LADAC Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control State State of California Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 7 Attachment 01 California Code of Regulations § 671.1. Permits for Restricted Species 8 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks California Code of Regulations § 671.1. Permits for Restricted Species. (a) General. It is unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, maintain, sell, dispose of, or use for any purpose any animal restricted by Section 671 except as authorized in a permit issued by the department. (1) Limited Scope. A permit issued pursuant to this Section 671.1 does not supersede any federal, state, or local law regulating or prohibiting the animals or the activities authorized in the permit. Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 9 Attachment 02 Excerpts from Fish and Game Manual for Applicants 10 Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks Wild-Animal Regulations in Thousand Oaks 11
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F01:
Five independent special districts have never held public competitive governing board elections since at least 1970. Historically, when a vacancy occurs on the district’s board, or when a board member resigns near the end of his or her term, the board appoints a successor to serve out the remainder of the term. The newly appointed board member then becomes the incumbent, with all advantages of incumbency. If no one other than the newly appointed incumbent runs for the vacated office, the incumbent is then appointed and no election is held. The following independent special districts have held no recorded public competitive board member elections since their formation: • Ojai Water Conservation District • Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 • Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 • Pleasant Valley County Water District • Saticoy Sanitary District (Ref-07)
F02:
Five independent special district boards are not elected by the public but appointed by local elected officials who have no further authority over them. • Bardsdale Cemetery District • Ranch Simi Cemetery District • Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency • Piru Public Cemetery District • Ventura Port District (Ref-07)
F03:
Seventeen independent special districts have not held public competitive board elections since the year indicated: • Hidden Valley Municipal Water District – 1960 • Montalvo Community Services District – 1994 • Camrosa Water District – 2006 • Meiners Oaks Water District – 2008 • Triunfo County Sanitation District – 2010 • Fillmore-Piru Memorial District – 2010 • Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District – 2012 • Blanchard/Santa Paula Library District – 2012 Independent Special Districts 3 • Bell Canyon Community Services District – 2014 • Camarillo Health Care District – 2014 • Conejo Recreation & Park District – 2014 • United Water Conservation District – 2014 • Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District – 2014 • Channel Islands Beach Community Services District – 2016 • Calleguas Municipal Water District – 2016 • Casitas Municipal Water District – 2016 • Ojai Valley Sanitary District – 2016 (Ref-07)
F04:
There are no reserve policies or practices listed on the websites of all County independent special districts under the jurisdiction of LAFCO. Many independent special districts list their reserves in their financial reports. The Little Hoover Commission stated that hundreds of independent special districts have banked multimillion-dollar reserves that are unpublicized and unnoticed in regional or statewide infrastructure planning. (Ref-01)
F05:
State law mandates four requirements for any local agency with a website: • Agendas must be posted 72 hours before a meeting occurs. • Annual compensation reports, or a link to the State Controller’s website that contains the report, must be posted. • Financial transaction reports, or a link to the State Controller’s website that contains the report, must be posted. • Enterprise system catalogs must be posted. (Ref-04)
F06:
According to the Little Hoover Commission, it is important for independent special districts to communicate to their public in order to know which districts receive their property tax dollars, how to participate in their district’s public processes, and how to pick the best board members to run their districts from an often-obscure list of potential candidates. Recent technological developments have allowed many independent special districts to use websites to accomplish this. (Ref-04)
F07:
Six independent special districts in the County do not provide public access to a website. • Fillmore-Piru Memorial District • Hidden Valley Municipal Water District • Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 • Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 4 Independent Special Districts • Piru Public Cemetery District • Pleasant Valley County Water District
F08:
The State Controller recommends the following key components for a website: • Name, location, contact information, services provided • Governance structure of the district, including election information and the process for constituents to run for board positions • Compensation details: total staff compensation, including salary, pensions, and benefits, or a link to this information on the State Controller’s website • Budget, including annual revenues and the sources of such revenues, fees, property taxes and other assessments, bond debt, expenditures, and reserve amounts • Reserve fund policy • Geographic area served • Most recent Municipal Service Review, most recent annual financial report provided to the State Controller’s office, or a link to this information on the State Controller’s website • Link to the Local Agency Formation Commission and any State agency providing oversight (Ref-04, Ref-07) Conclusions C-01. The Grand Jury concluded there is a lack of transparency and accountability when there is: • An absence of competitive elections • No general publication of elections other than in County election materials • An election giving the electoral advantage of incumbency to a person who has been appointed solely to fill out the remaining months of another’s term The Grand Jury concluded that these practices, while legal under present election codes, are not conducive to the best interest of the public or the interest of the special districts themselves. (FA-01, FA-03) C-02. The Grand Jury concluded that the absence of publicly available reserve policies and practices does not serve the public interest. (FA-04, FA-08) C-03. The Grand Jury concluded the independent special districts should better articulate the need for and the size of their reserves by adopting explicit Independent Special Districts 5 policies for reserve funds. These policies should be readily available for public review. (FA-04, FA-08) C-04. The Grand Jury concluded that the absence of websites or the lack of public information on existing websites defining the policies, practices, and missions of independent special districts is not in the public interest nor does it promote public accountability. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-04, FA-05) Recommendations R-01. The Grand Jury recommends all independent special districts in the County reach out and communicate with the public on opportunities to serve on boards. Elections should be broadly publicized, along with a description of the nature and mission of the districts. (C-01, C-04) R-02. The Grand Jury recommends independent special district boards discontinue the practice of appointing new board members a few months prior to a public election, giving incumbent status to a virtually new board member. (C-01) R-03. The Grand Jury recommends that all independent special districts have a published policy for reserve funds, including the size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. These policies should be readily available for public review. (C-02, C-03, C-04) R-04. The Grand Jury recommends every independent special district in the County have a website. Key components should include: • Name, location, contact information, and services provided • Governance structure of the district, including election information and the process for constituents to run for board positions • Compensation details including staff salaries, pensions, and benefits, or a link to this information on the State Controller’s website • Annual revenues and the sources of such revenues, including fees, property taxes and other assessments, bond debt, expenditures, and reserve amounts • Reserve fund policy • Geographic area served • Most recent Municipal Service Review, and the most recent annual financial report provided to the State Controller or a link to this information on the State Controller’s website • Link to LAFCO (C-02, C-03) 6 Independent Special Districts Responses Responses Required From: Ojai Water Conservation District (C-01, C-04, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04) Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 (C-01, C-04, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04) Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 (C-01, C-04, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04) Pleasant Valley County Water District (C-01, C-04, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04) Saticoy Sanitary District (C-01, C-04, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04) Bardsdale Cemetery District (C-01, R-04) Rancho Simi Cemetery District (C-01, R-04) Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (C-01, R-04) Piru Public Cemetery District (C-01, R-04) Ventura Port District (C-01, R-04) Hidden Valley Municipal Water District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Montalvo Community Services District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Camrosa Water District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Meiners Oaks Water District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Triunfo County Sanitation District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Fillmore-Piru Memorial District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Blanchard/Santa Paula Library District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Bell Canyon Community Services District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Camarillo Health Care District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Conejo Recreation & Park District (C-02, C-03, R-04) United Water Conservation District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Channel Islands Beach Community Services District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Calleguas Municipal Water District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Casitas Municipal Water District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Ojai Valley Sanitary District (C-02, C-03, R-04) Requested From: Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04) References Ref-01. Little Hoover Commission, Special Districts: Relics of the Past or Resources for the Future?, May 2000.pg.i. http://www.lhc.ca.gov/report/special-districts-relics-past-or-resources- future Accessed April 12, 2018 Ref-02. California State Controller’s Office, Counties Financial Data.,https://counties.bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/#!/year/2016/revenue/ 0/entity_name?vis=barChart Independent Special Districts 7 Accessed April 11, 2018 Ref-03. California State Controller’s Office, Counties Financial Data, https://counties.bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/#!/year/2016/operating/0/en tity_name?vis=barChart Accessed April 11, 2018 Ref-04. Little Hoover Commission, Special Districts: Improving Oversight and Transparency, Report pg.5,#239,August 2017 http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/239/Report 239.pdf Accessed April 11, 2018 Ref-05. 1998-1999 Ventura County Grand Jury, Special Districts: Final Report: https://www.ventura.org/grand-jury/ Accessed April 11, 2018 Ref-06. Ventura Local Area Formation Commission Website, http://www.ventura.lafco.ca.gov Accessed April 11, 2018 Ref-07. Jason Quinlin, Ventura County Election Division, October 18, 2017. http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/239/Report Accessed April 11, 2018 Ref-08. Pedro Nava, Letter from the Chair, Little Hoover Commission, http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/239/Report.pdf Accessed April 11, 2018 Ref-09. “Guidelines for Reserves for Special Districts”, 2nd. Edition, California Special District Association https://www.csda.net/home Accessed April 11, 2018 Attachments Att-01. California State Controller’s Chart of Ventura County Special District Revenues by Special District Att-02. State Controller’s Office Data, Special Districts Financial Transactions Report: Fiscal Year 2013-14 Ventura County List of Independent Special Districts 8 Independent Special Districts Glossary TERM DEFINITION Commission Little Hoover Commission Attachment 01 California State Controller’s Chart of Ventura County Special District Revenues by Special District 10 Independent Special Districts Independent Special Districts 11 Attachment 02 State Controller’s Office Data Special Districts Financial Transactions Report Fiscal Year 2013-14 Ventura County List of Independent Special Districts 12 Independent Special Districts SCO_LAFCO FY 2014 07/29/15 California State Controller's Office List includes only independent special districts Ventura Bardsdale Cemetery District Cemetery - 178,310 2,829 Ventura Beach Erosion Authority For Clean Oceans and Nourishment Resource Conservation - 103,516 103,208 Ventura Bell Canyon Community Services District Waste Disposal Enterprise - 464,992 - 4,043 Ventura Black Gold Cooperative Library System Library Services - 1,356,114 - Ventura Blanchard/Santa Paula Public Library District Library Services - 929,989 119,150 Ventura Calleguas Municipal Water District Water Enterprise 147,829,496 7,895,811 - 288,173 Ventura Camrosa Water District Waste Disposal Enterprise 3,140,580 47,319 - Ventura Camrosa Water District Water Enterprise 15,709,479 1,492,882 - 4,405 Ventura Casitas Municipal Water Water Enterprise 14,923,271 3,100,620 - 76,841 Ventura Channel Islands Beach Community Services District Waste Disposal Enterprise 2,361,577 9,223 - Ventura Channel Islands Beach Community Services District Water Enterprise 1,689,332 61,632 - Ventura Coastal Schools Employee Benefits Organization Self Insurance - - 44,458,554 - Ventura Conejo Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park - - 22,706,394 3,049,907 Ventura Conejo Valley Open Space Conservation Agency Resource Conservation - - 1,268,900 1,188,474 Ventura El Rancho Simi Cemetery District Cemetery - 145,921 544 Ventura Fillmore-Piru Memorial District Memorial - - 201,247 178 Ventura Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Water Enterprise - 1,304,731 - Ventura Gold Coast Transit Transit Enterprise 18,531,482 - 14,557,083 Ventura Hidden Valley Municipal Water District Water Enterprise - 8,115 - Ventura Meiners Oaks County Water District Water Enterprise 1,294,909 130,556 - 1,074 Ventura Montalvo Community Services District Waste Disposal Enterprise 397,066 276,058 - 2,376 Ventura Ojai Basin Groundwater Management Agency Water Enterprise 86,045 567 - Ventura Ojai Valley Sanitary District (Ventura) Waste Disposal Enterprise 8,261,529 935,280 - 5,170 Ventura Ojai Water Conservation District Flood Control and Water Conservation - 8,013 70 Ventura Oxnard Drainage District No. 1 (Ventura) Drainage and Drainage Maintenance - 48,241 - Ventura Oxnard Drainage District No. 2 (Ventura) Drainage and Drainage Maintenance - 163,234 - Ventura Oxnard Harbor District Harbor and Port Enterprise 14,045,832 248,034 - Ventura Piru Cemetery District Cemetery - 44,491 423 Ventura Pleasant Valley County Water District Water Enterprise 3,610,070 409,349 - 24,875 Ventura Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park - 7,921,243 153,761 Ventura Port Hueneme Water Agency Water Enterprise 4,480,306 48,197 - Ventura Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District Recreation and Park - 21,109,995 1,332,246 Ventura Saticoy Sanitary District (Ventura) Waste Disposal Enterprise 403,743 42,638 - 320 Ventura Teen Center Services Authority Recreation and Park - 204,298 - Ventura Triunfo County Sanitation District (Ventura) Waste Disposal Enterprise 9,669,902 26,272 - Ventura Triunfo County Sanitation District (Ventura) Water Enterprise 6,592,267 153,881 - Ventura United Water Conservation District Flood Control and Water Conservation - 14,691,843 197,963 Ventura United Water Conservation District Recreation and Park -- 109,068 - Ventura United Water Conservation District Water Enterprise 8,105,955 1,502,683 - Ventura Ventura County Air Pollution Control Air Pollution Control - 11,336,081 8,033,315 Ventura Ventura County Fast Action School Transit (VCFAST) Governmental Services - 114,876 114,724 Ventura Ventura County Regional Energy Alliance (VCREA) Governmental Services - 221,994 - Ventura Ventura County Resource Conservation Resource Conservation - 654,147 636,162 Ventura Ventura County Schools Business Services Governmental Services - 1,021,705 - Ventura Ventura County Schools Self-Funding Authority Self Insurance - 24,367,649 - Ventura Ventura County Transportation Commission Transit Enterprise 9,117,919 - 6,843,264 Ventura Ventura Port District Harbor and Port Enterprise 7,144,257 3,021,873 - 1,949,287 Ventura Ventura Region Sanitation District Waste Disposal Enterprise 20,033,901 473,154 - Ventura Ventura River County Water District Water Enterprise 2,088,552 35,136 - 272 Independent Special Districts 13
Findings & Recommendations
10 findings
F01:
VCMC was audited by HRSA in 2015. The results of the audit revealed VCMC was in violation of the 340B program in five major areas, including receiving duplicate discounts on 340B program medications. After the HRSA audit, VCMC was required to pay back money to pharmaceutical companies and placed on probation by the OPA. (Ref-01)
F02:
There are approximately 500 hospitals in the state of California in the 340B program, 95% of those hospitals are in compliance. (Ref-02)
F03:
VCMC implemented a corrective action plan in July 2015. VCMC is using the same in-house personnel to monitor and audit the 340B program after the HRSA audit. (Att-02)
F04:
VCMC uses an outside contractor, Verity Solutions, for the billing of 340B drugs. While it was hired in 2012, Verity Solutions was not fully functional until 2015. During this time period, VCMC was also using a GPO for billing. (Att-02) 2 VCMC 340B Program
F05:
The simultaneous use of two billing entities resulted in VCMC claiming duplicate discounts. Duplicate discounts occur when companies sell drugs at a discount under the 340B program to VCMC and then VCMC also claims Medicaid rebates on the same drugs. (Ref-01)
F06:
VCMC has completed negotiations with 23 pharmaceutical companies. The original amount owed these companies was $2.1 million. As a result of the negotiations, VCMC was able to reduce their repayment to $861,000. VCMC is still in negotiation with two other pharmaceutical companies over a potential repayment of $428,000. (Att-01)
F07:
Nineteen pharmaceutical companies forgave the duplicate discounting and are not requiring repayment of $361,000. (Att-01)
F08:
There are 53 pharmaceutical companies who have been unresponsive to date. The potential amount owed is $976,000. (Att-01)
F09:
VCMC had no controls in place to ensure proper accumulation and to avoid improper diversion of 340B drugs.
