EL DORADO COUNTY

2005 - 2006

GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT

June 30, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter to Judge Phimister

Letter from the Honorable Judge Phimister

Grand Jury Members

Notice to Respondents

REPORTS

COMMENDATION REPORT INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT ................... 1

REPORTS & RESPONSE REVIEW GRAND JURY INTERNAL REPORT......................................... 3

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT HIRING PROCESS................................................................ 5

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT EXECUTIVE WELLNESS PROGRAM ............................... 7

EL DORADO COUNTY COMMISSION ON AGING.......................................................................... 11

EL DORADO COUNTY COURT SECURITY...................................................................................... 15

EL DORADO COUNTY JAILS/ JUVENILE HALLS ........................................................................... 19

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BUILDING .................................................................................. 21

Internal Investigation

COUNTY LEASED BUILDINGS EXPENDITURE ............................................................................. 25

Internal Investigation

PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES ........................................................................................... 33

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED 2005- 2006 REPORTS

Mid- Year Report, January 4, 2006, and Board of Supervisor’s Responses

GJ05- 027 Mid- Term Report, May 9, 2006

GRAND JURY MEMBERS 2005- 2006

Doug Clough, Foreman 07/ 01/ 05 - 05/ 11/ 06

Donald R. Brooks, Foreman 05/ 12/ 06 - 06/ 30/ 06

Iris K. Capriola

Rita Clayton

Peri Curry

Mary Ann Dante

Fran DelGizzi

Van Dossey

Fredrick ( Fritz) Engel

Michael J. Johnson

Floyd Knapp

Lorrainne McLaughlin

Michael Powell

Ivonne Ramos Richardson

Teresa Stapleton

Loren Theodore

Rene ( Ray) Van Asten

Harlan J. Yelland

Former Members:

Michael Crowley

Karen Eller

Colleen Young 07/ 01/ 05 – 03/ 31/ 06

Grand Jury Recording Secretary as of 04/ 01/ 06:

Colleen Young

NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS

Penal Code Section 933.05. Responses to findings

( a) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the

responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:

( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.

( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which

case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed

and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.

( b) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation,

the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:

( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding

the implemented action.

( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be

implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.

( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis; with an explanation and

the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the

matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or

department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of

the public agency when applicable. The timeframe shall not exceed six

months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.

( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not

warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

( c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or

personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both

the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by

the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those

budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The

response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the

findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.

( d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the

purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that

person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.

( e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation

regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon

request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be

detrimental.

( f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury

report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and

after the approval of the advising judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing

body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public

release of the final report.

COMMENDATION REPORT

INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT

GJ05- 059

The Information Technologies ( IT) Department was investigated by the 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury

and also the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury. Findings and recommendations were somewhat similar in

both reports.

In September, 2005, El Dorado County hired a new IT Director, Ms. Jacqueline Nilius, to lead

that department. Her background included both public and private management experience with

Orange County and IBM. Shortly after being hired, Ms. Nilius began meeting with the Grand

Jury IT Committee to address issues and follow up on recommendations raised in the

aforementioned reports.

She put practices in place to correct deficiencies, and made presentations to the Board of

Supervisors to apprise them of her business plans. She made structural changes in job

responsibilities and reporting relationships, resulting in a more cohesive work environment.

The results of her efforts have created a much more positive work experience for staff, and a

direction and focus that was lacking in the past.

Special mention should be made of the department’s ongoing cooperative spirit in assisting the

Grand Jury Committees in publication challenges and media selection. Each time we

experienced a problem, IT quickly responded to our requests.

Therefore, the 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury would like to commend the IT Department for their

attention to detail in addressing problems cited in prior Final Reports.

1

BLANK PAGE

2

REPORTS & RESPONSE REVIEW

GRAND JURY INTERNAL REPORT

GJ05- 056

Reason for