F10:
With increased Congressional interest, the federal government is likely to scrutinize the 340B program, calling for more audits and justification on how the program money is spent. (Ref-03) Conclusions C-01. The Grand Jury concluded there was not proper oversight of the VCMC 340B program prior to the 2015 HRSA audit. This has resulted in VCMC reimbursing pharmaceutical companies at least $861,000 and potentially as much as $1.6 million. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08) C-02. The Grand Jury concluded that before the 2015 HRSA audit, there were few controls in place in the 340B program and no checks to see if VCMC was in compliance with HRSA. (FA-01, FA-02) C-03. The Grand Jury concluded that the extensive corrective action plan created for the VCMC 340B program after the 2015 HRSA audit appears to have adequate safeguards to prevent duplicate discounting in the future. (FA-04, FA-05) C-04. The Grand Jury concluded while VCMC conducts its own in-house audits of the 340B program, more critical audits should be conducted by an independent outside party. (FA-03, FA-09) C-05. The Grand Jury concluded the federal government is likely to demand VCMC track its use of 340B money and program savings. (FA-10) Recommendations R-01. The Grand Jury recommends VCMC consider bringing in outside resources with extensive 340B program experience to assist in the supervision of the corrective action plan. (C-01, C-02, C-03) VCMC 340B Program 3 R-02. The Grand Jury recommends VCMC request the Ventura County Auditor- Controller conduct regular compliance audits of the 340B program. (C-03, C-04) R-03. The Grand Jury recommends VCMC continue in-house audits and share all results and recommendations with employees and the public. (C-03, C-04) R-04. The Grand Jury recommends VCMC study the management, personnel, and operational changes necessary to ensure the violation-free operation of the 340B program. (C-01, C-02) R-05. The Grand Jury recommends that VCMC establish a system to track how the money from the 340B program is used, as this is likely to be a subject of future Congressional interest. (C-05) Responses Responses Requested From: Ventura County Health Care Agency, Ventura County Medical Center (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05) References Ref-01. Health Resources & Services Administration, Program Integrity: FY15 Audit Results. https://www.hrsa.gov/opa/program-integrity/audit- results/fy-15-audit-results.html Accessed April 19, 2018 Ref-02. 340BHealth, 340B Hospitals in California https://www.340bhealth.org/files/CA.pdf Accessed April 19, 2018 Ref-03. Ellen Weaver and Lindsay Boyd. The Hill. June 15, 2016. States tell Congress: stop hospital abuse of federal drug discount program. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/283491-states-tell- congress-stop-hospital-abuse-of-federal-drug Accessed April 19, 2018 Attachments Att-01. Pharmaceutical Company Repayment Att-02. Cover Letter VCMC Corrective Action Plan 4 VCMC 340B Program Glossary TERM DEFINITION DSH Disproportional Share Hospitals FQHC Federally Qualified Health Care GPO Group Purchasing Organization Grand Jury 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury HRSA Health Resources and Service Administration VCMC Ventura County Medical Center VCMC 340B Program 5 Attachment 01 Pharmaceutical Company Repayment 6 VCMC 340B Program Drug manufacturers that confirmed that they do not participate in 340B Drug Pricing Program 5 Drug Manufacturers Amerinet BTG International Cetylite Industries Inc. Gordon Laboratories Nestle Total Amount Owed: $0 No contact information available 5 Drug Manufacturers Claris Lifesciences Inc. $ 838.48 Medimetriks Pharmaceuticals Inc. $ 520.81 Fagron $ 114.75 VI Jon Inc. $ 41.45 22nd Century Nutritional $ 2.51 Potential total amount owed $1,518.00* *VCMC considers these matters closed. Drug manufacturers who participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program must register with HRSA. No such registration could be identified and a web browser search resulted in no findings. Complete forgiveness granted or no repayment owed 19 Drug Manufacturers Amount Forgiven Theracom $ 318,807.10 Mallinckrodt LLC $ 27,578.30 Jazz Pharmaceuticals $ 6,210.68 Cumberland Pharma Rx $ 2,537.18 Ferndale Laboratories Inc. $ 2,372.98 Wallace Pharmaceuticals $ 1,460.29 GE Healthcare $ 1,033.54 ECI Pharmaceuticals LLC $ 677.33 Halozyme Inc. $ 531.05 Alvogen Inc. CS $ 217.43 County Line $ 188.91 Prestium Pharma Inc. $ 133.56 Rhodes Pharmaceuticals $ 88.06 Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals $ 70.93 Sigmapharm $ 67.90 Plus Pharma Inc. $ 50.93 Molnlycke Healthcare $ 15.67 Sanofi-Pasteur $ 0 Allergan Inc. $ 0 Total Amount Forgiven: $ 361,008.30 VCMC 340B Program 7 Completed Negotiations 23 Drug Manufacturers Original Amount Owed Final Amount Owed Hospira $ 569,088.55 $ 130,893.65 Eli Lilly and Company $ 358,590.23 $ 63,436.65 Sanofi-Aventis US LLC $ 286,294.79 $ 44,596.95 Baxter Healthcare Corp. $ 236,292.42 $ 96,797.79 AstraZeneca $ 212,553.24 $ 212,553.24 Astellas $ 97,577.27 $ 97,577.27 Chiesi $ 58,679.71 $ 28,921.22 Grifols Biologicals Inc. $ 49,766.36 $ 20,040.00 Sagent Pharmaceuticals Inc. $ 45,540.27 $ 45,540.27 Accord Healthcare Inc. $ 25,872.17 $ 25,872.17 Sandoz Inc. $ 22,211.26 $ 22,211.26 W G Critical Care $ 20,560.21 $ 2,100.00 Johnson & Johnson $ 20,309.77 $ 15,232.33 X-Gen Pharmaceuticals Inc. $ 19,900.61 $ 19,900.61 Perrigo Co. $ 15,878.89 $ 6,799.98 Theravance $ 13,719.64 $ 6,850.00 Bayer Healthcare $ 12,357.96 $ 115.11 Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corp. $ 7,068.68 $ 7,068.68 Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. $ 6,585.93 $ 3,500.00 Lannett Company Inc. $ 4,971.36 $ 3,000.00 CMP Pharma Inc. $ 3,501.09 $ 1,750.55 Shire Inc. $ 1,277.59 $ 765.74 Leadiant (fka Sigma-Tau) $ 5,939.89 $ 5,939.89 Total Amount $2,094,537.89 $861,463.36 Negotiations in Process 2 Drug Manufacturers Potential Amount Owed Pfizer Inc. $ 339,999.59 GlaxoSmithKline $ 87,854.71 Total Potential Repayment Owed: $ 427,854.30 Drug Manufacturers Unresponsive To Date 53 Drug Manufacturers Potential Amount Owed Akorn $ 125,696.30 CSL Behring $ 112,617.42 Valeant Pharmaceuticals $ 95,236.13 Marathon Pharmaceuticals Inc. $ 75,566.93 American Regent Laboratories $ 75,399.29 West-Ward Pharmaceuticals $ 60,770.02 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA $ 58,997.53 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Inc. $ 55,791.04 Par Pharmaceutical $ 49,881.09 Amedra Pharma $ 39,724.95 Novo Nordisk $ 33,188.48 (Unresponsive) UCB Pharma Inc. $ 31,934.19 8 VCMC 340B Program Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. $ 17,963.54 Pharmaceutical Associates Inc. $ 16,381.87 AuroMedics Pharma LLC $ 15,315.04 Merck $ 14,555.65 Covis $ 11,379.78 Actavis Pharma $ 10,397.95 Braintree Labs. $ 10,344.21(Unresponsive) Warner Chilcott $ 8,866.93 Patriot Pharm $ 7,999.10 B. Braun $ 7,737.87 Taro Pharmaceuticals, USA $ 5,280.89 Amneal Pharmaceuticals $ 4,734.59 Arbor Pharmaceuticals $ 4,111.30 Upsher Smith Labs. $ 3,577.92 (Unresponsive) Gravis Pharma CS $ 3,094.26 Avkare Inc. $ 3,048.75 Safecor Health $ 2,523.63 Acella Pharmaceuticals $ 2,310.96 Exela Pharma Sciences $ 2,240.31 US Worldmeds LLC $ 1,747.20 Octapharma USA SPD $ 1,296.74 CB Fleet Co. Inc. $ 1,238.24 Arzol Chemical Co. $ 965.07 Jacobus Pharmaceuticals Co. $ 774.05 Emergent Biosolutions Inc. $ 756.05 Global Pharm Impax Labs. $ 681.23 Silvergate Pharma Inc. $ 456.19 Teligent $ 337.26 Iroko Pharmaceuticals $ 283.40 Century Pharmaceuticals $ 280.98 Watson Actavis OTC $ 194.24 HUB Pharmaceuticals $ 187.89 Solco Healthcare US $ 131.82 Beach Pharmaceuticals $ 95.22 Focus Health Group $ 71.50 Pharmacarable LLC $ 34.76 Camber Pharma CS $ 24.79 Graham Field Surgical $ 21.05 Boca Pharmaceuticals $ 7.90 Mason Vitamins $ 1.22 BLU Pharmaceuticals $ 0.75 Total Potential Repayment Owed $976,258.47 VCMC 340B Program 9 Attachment 02 Cover Letter VCMC Corrective Action Plan 10 VCMC 340B Program VCMC 340B Program 11 12 VCMC 340B Program VCMC 340B Program 13 14 VCMC 340B Program
Related Recommendations (1)
R05:
The Grand Jury recommends that VCMC establish a system to track how the money from the 340B program is used, as this is likely to be a subject of future Congressional interest. (C-05) Responses Responses Requested From: Ventura County Health Care Agency, Ventura County Medical Center (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05) References Ref-01. Health Resources & Services Administration, Program Integrity: FY15 Audit Results. https://www.hrsa.gov/opa/program-integrity/audit- results/fy-15-audit-results.html Accessed April 19, 2018 Ref-02. 340BHealth, 340B Hospitals in California https://www.340bhealth.org/files/CA.pdf Accessed April 19, 2018 Ref-03. Ellen Weaver and Lindsay Boyd. The Hill. June 15, 2016. States tell Congress: stop hospital abuse of federal drug discount program. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/283491-states-tell- congress-stop-hospital-abuse-of-federal-drug Accessed April 19, 2018 Attachments Att-01. Pharmaceutical Company Repayment Att-02. Cover Letter VCMC Corrective Action Plan 4 VCMC 340B Program Glossary TERM DEFINITION DSH Disproportional Share Hospitals FQHC Federally Qualified Health Care GPO Group Purchasing Organization Grand Jury 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury HRSA Health Resources and Service Administration VCMC Ventura County Medical Center VCMC 340B Program 5 Attachment 01 Pharmaceutical Company Repayment 6 VCMC 340B Program Drug manufacturers that confirmed that they do not participate in 340B Drug Pricing Program 5 Drug Manufacturers Amerinet BTG International Cetylite Industries Inc. Gordon Laboratories Nestle Total Amount Owed: $0 No contact information available 5 Drug Manufacturers Claris Lifesciences Inc. $ 838.48 Medimetriks Pharmaceuticals Inc. $ 520.81 Fagron $ 114.75 VI Jon Inc. $ 41.45 22nd Century Nutritional $ 2.51 Potential total amount owed $1,518.00* *VCMC considers these matters closed. Drug manufacturers who participate in the 340B Drug Pricing Program must register with HRSA. No such registration could be identified and a web browser search resulted in no findings. Complete forgiveness granted or no repayment owed 19 Drug Manufacturers Amount Forgiven Theracom $ 318,807.10 Mallinckrodt LLC $ 27,578.30 Jazz Pharmaceuticals $ 6,210.68 Cumberland Pharma Rx $ 2,537.18 Ferndale Laboratories Inc. $ 2,372.98 Wallace Pharmaceuticals $ 1,460.29 GE Healthcare $ 1,033.54 ECI Pharmaceuticals LLC $ 677.33 Halozyme Inc. $ 531.05 Alvogen Inc. CS $ 217.43 County Line $ 188.91 Prestium Pharma Inc. $ 133.56 Rhodes Pharmaceuticals $ 88.06 Edenbridge Pharmaceuticals $ 70.93 Sigmapharm $ 67.90 Plus Pharma Inc. $ 50.93 Molnlycke Healthcare $ 15.67 Sanofi-Pasteur $ 0 Allergan Inc. $ 0 Total Amount Forgiven: $ 361,008.30 VCMC 340B Program 7 Completed Negotiations 23 Drug Manufacturers Original Amount Owed Final Amount Owed Hospira $ 569,088.55 $ 130,893.65 Eli Lilly and Company $ 358,590.23 $ 63,436.65 Sanofi-Aventis US LLC $ 286,294.79 $ 44,596.95 Baxter Healthcare Corp. $ 236,292.42 $ 96,797.79 AstraZeneca $ 212,553.24 $ 212,553.24 Astellas $ 97,577.27 $ 97,577.27 Chiesi $ 58,679.71 $ 28,921.22 Grifols Biologicals Inc. $ 49,766.36 $ 20,040.00 Sagent Pharmaceuticals Inc. $ 45,540.27 $ 45,540.27 Accord Healthcare Inc. $ 25,872.17 $ 25,872.17 Sandoz Inc. $ 22,211.26 $ 22,211.26 W G Critical Care $ 20,560.21 $ 2,100.00 Johnson & Johnson $ 20,309.77 $ 15,232.33 X-Gen Pharmaceuticals Inc. $ 19,900.61 $ 19,900.61 Perrigo Co. $ 15,878.89 $ 6,799.98 Theravance $ 13,719.64 $ 6,850.00 Bayer Healthcare $ 12,357.96 $ 115.11 Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corp. $ 7,068.68 $ 7,068.68 Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. $ 6,585.93 $ 3,500.00 Lannett Company Inc. $ 4,971.36 $ 3,000.00 CMP Pharma Inc. $ 3,501.09 $ 1,750.55 Shire Inc. $ 1,277.59 $ 765.74 Leadiant (fka Sigma-Tau) $ 5,939.89 $ 5,939.89 Total Amount $2,094,537.89 $861,463.36 Negotiations in Process 2 Drug Manufacturers Potential Amount Owed Pfizer Inc. $ 339,999.59 GlaxoSmithKline $ 87,854.71 Total Potential Repayment Owed: $ 427,854.30 Drug Manufacturers Unresponsive To Date 53 Drug Manufacturers Potential Amount Owed Akorn $ 125,696.30 CSL Behring $ 112,617.42 Valeant Pharmaceuticals $ 95,236.13 Marathon Pharmaceuticals Inc. $ 75,566.93 American Regent Laboratories $ 75,399.29 West-Ward Pharmaceuticals $ 60,770.02 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA $ 58,997.53 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Inc. $ 55,791.04 Par Pharmaceutical $ 49,881.09 Amedra Pharma $ 39,724.95 Novo Nordisk $ 33,188.48 (Unresponsive) UCB Pharma Inc. $ 31,934.19 8 VCMC 340B Program Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. $ 17,963.54 Pharmaceutical Associates Inc. $ 16,381.87 AuroMedics Pharma LLC $ 15,315.04 Merck $ 14,555.65 Covis $ 11,379.78 Actavis Pharma $ 10,397.95 Braintree Labs. $ 10,344.21(Unresponsive) Warner Chilcott $ 8,866.93 Patriot Pharm $ 7,999.10 B. Braun $ 7,737.87 Taro Pharmaceuticals, USA $ 5,280.89 Amneal Pharmaceuticals $ 4,734.59 Arbor Pharmaceuticals $ 4,111.30 Upsher Smith Labs. $ 3,577.92 (Unresponsive) Gravis Pharma CS $ 3,094.26 Avkare Inc. $ 3,048.75 Safecor Health $ 2,523.63 Acella Pharmaceuticals $ 2,310.96 Exela Pharma Sciences $ 2,240.31 US Worldmeds LLC $ 1,747.20 Octapharma USA SPD $ 1,296.74 CB Fleet Co. Inc. $ 1,238.24 Arzol Chemical Co. $ 965.07 Jacobus Pharmaceuticals Co. $ 774.05 Emergent Biosolutions Inc. $ 756.05 Global Pharm Impax Labs. $ 681.23 Silvergate Pharma Inc. $ 456.19 Teligent $ 337.26 Iroko Pharmaceuticals $ 283.40 Century Pharmaceuticals $ 280.98 Watson Actavis OTC $ 194.24 HUB Pharmaceuticals $ 187.89 Solco Healthcare US $ 131.82 Beach Pharmaceuticals $ 95.22 Focus Health Group $ 71.50 Pharmacarable LLC $ 34.76 Camber Pharma CS $ 24.79 Graham Field Surgical $ 21.05 Boca Pharmaceuticals $ 7.90 Mason Vitamins $ 1.22 BLU Pharmaceuticals $ 0.75 Total Potential Repayment Owed $976,258.47 VCMC 340B Program 9 Attachment 02 Cover Letter VCMC Corrective Action Plan 10 VCMC 340B Program VCMC 340B Program 11 12 VCMC 340B Program VCMC 340B Program 13 14 VCMC 340B Program
Findings & Recommendations
8 findings
F01:
One in five County teens has abused prescription drugs. Over 50% of teens get them for free from friends and family. Seventy-three percent of County residents surveyed indicated that prescription drugs, for non-prescribed purposes, are “fairly easy” or “very easy” for teens to obtain. (Ref-01, Ref- 02)
F02:
The number of opioid deaths in 2013 was reported as 78 prescription drug deaths and 30 heroin deaths for a total of 108 opioid-related deaths. A report published in August 2017 by the Ventura County Rx Abuse & Heroin Workgroup stated the group’s primary goal was to “decrease fatal opioid overdoses by 50% in the County from the 2013 baseline of reported opioid overdoses.” (Ref-01, Ref-02)
F03:
The same report stated that the majority of overdose deaths from all causes [alcohol, marijuana, heroin, and prescription drugs] between 2008 and 2014 involved either heroin or prescription drugs. (Ref-01, Ref-02) 2 Opioid Abuse in Ventura County
F04:
The Prevention Services subprogram has the smallest budget, at $2.4 million. The Narcotics Treatment subprogram has the largest budget, at $7.1 million in 2017-2018. (Ref-03)
F05:
The Narcotics Treatment Program has no assigned County staff. Services are delivered entirely by contractors who are primarily for-profit entities. (Ref-03)
F06:
VCBH collects and submits patient outcome data to two State-level organizations: • The California Department of Health Care Services for billing and audit information pertaining to Medi-Cal reimbursements to County contractors • The California Outcomes Measurement System, a data collection system used in all 58 counties containing patient treatment outcome data
F07:
The County has an internal data collection system named AVATAR. This system stores the electronic medical records of all VCBH patients including: • Days in hospital and/or jail • Types and times of service • Levels of impairment at the time of intake compared to levels at the time of release
F08:
The Grand Jury discovered most documents describing opioid-related deaths used inconsistent terms. The reports used different definitions of the term “opioids,” some referred to prescription drugs only, some to heroin only, and some to both. (Ref-01, Ref-02) Conclusions C-01. The Grand Jury concluded opioid-related deaths and opioid abuse in general are growing problems in the County. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03) C-02. The Grand Jury concluded ADP allocates a disproportionate amount of budget resources to treatment programs, as opposed to prevention programs. Prevention program efforts primarily focus on marijuana and alcohol abuse, with minimal attention to opioid abuse. (FA-04) C-03. The Grand Jury concluded the Narcotics Treatment subprogram is overly reliant on contracts with for-profit entities, two of which account for 61% of all ADP contract expenditures. For-profit entities generally have fewer cost-control incentives. (FA-05) C-04. The Grand Jury concluded the use of several different reporting systems results in confusing and inconsistent data that does not present a clear representation of program successes or areas needing improvement. (FA-06, FA-07) Opioid Abuse in Ventura County 3 C-05. The Grand Jury concluded that reports of deaths due to opioid abuse do not consistently use a standard definition of what is considered to be an opioid. (FA-08) Recommendations R-01. The Grand Jury recommends VCBH consider re-allocating existing resources to opioid abuse prevention programs. (C-01, C-02) R-02. The Grand Jury recommends that VCBH include significantly more information about the danger of opioid abuse in its prevention programs. (C-02) R-03. The Grand Jury recommends that VCBH evaluate whether County staff or non-profit entities could provide more cost-effective treatment programs than for-profit entities. (C-03) R-04. The Grand Jury recommends that VCBH standardize the reporting of outcomes of opioid abuse prevention and treatment programs to more accurately measure the success and efficiency of service delivery. (C-04) R-05. The Grand Jury recommends that VCBH and County partners agree upon a standard definition of opioids when reporting the number of deaths resulting from opioid abuse. (C-05) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Board of Supervisors, (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05) Responses Requested From: Ventura County Behavioral Health, Department of Ventura County Health Care Agency, (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, R-01, R-02, R-03, R-04, R-05) References Ref-01. Ventura County Rx Abuse & Heroin Workgroup. Reducing Supply, Saving Lives, Reducing Demand, Issue 2 August 2017. http://venturacountylimits.org/resource_documents/Reducing-Rx- Saving-Lives-FNL.pdf Accessed April 17, 2018 Ref-02. Hunnicutt, K. L. (2017). Overdose deaths in Ventura County: 2008- 2014. Oxnard, CA: Ventura County Behavioral Health, Rx Drug & Heroin Workgroup http://venturacountylimits.org/resource_documents/Drug-Related- Deaths-Issue-Briefing-FNL.pdf Accessed April 17, 2018 4 Opioid Abuse in Ventura County Ref-03. County of Ventura, County Executive Office. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Adopted Budget. https://vcportal.ventura.org/CEO/docs/publications/FY2017- 18_Adopted_Budget.pdf Accessed April 17, 2018 Ref-04. Reynolds, Dean. CBS News. CDC: Opioid Overdoses Kill Almost 5 People Every Hour in the U.S. March 6, 2018. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-finds-opioid-overdoses-up-30- percent-in-45-states/ Accessed April 17, 2018 Glossary TERM DEFINITION ADP Alcohol and Drug Prevention Program BOS Ventura County Board of Supervisors CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention County County of Ventura Grand Jury The 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury VCBH Ventura County Behavioral Health Opioid Abuse in Ventura County 5
Findings & Recommendations
20 findings
F01:
SAFE’s revenue from vehicle-registration fees for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2017, was $827,000. This revenue is expected to remain fairly constant. (Ref-02)
F02:
Expenditures for fiscal year 2016-2017 were $451,000. Going forward, VCTC estimates that the annual cost to maintain the SAFE and SpeedInfo systems after ADA modifications will be between $447,000 and $497,000 annually. (Ref-02)
F03:
VCTC receives roughly twice the amount of DMV fees compared to the annual cost of operating the SAFE system. (Ref-02)
F04:
SAFE has accumulated $4,407,000 in reserves since the inception of the program in 1986. (Ref-02) County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 3
F05:
The majority of the SAFE money is held in a designated fund within the county’s investment pool. A small portion of SAFE operating funds is held in the VCTC’s bank account.
F06:
SAFE has authority to implement new services, including changeable message signs or a Freeway Service Patrol, among others. However, the SAFE Board has not provided any specific direction regarding expansion of the program. (Ref-03)
F07:
VCTC has the authority, on an annual basis, to suspend collection of the $1 fee.
F08:
The Little Hoover Commission, a State oversight agency, writes of reserve funds: “These funds are a public resource that, over the long term, should be scrutinized like all public resources to determine if they are being put to the highest and best use.” The Commission recommends a “clear and well- articulated rationale for the accumulation and management of reserve funds.” (Ref-04) CAL-ID
F09:
Total revenue for fiscal year 2016-2017 was $799,000, and the total expenditures for the same year were $799,000. Expenditures include salaries, vehicles, training, and maintenance costs, as well as encumbrances for equipment replacement. (Att-01)
F10:
The CAL-ID program has accumulated $2,136,000 in excess funding, all of which is encumbered for future equipment replacement.
F11:
Funds for the CAL-ID program are wired by the State to a trust account managed by the County Auditor-Controller. Vehicle Theft Program
F12:
Total revenue for fiscal year 2016-2017 was $799,000. (Att-02)
F13:
Total expenditures for fiscal year 2016-2017 were $655,000. (Att-02)
F14:
The Vehicle Theft Program has reserves of $408,000. In recent years, reserve funding has grown by $100,000 to $120,000 annually, which is held in the County’s contingency fund.
F15:
The County Auditor-Controller recommends the establishment of a trust fund account for all Vehicle Theft Program revenues. Vehicle Retirement and Carl Moyer Air Quality Standards Programs
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends the Ventura County Board of Supervisors direct that funding for the Vehicle Theft Program be deposited into a trust account held by the Auditor-Controller’s office in order to provide more accountability, transparency, and oversight. (C-03, C-05) County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 5 Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-03) Ventura County Auditor-Controller (C-05, R-03) Ventura County District Attorney (C-03) Responses Requested From: Board for the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies/VCTC (C-01, C-02, C- 04, C-06, R-01, R-02) References Ref-01. The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 2017 Revisions https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_cmp_gl _volume_1.pdf Accessed on March 19, 2018 Ref-02. VCTC Comprehensive Annual Financial Report https://www.goventura.org/sites/default/files/CAFR%201617.pdf Accessed on March 19, 2018 Ref-03. Streets and Highways Code, Division 3, Chapter 14, Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCod e=SHC&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=14.&article Accessed on March 19, 2018 Ref-04. Little Hoover Commission, Special Districts: Improving Oversight and Transparency, Report #239, August 2017 http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/239/Report239.pdf Accessed on March 19, 2018 Ref-05. VCAPCD Adopted budget 2017-2018 http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Fiscal/Budget/1718/FY2017-18-APCD- Adopted-Budget.pdf Accessed on March 19, 2018 Attachments Att-01. State Controller’s Office Fingerprint CAL-ID Report Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Att-02. State Controller’s Office Vehicle Theft Report Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Att-03. The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 2017 Revisions Liquidation Requirement 6 County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees Glossary TERM DEFINITION AB Assembly Bill ADA Americans With Disabilities Act AFIS Automated Fingerprint Identification System APCD Air Pollution Control District BOS Ventura County Board of Supervisors CHP California Highway Patrol County Ventura County DMV Department of Motor Vehicles Encumbrance An obligation is the form of a purchase order, contract or salary commitment that is chargeable to an appropriation, and for which part of an appropriation is reserved. These obligations become disbursements upon payment. Fiscal Year A 12-month period of time for which the budget applies (often July 1 through June 30). Operating Budget Authorized expenditures for on-going services. RAN Remote Access Network SAFE Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies State State of California VAVR Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement VC Vehicle Code VCTC Ventura County Transportation Commission County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 7 Attachment 01 State Controller’s Office Fingerprint CAL-ID Report Fiscal Year 2016-2017 8 County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 9 Attachment 02 State Controller’s Office Vehicle Theft Report Fiscal Year 2016-2017 10 County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 11 Attachment 03 The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 2017 Revisions Liquidation Requirement 12 County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 13
F16:
Total APCD revenue for fiscal year 2016-2017 [from VAVR and Carl Moyer combined] was approximately $4.6 million. (Ref-05)
F17:
Expenditures for programs in AB 2766 are approximately $2.89 million annually. This money is part of the APCD’s $8.8-million operating budget to meet provisions in the State Clean Air Act. (Ref-05)
F18:
Expenditures to meet Carl Moyer grants in fiscal year 2016-2017 were approximately $3.8 million. In addition, the APCD Board approved grants 4 County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees for fiscal year 2016-2017 resulting in $3.9 million in encumbered funds. (Ref-05)
F19:
The APCD’s Carl Moyer Program does not hold reserves. Unspent grant funding must be returned to the California Air Resources Board. (Att-03)
F20:
The State sends funds directly to the APCD, which are reported in a separate revenue account. Conclusions C-01. The Grand Jury concluded that despite a nearly 25% decrease in the number of callboxes, the SAFE program continues to collect twice the amount in vehicle-registration fees than it needs to cover annual program costs. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03) C-02. The Grand Jury concluded the SAFE program has built up an excessive reserve fund of $4.4 million, equal to roughly 10 years’ worth of current annual expenditures. (FA-04, FA-06, FA-07, FA-08) C-03. The Grand Jury concluded the Vehicle Theft Program’s has a sizeable reserve balance of nearly $408,000, and it is growing annually. The Grand Jury further concluded these funds could be kept in a trust account as recommended by the Auditor-Controller in order to provide additional oversight and transparency. (FA-12, FA-13, FA-14, FA-15) C-04. The Grand Jury concluded there is no consistent policy on how operating expenses or reserve funding is held by SAFE, the Vehicle Theft Program, or the APCD. (FA-05, FA-14, FA-20) C-05. The Grand Jury concluded the CAL-ID policy of having funds wired directly from the State to a trust fund managed by the Auditor-Controller provides more accountability and adherence to State statutes. (FA-09, FA-10, FA- 11, FA-15) C-06. The Grand Jury concluded it is good policy that Carl Moyer does not allow unspent money to accumulate, avoiding the creation of excessive reserves. (FA-16, FA-17, FA-18, FA-19) Recommendations R-01. The Grand Jury recommends that the SAFE Board suspend its receipt of DMV fees until the excess reserve is significantly reduced. (C-01, C-02) R-02. The Grand Jury recommends the SAFE Board develop formal, written policies regarding the size and management of reserve funds. (C-04, C-06) R-03. The Grand Jury recommends the Ventura County Board of Supervisors direct that funding for the Vehicle Theft Program be deposited into a trust account held by the Auditor-Controller’s office in order to provide more accountability, transparency, and oversight. (C-03, C-05) County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 5 Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-03) Ventura County Auditor-Controller (C-05, R-03) Ventura County District Attorney (C-03) Responses Requested From: Board for the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies/VCTC (C-01, C-02, C- 04, C-06, R-01, R-02) References Ref-01. The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 2017 Revisions https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017gl/2017_cmp_gl _volume_1.pdf Accessed on March 19, 2018 Ref-02. VCTC Comprehensive Annual Financial Report https://www.goventura.org/sites/default/files/CAFR%201617.pdf Accessed on March 19, 2018 Ref-03. Streets and Highways Code, Division 3, Chapter 14, Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCod e=SHC&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=14.&article Accessed on March 19, 2018 Ref-04. Little Hoover Commission, Special Districts: Improving Oversight and Transparency, Report #239, August 2017 http://www.lhc.ca.gov/sites/lhc.ca.gov/files/Reports/239/Report239.pdf Accessed on March 19, 2018 Ref-05. VCAPCD Adopted budget 2017-2018 http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Fiscal/Budget/1718/FY2017-18-APCD- Adopted-Budget.pdf Accessed on March 19, 2018 Attachments Att-01. State Controller’s Office Fingerprint CAL-ID Report Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Att-02. State Controller’s Office Vehicle Theft Report Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Att-03. The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 2017 Revisions Liquidation Requirement 6 County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees Glossary TERM DEFINITION AB Assembly Bill ADA Americans With Disabilities Act AFIS Automated Fingerprint Identification System APCD Air Pollution Control District BOS Ventura County Board of Supervisors CHP California Highway Patrol County Ventura County DMV Department of Motor Vehicles Encumbrance An obligation is the form of a purchase order, contract or salary commitment that is chargeable to an appropriation, and for which part of an appropriation is reserved. These obligations become disbursements upon payment. Fiscal Year A 12-month period of time for which the budget applies (often July 1 through June 30). Operating Budget Authorized expenditures for on-going services. RAN Remote Access Network SAFE Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies State State of California VAVR Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement VC Vehicle Code VCTC Ventura County Transportation Commission County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 7 Attachment 01 State Controller’s Office Fingerprint CAL-ID Report Fiscal Year 2016-2017 8 County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 9 Attachment 02 State Controller’s Office Vehicle Theft Report Fiscal Year 2016-2017 10 County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 11 Attachment 03 The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines 2017 Revisions Liquidation Requirement 12 County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees County Use of Vehicle-Registration Fees 13
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
7 findings
F01:
The County provides political candidates with a manual containing written policies related to sign placement within the unincorporated areas of the County. If questions arise, a phone number is provided to reach the Ventura County Planning Department. (Att-01)
F02:
The City of Ventura provides political candidates with written policies related to sign placement within city limits. It also provides the County policies in the candidate manual. (Att-02) Campaign Signs 1
F03:
Of the five largest incorporated cities in the County, Ventura is the only city that allows campaign signs on public property within city limits.
F04:
The City of Oxnard provides political candidates with written policies related to sign placement within city limits. It also provides the County policies in the candidate manual. (Att-03)
F05:
The City of Camarillo provides political candidates with written policies related to sign placement. There are distinct policies for three defined zones within city limits: residential, commercial, and industrial/agricultural. The policies are nonspecific regarding timeframe for sign removal. County policies are also supplied in the candidate manual. The Code Enforcement Division phone number is provided with the policies. (Att-04)
F06:
The City of Thousand Oaks provides political candidates with a two-page written policy composed of excerpts from the municipal code related to sign placement. The policy includes a website link to the entire municipal code. The City also provides the County policies in the candidate manual. (Att-05)
F07:
The City of Simi Valley furnishes political candidates with written policies related to sign placement within city limits. It also provides the County policies in the candidate manual. Candidates are invited to a half-day orientation offering an overview of City government and policies. Prior to the start of the sign-posting period, letters and an illustrative flyer are mailed to candidates reminding them of City sign-posting regulations. (Att-06) Conclusions C-01. The Grand Jury concluded the County’s restrictions on campaign sign posting are vague in the candidate manual. A complete list of restrictions can only be found on the actual political sign registration form. (FA-01) C-02. The Grand Jury concluded the City of Ventura’s sign-placement requirements for public property placement are unclear. For example, the regulation states signs may be placed in the public right-of-way, but should not “be located in a manner that may constitute a traffic hazard or create a hazardous condition for persons using the public right-of-way.” (FA-02,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
23 findings
F01:
Funding of the Trust began on April 12, 2001, and continued annually through March 9, 2007, when the District last allocated funds to the Trust in the amount of $1,768,900. This amount represented the contribution for fiscal year 2005-2006. All funds sent to the Trust since March 9, 2007, have been Medicare Part D Reimbursements or funds provided by Coastal Schools Employee Benefits Organization. (Att-02)
F02:
The Grand Jury did not find anyone with knowledge of any action taken by the Trustees regarding the suspension of funding the Trust after March 9, 2007. This includes any individual connected to the Trust, in any capacity, with knowledge or access to any documented discussions, and or decisions 2 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust suspending or demanding funding of the Trust (as defined in the
F03:
The Grand Jury was unable to find any reference in the minutes of Trust meetings regarding the suspension of defined contributions to the Trust after March 9, 2007. Nor could any reference be found regarding a decision by the Trustees as to a course of action to take in the best interest of the beneficiaries.
F3:
Retirees and active employees qualifying as beneficiaries of the Trust
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends the District work with the Federation and the Trustees in an effort to update the Trust to reflect agreements that have been made by the District and the Federation regarding future funding. In the interest of transparency, any amendments and/or changes to the Trust should be properly documented. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends the Trustees provide all eligible beneficiaries with written communication regarding the outcome of R-01. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends the Trustees provide on-going written communication to the beneficiaries regarding all actions that will have a material outcome on the funding of the Trust and/or the dissemination of the funds. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Trustees, Oxnard Union High School District (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, R-01) Responses Requested From: Board of Trustees, Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust (C-01, C-02, C-04, C-05, C-06, R-01, R-02, R-03) Oxnard Federation of Teachers, Local 1273, Eric Montijo, President (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-06, R-01) References Ref-01. Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust website, HOME: http://ouhsdrhbt.org/index.html Accessed February 28, 2018 Ref-02. Oxnard Union High School Retiree Health Benefits Trust website, FAQ: http://ouhsdrhbt.org/faqs.html Accessed February 28, 2018 Ref-03. Oxnard Union High School District Official Site, http://www.ouhsd.k12.ca.us/wp- content/uploads/docs/hr_cert_agreement.pdf OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 7 Accessed February 28, 2018 Ref-04. Investopedia website: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trustee.asp Accessed February 28, 2018 Ref-05. US Legal website: https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fiduciary-duty/ Accessed February 28, 2018 Attachments Att-01. Revised and Amended Agreement Establishing the Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust Att-02. Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust Schedule of Contributions 2001-Current Glossary TERM DEFINITION CBA Collective Bargaining Agreement District Oxnard Union High School District FAQ Frequently Asked Questions Federation Oxnard Federation of Teachers Oxnard Union High School District Retirees Trust Health Benefits Trust Trustees Board of Directors USF Unit Share Formula 8 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust Attachment 01 Revised and Amended Agreement Establishing the Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Benefits Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 9 10 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 11 12 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 13 14 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 15 16 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 17 18 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 19 20 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 21 22 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 23 24 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 25 Attachment 02 Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust Schedule of Contributions 2001-Current 26 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 27
F04:
In 2003 the District and Federation agreed employees hired after July 1, 2004, would not receive lifetime health benefits upon retirement and therefore would not be eligible beneficiaries of the Trust. As of February 2018, 58% of the teachers in the District are not eligible beneficiaries of the Trust. TRUST WEBSITE
F4:
Retirees and active employees NOT qualifying as beneficiaries of the Trust. The unintended consequence of the 2004 decision has affected the Trustees’ ability to render fair and impartial decisions on behalf of the Trust. (FA-04, FA-08, FA-09, FA-10, FA-11, FA-12, FA-16, FA-21) C-04. The Grand Jury did not find sufficient evidence to conclude the District, the Federation, and the Trustees have consistently acted in the best interests of the beneficiaries. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-07, FA-12, FA-14, FA-15, FA-16, FA-18, FA-19, FA-20) C-05. The Grand Jury concluded the District and the Trustees have failed to properly document in their meeting minutes decisions regarding funding of the Trust after March 2007. (FA-02, FA-03, FA-06, FA-08, FA-09, FA-17) C-06. The Grand Jury concluded the District, the Federation, and the Trustees have not properly communicated their decisions to the beneficiaries. (FA- 02, FA-03, FA-05, FA-06, FA-17, FA-18, FA-19) 6 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust
Related Recommendations (3)
R01:
The Grand Jury recommends the District work with the Federation and the Trustees in an effort to update the Trust to reflect agreements that have been made by the District and the Federation regarding future funding. In the interest of transparency, any amendments and/or changes to the Trust should be properly documented. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends the Trustees provide all eligible beneficiaries with written communication regarding the outcome of R-01. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends the Trustees provide on-going written communication to the beneficiaries regarding all actions that will have a material outcome on the funding of the Trust and/or the dissemination of the funds. (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06) Responses Responses Required From: Board of Trustees, Oxnard Union High School District (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, R-01) Responses Requested From: Board of Trustees, Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust (C-01, C-02, C-04, C-05, C-06, R-01, R-02, R-03) Oxnard Federation of Teachers, Local 1273, Eric Montijo, President (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-06, R-01) References Ref-01. Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust website, HOME: http://ouhsdrhbt.org/index.html Accessed February 28, 2018 Ref-02. Oxnard Union High School Retiree Health Benefits Trust website, FAQ: http://ouhsdrhbt.org/faqs.html Accessed February 28, 2018 Ref-03. Oxnard Union High School District Official Site, http://www.ouhsd.k12.ca.us/wp- content/uploads/docs/hr_cert_agreement.pdf OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 7 Accessed February 28, 2018 Ref-04. Investopedia website: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trustee.asp Accessed February 28, 2018 Ref-05. US Legal website: https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fiduciary-duty/ Accessed February 28, 2018 Attachments Att-01. Revised and Amended Agreement Establishing the Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust Att-02. Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust Schedule of Contributions 2001-Current Glossary TERM DEFINITION CBA Collective Bargaining Agreement District Oxnard Union High School District FAQ Frequently Asked Questions Federation Oxnard Federation of Teachers Oxnard Union High School District Retirees Trust Health Benefits Trust Trustees Board of Directors USF Unit Share Formula 8 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust Attachment 01 Revised and Amended Agreement Establishing the Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Benefits Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 9 10 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 11 12 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 13 14 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 15 16 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 17 18 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 19 20 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 21 22 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 23 24 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 25 Attachment 02 Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust Schedule of Contributions 2001-Current 26 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 27
F05:
The Trust website provides Board agendas and meeting minutes starting with 2012. The website states: “The Trustees have a fiduciary obligation to administer the Trust in accordance with its purpose and intent and with the terms of the Trust Agreement. The Trustees' fiduciary obligations include, but are not limited to: (a) administering the Trust solely for the benefit of the beneficiaries; and (b) treating the beneficiaries impartially, i.e. treating them fairly in relation to each other, both individually and by class.” (Ref- 01)
F06:
The website provides a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document dated March 16, 2012. In the FAQ document the following questions are among those addressed: 1) Question: “How is the Trust funded?” Answer: “The Trust has been funded by contributions made in accordance with the CBA(s) between the District and the Federation. Because of budget difficulties, there have been no recent unit share contributions to the Trust. However, other contributions have been made in recent years through reimbursement of Medicare Part D program costs.” 2) Question: “What was the intent of the Trust?” Answer: "The intent of the Trust, from its inception, was to build up funds to fully meet the District's unfunded obligations to pay for retiree benefits to eligible District employees and retirees and their respective dependents...the District will directly fund retiree benefits from the District's General Fund until the Trust is fully funded...This approach is consistent with the Trust's intent." (Ref-02) TRUST AGREEMENT
F07:
Recitals Section B of the Trust states: “The Federation and the District are parties to collective bargaining agreements which may be amended to require contractual contributions by the District and District employees to the Oxnard Union High School District Retiree Health Benefits Trust OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 3 (hereafter "Trust") for the purpose of providing health and welfare benefits for eligible retired employees and their dependents.” (Att-01)
F08:
Recitals Section C of the Trust states: “The amount of employee contributions to the Trust shall be as set forth in separate agreements between the Federation and the District, and the amount of District contributions to the Trust shall be set forth in a separate agreement between the District, the Federations, and the Trust.” (Att-01)
F09:
Article 1.3 of the Trust states “The term ‘Collective Bargaining
F10:
Article 1.5 of the Trust states: “The term ’Contribution Agreement’ means a multi-party agreement between the District, a Union, and the Trust providing for participation in the Trust and for contributions to the Trust by the District.” (Att-01)
F11:
Article 1.9 of the Trust states: “The term ‘District Contributions’ means payments made or required to be made to the Trust in accordance with Collective Bargaining Agreements or Contribution Agreements.” (Att-01) The CBA references the Unit Share Formula (USF). The USF is used to determine how annual funds will be divided for any given school year. A committee is responsible for providing recommendations to the school board on distribution of funds within the guidelines of the USF. The “Unit Share” constitutes the total funds to be allocated to unit compensation which includes salaries and fringe benefits of unit members, health and welfare benefits for unit members and retirees, and retirement plans for current and past unit members. (Ref-03)
F12:
Article 4.3 of the Trust states: “Each contribution to the Trust shall be made promptly by the date specified in the Collective Bargaining Agreement or Contribution Agreement, and if such payment is not made by the specified date, it shall be considered delinquent. The parties recognize and acknowledge that regular and prompt payment of District contributions to the Trust is essential to its maintenance and purpose..." (Att-01)
F13:
Article 5.1 of the Trust states: “The operation and administration of the Trust shall be the joint responsibility of a Board of six Trustees, three (3) appointed by the District and three (3) appointed by the Federation, as set forth herein.” (Att-01)
F14:
Article 5.3 of the Trust states: “The District and the Federation expressly designate the Trustees as fiduciaries, who shall have exclusive authority and discretion acting as the Board of Trustees as provided herein to control and manage the operation and administration of the Trust. Each of the Trustees expressly accepts designation as a fiduciary and as a Trustee by 4 OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust the written acceptance and signature of this Agreement and assumes the duties, responsibilities and obligations of Trustee as created and established by this Agreement and under applicable law. Any Trustee named hereafter shall do likewise by signing this Agreement or a written acceptance thereof, in a form approved by and filed with the Board of Trustees.” (Att-01)
F15:
Article 6.4 of the Trust states: “The Board of Trustees shall have power to demand and enforce the prompt payment of contributions to the Trust, as required by this Agreement, the Collective Bargaining Agreements or any other written agreement requiring contributions to the Trust,..." (Att-01)
F16:
Article 6.22 of the Trust states: “Trustees shall be free from compromising influences and loyalties. A Trustee shall fulfill his or her responsibilities solely on behalf of the mission of the Trust. It is not intended that Trustees appointed by or paid salaries by the District or the Federation who serve school employees be prohibited by this provision from serving as Trustee.” (Att-01)
F17:
Article 7.2 of the Trust states: “The Board of Trustees shall appoint a Secretary and additional assistance, if necessary, who shall keep minutes or records of all proceedings and acts of the Board of Trustees.” (Att-01)
F18:
Article 7.4 of the Trust states: “The Board of Trustees shall not take any action or make any decisions on any matter coming before it or presented to it for consideration or exercise any power or right given or reserved to it or conferred upon it by this Agreement except upon the vote of each group of the Trustees at a meeting of the Board of Trustees duly and regularly called or except by the signed concurrence of all Trustees without a meeting, as provided in Article 7.7.” (Att-01)
F19:
Article 7.7 of the Trust states: “Upon any matter that may properly come before the Board of Trustees, the Board of Trustees may act without a meeting provided such action has the written concurrence of all the Trustees.” (Att-01) DEFINITIONS
F20:
Trustee: “A trustee is a person or firm that holds and administers property or assets for the benefit of a third party. A trustee may be appointed for a wide variety of purposes, such as in the case of bankruptcy, for a charity, for a trust fund or for certain types of retirement plans or pensions. Trustees are trusted to make decisions in the beneficiary's best interests and often have a fiduciary responsibility to the trust beneficiaries.” (Ref- 04)
F21:
Fiduciary: “Fiduciaries owe two main duties to their clients: a duty of loyalty and a duty of care. The duty of loyalty requires that fiduciaries act solely in the interest of their clients, rather than in their own interest. Thus, fiduciaries must not derive any direct or indirect profit from their position, and must avoid potential conflicts of interest. The duty of care requires that OUHSD Retirees Health Benefit Trust 5 fiduciaries perform their functions with a high level of competence and thoroughness, in accordance with industry standards.” (Ref-05) Conclusions C-01. The Trustees have a fiduciary responsibility to its members which includes a duty of loyalty, a duty of prudence and care in the interest of its beneficiaries. The Grand Jury concluded that the Trustees failed to properly document and communicate changes in funding of the Trust as decided by the District and the Federation. (FA-02, FA-03, FA-13, FA-14, FA-16, FA- 18, FA-20, FA-21) C-02. The actions of the District, the Federation, and the Trustees, have lacked transparency. This has contributed to the beneficiaries’ loss of confidence in the management of the Trust. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-06, FA-08, FA- 17, FA-18, FA-20) C-03. The Grand Jury concluded changes made regarding Trust eligibility in 2004 resulted in four distinct groups with conflicting priorities as to the future funding of the Trust and/or distribution of its assets. 1) District 2) Federation 3) Retirees and active employees qualifying as beneficiaries of the Trust 4) Retirees and active employees NOT qualifying as beneficiaries of the Trust. The unintended consequence of the 2004 decision has affected the Trustees’ ability to render fair and impartial decisions on behalf of the Trust. (FA-04, FA-08, FA-09, FA-10, FA-11, FA-12, FA-16, FA-21) C-04. The Grand Jury did not find sufficient evidence to conclude the District, the Federation, and the Trustees have consistently acted in the best interests of the beneficiaries. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-03, FA-07, FA-12, FA-14, FA-15,
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
19 findings
F01:
The HSA agrees with the Council on Accreditation that: “A manageable workload, which includes caseload and other organizational responsibilities: a) makes it possible for workers to meet practice requirements; b) does not impede the achievement of outcomes; and c) takes into consideration the qualifications and competencies of the worker and case status and complexity.”
F02:
The Council on Accreditation suggests the following caseload standards: 15-18 for Ongoing child welfare social workers (Ongoing social workers), and 12 for Emergency Response child welfare social workers (ER social workers). (Ref-02)
F03:
The HSA admits given the uncertainties of social services funding and program design, it is difficult to define and ensure “ideal” caseloads. The HSA believes it is more meaningful to consider workload equity and workload ranges than to target a singular caseload standard given the natural fluctuations in the volume of child welfare work. However, for the purpose of high-level tracking and monitoring, the HSA uses the following Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 3 numbers as points of reference for ideal caseloads: 18 for Ongoing social workers and 13 for ER social workers.
F04:
The 2016-2019 MOA between the County and SEIU Local 721 states, “No worker will be required to carry a caseload more than ten percent (10%) in excess of the average caseload.” The MOA further states, “The current Human Services Agency workload/caseload standards are obsolete, based upon programs that no longer exist or have changed over time. As has been the intent to define more relevant and equitable standards, it is recognized that with present uncertainties for social service funding and program design, it is not optimal to establish standards that will be irrelevant in the short term. The County continues to work toward realistic workload standards that best represent the work that is expected by each stakeholder.” (Ref-01) ER Social Workers
F05:
Based on HSA monthly reports, ER social workers’ average monthly caseload during 2016 was 15.6.
F06:
HSA calculates the average monthly caseload for ER social workers by dividing the total number of referrals assigned in a month by the number of ER social worker FTEs on board that month.
F07:
In 10 out of 12 months in 2016, caseloads for ER social workers exceeded ideal caseloads as determined by HSA for high-level tracking and monitoring. (Att-01)
F08:
In 4 out of 12 months in 2016, caseloads for 25% or more of the ER social workers exceeded the average monthly caseload by more than 10%. (Att- 02, Att-03)
F09:
In 2 out of 12 months in 2016, caseloads for 25% or more of the ER social workers exceeded the average monthly caseload by 20% or more. (Att-03)
F10:
In December 2016, five [17%] of the ER social workers exceeded the average monthly caseload by 30% or more. Four [14%] exceeded the average monthly caseload by 40%. (Att-03) Ongoing Social Workers
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends HSA improves its statistical analysis avoiding dependency on averages which can mask excessive caseloads. (C-01)
F11:
Based on HSA monthly reports, Ongoing social workers’ average monthly caseload during 2016 was 20.5.
F12:
HSA calculates the average monthly caseload for Ongoing social workers by dividing the total number of cases within the jurisdiction of child welfare during a month by the number of Ongoing social worker FTEs on board that month.
F13:
In all 12 months of 2016, caseloads for Ongoing social workers exceeded ideal caseloads as determined by HSA for high-level tracking and monitoring. (Att-01, Att-04) 4 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads
Related Recommendations (1)
R01:
Despite the difficulty defining and ensuring ideal caseloads, the Grand Jury recommends HSA intensify its efforts to establish realistic workload standards for child welfare social workers. Ideally, clearly defined standards should be included in the next union agreement. (C-02, C-03, C- 04, C-05, C-06, C-07)
F14:
In 2 out of 12 months in 2016, caseloads for 20% of the Ongoing social workers exceeded the average monthly caseload by more than 10%. (Att- 02, Att-04)
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends HSA improves its statistical analysis avoiding dependency on averages which can mask excessive caseloads. (C-01)
F15:
In 8 out of 12 months in 2016, caseloads for Ongoing social workers exceeded the average monthly caseload by 20% or more. (Att-04)
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends HSA improves its statistical analysis avoiding dependency on averages which can mask excessive caseloads. (C-01)
F16:
In 3 out of 12 months, one Ongoing social worker had a caseload exceeding the average by 30% or more. (Att-04) Impact of Hiring Social Workers on Average Caseloads
Related Recommendations (1)
R02:
The Grand Jury recommends HSA improves its statistical analysis avoiding dependency on averages which can mask excessive caseloads. (C-01)
F17:
The average number of ER social workers increased 32% between 2014 and 2016. At the same time, caseloads for ER social workers increased by 12%, and the average caseload declined by 14%. Yet the average caseload in 2016 remained over the HSA ideal at 15.6. (Att-05)
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends HSA determines why, despite increased hiring and a multi-year decline in child welfare caseloads, average caseloads for social workers remain over what the agency considers ideal. (C-08) Responses Responses Requested From: County of Ventura Human Services Agency, Children and Family Services (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, C-08, R-01, R-02, R-03) References Ref-01. 2016-2017 Ventura County Grand Jury. Ventura County Children and Family Services. May 18, 2017. http://vcportal.ventura.org/GDJ/docs/reports/2016- 17/Ventura_County_Children_and_Family_Services_4.27.2017.pdf Accessed on January 26, 2018. Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Ref-02. Council on Accreditation. CPS 14.05 A manageable workload… http://coanet.org/standard/cps/14/ Accessed on January 26, 2018. Attachments Att-01. Social Worker Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideals Att-02. Social Worker Caseloads 10% Over Average Caseloads Att-03. Caseload Standards for ER Social Workers Att-04. Caseload Standards for Ongoing Social Workers Att-05. Social Worker Caseload Trends Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 7 Glossary TERM DEFINITION County County of Ventura ER social workers Emergency Response Child Welfare Social Workers FTE Full Time Equivalent Grand Jury 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury HSA County of Ventura, Human Services Agency MOA Memorandum of Agreement Ongoing social workers Ongoing Child Welfare Social Workers SEIU Service Employees International Union 8 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 01 Social Worker Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideals Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 9 ER Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideal 80% 60% la e d 40% I fo e g 20% a t n e c 0% r e P -20% -40% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 Ongoing Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideal 30% 25% la e d 20% I fo e g a 15% t n e c 10% r e P 5% 0% Jan Feb M ar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 201 6 Note: 0% represents HSA ideal 10 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 02 Social Worker Caseloads 10% Over Average Caseloads Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 11 E R Ca selo ads >10% of Average 40% % 35% 0 1 > s d 30% a o le 25% s a C 20% fo e 15% g a t n 10% e c r e 5% P 0% Jan Feb M ar Ap r May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20 16 Ongoing Caseloads >10% of Average 25% % 0 1 20% > s d a o le 15% s a C fo e 10% g a t n e c 5% r e P 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 Note: 0% represents 10% or less of average caseloads 12 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 03 Caseload Standards for ER Social Workers Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 13 Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- ER Social Workers Caseload Standards 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 374 466 482 490 510 432 FTE 36 34.2 34.2 32.2 29 27.4 Average Monthly Caseload 10 14 14 15 18 16 HSA Standard 13 13 13 13 13 13 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard -20% 5% 8% 17% 35% 21% Council on Accreditation Standard 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard -13% 14% 17% 27% 47% 31% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 11 9 13 3 0 1 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 31% 26% 38% 9% 0% 4% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 11 9 2 3 0 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 31% 26% 6% 9% 0% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 2 1 1 0 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 6% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 358 443 541 473 396 357 FTE 25 25 24 27.4 27.4 28.9 Average Monthly Caseload 14 18 23 17 14 12 HSA Standard 13 13 13 13 13 13 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 10% 36% 73% 33% 11% -5% Council on Accreditation Standard 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 19% 48% 88% 44% 20% 3% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 3 5 10 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 11% 18% 35% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 5 6 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 21% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 1 5 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 17% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 4 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 14 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 04 Caseload Standards for Ongoing Social Workers Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 15 Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Ongoing Child Welfare Social Workers 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 502 494 481 489 481 495 FTE 25.2 24.2 24.8 25.2 23.6 23 Average Monthly Caseload 20 20 19 19 20 22 HSA Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 11% 13% 8% 8% 13% 20% Council on Accreditation Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 11% 13% 8% 8% 13% 20% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 5 2 4 5 3 1 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 20% 8% 16% 20% 13% 4% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 3 1 3 4 2 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 12% 4% 12% 16% 8% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 0 1 1 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 470 485 467 467 453 455 FTE 20.6 22.95 20.7 20.7 21.25 21.35 Average Monthly Caseload 23 21 23 23 21 21 HSA Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 27% 17% 25% 25% 18% 18% Council on Accreditation Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 27% 17% 25% 25% 18% 18% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 0 4 2 2 0 0 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 0% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 0 2 1 1 0 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 0% 9% 5% 5% 0% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 05 Social Worker Caseload Trends Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 17 Social Worker Caseload Trends Ongoing 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* Average Effective FTEs 22.6 25.5 26.4 25.6 28.3 22.8 21.6 Caseload 577 652 596 650 532 466 451 Average Caseload 25.7 25.6 22.6 25.8 18.9 20.5 20.9 Emergency Response 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* Average Effective FTEs 27 28 27 22 34 39 30 Caseload 512 490 403 394 425 442 411 Average Caseload 19.4 17.3 14.7 18.2 12.7 15.6 13.9 *Through July 2017 HSA ideal caseloads: Ongoing social workers = 18 ER social workers = 13 18 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 19
F18:
The average number of Ongoing social workers declined 11% between 2014 and 2016. At the same time, caseloads for Ongoing social workers declined by 28%, and the average caseload declined by 21%. Yet the average caseload in 2016 remained over the HSA ideal at 20.5. (Att-05)
Related Recommendations (1)
R03:
The Grand Jury recommends HSA determines why, despite increased hiring and a multi-year decline in child welfare caseloads, average caseloads for social workers remain over what the agency considers ideal. (C-08) Responses Responses Requested From: County of Ventura Human Services Agency, Children and Family Services (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, C-08, R-01, R-02, R-03) References Ref-01. 2016-2017 Ventura County Grand Jury. Ventura County Children and Family Services. May 18, 2017. http://vcportal.ventura.org/GDJ/docs/reports/2016- 17/Ventura_County_Children_and_Family_Services_4.27.2017.pdf Accessed on January 26, 2018. Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Ref-02. Council on Accreditation. CPS 14.05 A manageable workload… http://coanet.org/standard/cps/14/ Accessed on January 26, 2018. Attachments Att-01. Social Worker Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideals Att-02. Social Worker Caseloads 10% Over Average Caseloads Att-03. Caseload Standards for ER Social Workers Att-04. Caseload Standards for Ongoing Social Workers Att-05. Social Worker Caseload Trends Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 7 Glossary TERM DEFINITION County County of Ventura ER social workers Emergency Response Child Welfare Social Workers FTE Full Time Equivalent Grand Jury 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury HSA County of Ventura, Human Services Agency MOA Memorandum of Agreement Ongoing social workers Ongoing Child Welfare Social Workers SEIU Service Employees International Union 8 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 01 Social Worker Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideals Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 9 ER Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideal 80% 60% la e d 40% I fo e g 20% a t n e c 0% r e P -20% -40% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 Ongoing Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideal 30% 25% la e d 20% I fo e g a 15% t n e c 10% r e P 5% 0% Jan Feb M ar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 201 6 Note: 0% represents HSA ideal 10 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 02 Social Worker Caseloads 10% Over Average Caseloads Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 11 E R Ca selo ads >10% of Average 40% % 35% 0 1 > s d 30% a o le 25% s a C 20% fo e 15% g a t n 10% e c r e 5% P 0% Jan Feb M ar Ap r May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20 16 Ongoing Caseloads >10% of Average 25% % 0 1 20% > s d a o le 15% s a C fo e 10% g a t n e c 5% r e P 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 Note: 0% represents 10% or less of average caseloads 12 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 03 Caseload Standards for ER Social Workers Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 13 Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- ER Social Workers Caseload Standards 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 374 466 482 490 510 432 FTE 36 34.2 34.2 32.2 29 27.4 Average Monthly Caseload 10 14 14 15 18 16 HSA Standard 13 13 13 13 13 13 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard -20% 5% 8% 17% 35% 21% Council on Accreditation Standard 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard -13% 14% 17% 27% 47% 31% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 11 9 13 3 0 1 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 31% 26% 38% 9% 0% 4% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 11 9 2 3 0 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 31% 26% 6% 9% 0% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 2 1 1 0 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 6% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 358 443 541 473 396 357 FTE 25 25 24 27.4 27.4 28.9 Average Monthly Caseload 14 18 23 17 14 12 HSA Standard 13 13 13 13 13 13 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 10% 36% 73% 33% 11% -5% Council on Accreditation Standard 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 19% 48% 88% 44% 20% 3% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 3 5 10 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 11% 18% 35% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 5 6 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 21% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 1 5 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 17% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 4 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 14 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 04 Caseload Standards for Ongoing Social Workers Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 15 Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Ongoing Child Welfare Social Workers 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 502 494 481 489 481 495 FTE 25.2 24.2 24.8 25.2 23.6 23 Average Monthly Caseload 20 20 19 19 20 22 HSA Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 11% 13% 8% 8% 13% 20% Council on Accreditation Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 11% 13% 8% 8% 13% 20% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 5 2 4 5 3 1 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 20% 8% 16% 20% 13% 4% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 3 1 3 4 2 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 12% 4% 12% 16% 8% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 0 1 1 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 470 485 467 467 453 455 FTE 20.6 22.95 20.7 20.7 21.25 21.35 Average Monthly Caseload 23 21 23 23 21 21 HSA Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 27% 17% 25% 25% 18% 18% Council on Accreditation Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 27% 17% 25% 25% 18% 18% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 0 4 2 2 0 0 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 0% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 0 2 1 1 0 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 0% 9% 5% 5% 0% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 05 Social Worker Caseload Trends Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 17 Social Worker Caseload Trends Ongoing 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* Average Effective FTEs 22.6 25.5 26.4 25.6 28.3 22.8 21.6 Caseload 577 652 596 650 532 466 451 Average Caseload 25.7 25.6 22.6 25.8 18.9 20.5 20.9 Emergency Response 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* Average Effective FTEs 27 28 27 22 34 39 30 Caseload 512 490 403 394 425 442 411 Average Caseload 19.4 17.3 14.7 18.2 12.7 15.6 13.9 *Through July 2017 HSA ideal caseloads: Ongoing social workers = 18 ER social workers = 13 18 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 19
F19:
The total caseload for Ongoing and ER social workers has decreased from 2011 through July 2017. (Att-05) Conclusions Caseload Standards and Measurements C-01. Average caseloads as defined by HSA are a moving target with no relationship from one month to the next. For instance, a social worker could have what is considered a reasonable number of 17 cases one month and have the same 17 cases considered excessive the next month. Using monthly averages as the basis of determining excessive caseloads is often misleading. A social worker could have a caseload not exceeding the monthly average by 10% yet still significantly exceed HSA’s ideal caseload standards. (FA-06, FA-08, FA-12, FA-14) ER Social Workers C-02. Monthly caseload averages for ER social workers for 2016 exceeded standards suggested by the Council on Accreditation as manageable workloads. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-05, FA-06) C-03. For all but two months of 2016, caseloads for ER social workers exceeded ideal caseloads as determined by HSA. In four months, caseloads were over the ideal by 30% or more. (FA-03, FA-07) C-04. The 2016-2019 MOA suggests caseloads in excess of 10% of the average monthly caseload are excessive. In six months of 2016, 25% or more of ER social workers had caseloads exceeding the average monthly caseload by 10%. (FA-04, FA-06, FA-08, FA-09, FA-10) Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 5 Ongoing Social Workers C-05. Monthly caseload averages for Ongoing social workers for 2016 exceeded standards suggested by the Council on Accreditation as manageable workloads. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-11, FA-12) C-06. For all 12 months of 2016, caseloads for Ongoing social workers exceeded ideal caseloads as determined by HSA. (FA-03, FA-13) C-07. The 2016-2019 MOA suggests caseloads in excess of 10% of the average monthly caseload are excessive. In two months of 2016, Ongoing social workers had caseloads exceeding the average monthly caseload by 10%. Some social workers carried caseloads 20% and even 30% higher than the average monthly caseload. (FA-04, FA-12, FA-14, FA-15, FA-16) Impact of Hiring Social Workers on Average Caseloads C-08. It is unclear investments in social worker staffing between 2014 and 2016 have resulted in HSA managing reasonable caseloads. Despite an increase in the number of ER social workers and a seven year decline in the number of cases, average caseloads in 2016 significantly exceeded standards suggested by the Council on Accreditation as well as those determined by HSA. (FA-07, FA-13, FA-17, FA-18, FA-19) Recommendations R-01. Despite the difficulty defining and ensuring ideal caseloads, the Grand Jury recommends HSA intensify its efforts to establish realistic workload standards for child welfare social workers. Ideally, clearly defined standards should be included in the next union agreement. (C-02, C-03, C- 04, C-05, C-06, C-07) R-02. The Grand Jury recommends HSA improves its statistical analysis avoiding dependency on averages which can mask excessive caseloads. (C-01) R-03. The Grand Jury recommends HSA determines why, despite increased hiring and a multi-year decline in child welfare caseloads, average caseloads for social workers remain over what the agency considers ideal. (C-08) Responses Responses Requested From: County of Ventura Human Services Agency, Children and Family Services (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, C-08, R-01, R-02, R-03) References Ref-01. 2016-2017 Ventura County Grand Jury. Ventura County Children and Family Services. May 18, 2017. http://vcportal.ventura.org/GDJ/docs/reports/2016- 17/Ventura_County_Children_and_Family_Services_4.27.2017.pdf Accessed on January 26, 2018. Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Ref-02. Council on Accreditation. CPS 14.05 A manageable workload… http://coanet.org/standard/cps/14/ Accessed on January 26, 2018. Attachments Att-01. Social Worker Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideals Att-02. Social Worker Caseloads 10% Over Average Caseloads Att-03. Caseload Standards for ER Social Workers Att-04. Caseload Standards for Ongoing Social Workers Att-05. Social Worker Caseload Trends Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 7 Glossary TERM DEFINITION County County of Ventura ER social workers Emergency Response Child Welfare Social Workers FTE Full Time Equivalent Grand Jury 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury HSA County of Ventura, Human Services Agency MOA Memorandum of Agreement Ongoing social workers Ongoing Child Welfare Social Workers SEIU Service Employees International Union 8 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 01 Social Worker Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideals Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 9 ER Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideal 80% 60% la e d 40% I fo e g 20% a t n e c 0% r e P -20% -40% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 Ongoing Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideal 30% 25% la e d 20% I fo e g a 15% t n e c 10% r e P 5% 0% Jan Feb M ar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 201 6 Note: 0% represents HSA ideal 10 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 02 Social Worker Caseloads 10% Over Average Caseloads Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 11 E R Ca selo ads >10% of Average 40% % 35% 0 1 > s d 30% a o le 25% s a C 20% fo e 15% g a t n 10% e c r e 5% P 0% Jan Feb M ar Ap r May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20 16 Ongoing Caseloads >10% of Average 25% % 0 1 20% > s d a o le 15% s a C fo e 10% g a t n e c 5% r e P 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 Note: 0% represents 10% or less of average caseloads 12 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 03 Caseload Standards for ER Social Workers Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 13 Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- ER Social Workers Caseload Standards 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 374 466 482 490 510 432 FTE 36 34.2 34.2 32.2 29 27.4 Average Monthly Caseload 10 14 14 15 18 16 HSA Standard 13 13 13 13 13 13 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard -20% 5% 8% 17% 35% 21% Council on Accreditation Standard 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard -13% 14% 17% 27% 47% 31% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 11 9 13 3 0 1 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 31% 26% 38% 9% 0% 4% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 11 9 2 3 0 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 31% 26% 6% 9% 0% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 2 1 1 0 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 6% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 358 443 541 473 396 357 FTE 25 25 24 27.4 27.4 28.9 Average Monthly Caseload 14 18 23 17 14 12 HSA Standard 13 13 13 13 13 13 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 10% 36% 73% 33% 11% -5% Council on Accreditation Standard 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 19% 48% 88% 44% 20% 3% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 3 5 10 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 11% 18% 35% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 5 6 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 21% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 1 5 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 17% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 4 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 14 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 04 Caseload Standards for Ongoing Social Workers Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 15 Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Ongoing Child Welfare Social Workers 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 502 494 481 489 481 495 FTE 25.2 24.2 24.8 25.2 23.6 23 Average Monthly Caseload 20 20 19 19 20 22 HSA Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 11% 13% 8% 8% 13% 20% Council on Accreditation Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 11% 13% 8% 8% 13% 20% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 5 2 4 5 3 1 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 20% 8% 16% 20% 13% 4% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 3 1 3 4 2 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 12% 4% 12% 16% 8% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 0 1 1 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 470 485 467 467 453 455 FTE 20.6 22.95 20.7 20.7 21.25 21.35 Average Monthly Caseload 23 21 23 23 21 21 HSA Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 27% 17% 25% 25% 18% 18% Council on Accreditation Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 27% 17% 25% 25% 18% 18% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 0 4 2 2 0 0 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 0% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 0 2 1 1 0 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 0% 9% 5% 5% 0% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 05 Social Worker Caseload Trends Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 17 Social Worker Caseload Trends Ongoing 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* Average Effective FTEs 22.6 25.5 26.4 25.6 28.3 22.8 21.6 Caseload 577 652 596 650 532 466 451 Average Caseload 25.7 25.6 22.6 25.8 18.9 20.5 20.9 Emergency Response 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* Average Effective FTEs 27 28 27 22 34 39 30 Caseload 512 490 403 394 425 442 411 Average Caseload 19.4 17.3 14.7 18.2 12.7 15.6 13.9 *Through July 2017 HSA ideal caseloads: Ongoing social workers = 18 ER social workers = 13 18 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 19
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R15-18:
for Ongoing child welfare social workers (Ongoing social workers), and 12 for Emergency Response child welfare social workers (ER social workers). (Ref-02) FA-03. The HSA admits given the uncertainties of social services funding and program design, it is difficult to define and ensure “ideal” caseloads. The HSA believes it is more meaningful to consider workload equity and workload ranges than to target a singular caseload standard given the natural fluctuations in the volume of child welfare work. However, for the purpose of high-level tracking and monitoring, the HSA uses the following Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 3 numbers as points of reference for ideal caseloads: 18 for Ongoing social workers and 13 for ER social workers. FA-04. The 2016-2019 MOA between the County and SEIU Local 721 states, “No worker will be required to carry a caseload more than ten percent (10%) in excess of the average caseload.” The MOA further states, “The current Human Services Agency workload/caseload standards are obsolete, based upon programs that no longer exist or have changed over time. As has been the intent to define more relevant and equitable standards, it is recognized that with present uncertainties for social service funding and program design, it is not optimal to establish standards that will be irrelevant in the short term. The County continues to work toward realistic workload standards that best represent the work that is expected by each stakeholder.” (Ref-01) ER Social Workers FA-05. Based on HSA monthly reports, ER social workers’ average monthly caseload during 2016 was 15.6. FA-06. HSA calculates the average monthly caseload for ER social workers by dividing the total number of referrals assigned in a month by the number of ER social worker FTEs on board that month. FA-07. In 10 out of 12 months in 2016, caseloads for ER social workers exceeded ideal caseloads as determined by HSA for high-level tracking and monitoring. (Att-01) FA-08. In 4 out of 12 months in 2016, caseloads for 25% or more of the ER social workers exceeded the average monthly caseload by more than 10%. (Att- 02, Att-03) FA-09. In 2 out of 12 months in 2016, caseloads for 25% or more of the ER social workers exceeded the average monthly caseload by 20% or more. (Att-03) FA-10. In December 2016, five [17%] of the ER social workers exceeded the average monthly caseload by 30% or more. Four [14%] exceeded the average monthly caseload by 40%. (Att-03) Ongoing Social Workers FA-11. Based on HSA monthly reports, Ongoing social workers’ average monthly caseload during 2016 was 20.5. FA-12. HSA calculates the average monthly caseload for Ongoing social workers by dividing the total number of cases within the jurisdiction of child welfare during a month by the number of Ongoing social worker FTEs on board that month. FA-13. In all 12 months of 2016, caseloads for Ongoing social workers exceeded ideal caseloads as determined by HSA for high-level tracking and monitoring. (Att-01, Att-04) 4 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads FA-14. In 2 out of 12 months in 2016, caseloads for 20% of the Ongoing social workers exceeded the average monthly caseload by more than 10%. (Att- 02, Att-04) FA-15. In 8 out of 12 months in 2016, caseloads for Ongoing social workers exceeded the average monthly caseload by 20% or more. (Att-04) FA-16. In 3 out of 12 months, one Ongoing social worker had a caseload exceeding the average by 30% or more. (Att-04) Impact of Hiring Social Workers on Average Caseloads FA-17. The average number of ER social workers increased 32% between 2014 and 2016. At the same time, caseloads for ER social workers increased by 12%, and the average caseload declined by 14%. Yet the average caseload in 2016 remained over the HSA ideal at 15.6. (Att-05) FA-18. The average number of Ongoing social workers declined 11% between 2014 and 2016. At the same time, caseloads for Ongoing social workers declined by 28%, and the average caseload declined by 21%. Yet the average caseload in 2016 remained over the HSA ideal at 20.5. (Att-05) FA-19. The total caseload for Ongoing and ER social workers has decreased from 2011 through July 2017. (Att-05) Conclusions Caseload Standards and Measurements C-01. Average caseloads as defined by HSA are a moving target with no relationship from one month to the next. For instance, a social worker could have what is considered a reasonable number of 17 cases one month and have the same 17 cases considered excessive the next month. Using monthly averages as the basis of determining excessive caseloads is often misleading. A social worker could have a caseload not exceeding the monthly average by 10% yet still significantly exceed HSA’s ideal caseload standards. (FA-06, FA-08, FA-12, FA-14) ER Social Workers C-02. Monthly caseload averages for ER social workers for 2016 exceeded standards suggested by the Council on Accreditation as manageable workloads. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-05, FA-06) C-03. For all but two months of 2016, caseloads for ER social workers exceeded ideal caseloads as determined by HSA. In four months, caseloads were over the ideal by 30% or more. (FA-03, FA-07) C-04. The 2016-2019 MOA suggests caseloads in excess of 10% of the average monthly caseload are excessive. In six months of 2016, 25% or more of ER social workers had caseloads exceeding the average monthly caseload by 10%. (FA-04, FA-06, FA-08, FA-09, FA-10) Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 5 Ongoing Social Workers C-05. Monthly caseload averages for Ongoing social workers for 2016 exceeded standards suggested by the Council on Accreditation as manageable workloads. (FA-01, FA-02, FA-11, FA-12) C-06. For all 12 months of 2016, caseloads for Ongoing social workers exceeded ideal caseloads as determined by HSA. (FA-03, FA-13) C-07. The 2016-2019 MOA suggests caseloads in excess of 10% of the average monthly caseload are excessive. In two months of 2016, Ongoing social workers had caseloads exceeding the average monthly caseload by 10%. Some social workers carried caseloads 20% and even 30% higher than the average monthly caseload. (FA-04, FA-12, FA-14, FA-15, FA-16) Impact of Hiring Social Workers on Average Caseloads C-08. It is unclear investments in social worker staffing between 2014 and 2016 have resulted in HSA managing reasonable caseloads. Despite an increase in the number of ER social workers and a seven year decline in the number of cases, average caseloads in 2016 significantly exceeded standards suggested by the Council on Accreditation as well as those determined by HSA. (FA-07, FA-13, FA-17, FA-18, FA-19) Recommendations R-01. Despite the difficulty defining and ensuring ideal caseloads, the Grand Jury recommends HSA intensify its efforts to establish realistic workload standards for child welfare social workers. Ideally, clearly defined standards should be included in the next union agreement. (C-02, C-03, C- 04, C-05, C-06, C-07) R-02. The Grand Jury recommends HSA improves its statistical analysis avoiding dependency on averages which can mask excessive caseloads. (C-01) R-03. The Grand Jury recommends HSA determines why, despite increased hiring and a multi-year decline in child welfare caseloads, average caseloads for social workers remain over what the agency considers ideal. (C-08) Responses Responses Requested From: County of Ventura Human Services Agency, Children and Family Services (C-01, C-02, C-03, C-04, C-05, C-06, C-07, C-08, R-01, R-02, R-03) References Ref-01. 2016-2017 Ventura County Grand Jury. Ventura County Children and Family Services. May 18, 2017. http://vcportal.ventura.org/GDJ/docs/reports/2016- 17/Ventura_County_Children_and_Family_Services_4.27.2017.pdf Accessed on January 26, 2018. Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Ref-02. Council on Accreditation. CPS 14.05 A manageable workload… http://coanet.org/standard/cps/14/ Accessed on January 26, 2018. Attachments Att-01. Social Worker Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideals Att-02. Social Worker Caseloads 10% Over Average Caseloads Att-03. Caseload Standards for ER Social Workers Att-04. Caseload Standards for Ongoing Social Workers Att-05. Social Worker Caseload Trends Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 7 Glossary TERM DEFINITION County County of Ventura ER social workers Emergency Response Child Welfare Social Workers FTE Full Time Equivalent Grand Jury 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand Jury HSA County of Ventura, Human Services Agency MOA Memorandum of Agreement Ongoing social workers Ongoing Child Welfare Social Workers SEIU Service Employees International Union 8 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 01 Social Worker Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideals Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 9 ER Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideal 80% 60% la e d 40% I fo e g 20% a t n e c 0% r e P -20% -40% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 Ongoing Caseloads Over/Under HSA Ideal 30% 25% la e d 20% I fo e g a 15% t n e c 10% r e P 5% 0% Jan Feb M ar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 201 6 Note: 0% represents HSA ideal 10 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 02 Social Worker Caseloads 10% Over Average Caseloads Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 11 E R Ca selo ads >10% of Average 40% % 35% 0 1 > s d 30% a o le 25% s a C 20% fo e 15% g a t n 10% e c r e 5% P 0% Jan Feb M ar Ap r May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20 16 Ongoing Caseloads >10% of Average 25% % 0 1 20% > s d a o le 15% s a C fo e 10% g a t n e c 5% r e P 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 Note: 0% represents 10% or less of average caseloads 12 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 03 Caseload Standards for ER Social Workers Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 13 Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- ER Social Workers Caseload Standards 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 374 466 482 490 510 432 FTE 36 34.2 34.2 32.2 29 27.4 Average Monthly Caseload 10 14 14 15 18 16 HSA Standard 13 13 13 13 13 13 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard -20% 5% 8% 17% 35% 21% Council on Accreditation Standard 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard -13% 14% 17% 27% 47% 31% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 11 9 13 3 0 1 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 31% 26% 38% 9% 0% 4% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 11 9 2 3 0 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 31% 26% 6% 9% 0% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 2 1 1 0 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 6% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 358 443 541 473 396 357 FTE 25 25 24 27.4 27.4 28.9 Average Monthly Caseload 14 18 23 17 14 12 HSA Standard 13 13 13 13 13 13 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 10% 36% 73% 33% 11% -5% Council on Accreditation Standard 12 12 12 12 12 12 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 19% 48% 88% 44% 20% 3% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 3 5 10 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 11% 18% 35% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 5 6 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 21% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 1 5 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 17% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 4 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 14 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 04 Caseload Standards for Ongoing Social Workers Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 15 Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Ongoing Child Welfare Social Workers 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 502 494 481 489 481 495 FTE 25.2 24.2 24.8 25.2 23.6 23 Average Monthly Caseload 20 20 19 19 20 22 HSA Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 11% 13% 8% 8% 13% 20% Council on Accreditation Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 11% 13% 8% 8% 13% 20% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 5 2 4 5 3 1 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 20% 8% 16% 20% 13% 4% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 3 1 3 4 2 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 12% 4% 12% 16% 8% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 0 1 1 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- 16 16 16 16 16 16 Referrals 470 485 467 467 453 455 FTE 20.6 22.95 20.7 20.7 21.25 21.35 Average Monthly Caseload 23 21 23 23 21 21 HSA Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under HSA Standard 27% 17% 25% 25% 18% 18% Council on Accreditation Standard 18 18 18 18 18 18 Percent Over/Under Council on Accreditation Standard 27% 17% 25% 25% 18% 18% Social Workers >10% over Average Caseload 0 4 2 2 0 0 Percentage >10% over Average Caseload 0% 17% 10% 10% 0% 0% Social Workers 20% over Average Caseload 0 2 1 1 0 0 Percentage 20% over Average Caseload 0% 9% 5% 5% 0% 0% Social Workers 30% over Average Caseload 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percentage 30% over Average Caseload 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% Social Workers 40% over Average Caseload 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage 40% over Average Caseload 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Attachment 05 Social Worker Caseload Trends Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 17 Social Worker Caseload Trends Ongoing 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* Average Effective FTEs 22.6 25.5 26.4 25.6 28.3 22.8 21.6 Caseload 577 652 596 650 532 466 451 Average Caseload 25.7 25.6 22.6 25.8 18.9 20.5 20.9 Emergency Response 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017* Average Effective FTEs 27 28 27 22 34 39 30 Caseload 512 490 403 394 425 442 411 Average Caseload 19.4 17.3 14.7 18.2 12.7 15.6 13.9 *Through July 2017 HSA ideal caseloads: Ongoing social workers = 18 ER social workers = 13 18 Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads Child Welfare Social Worker Caseloads 19
Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.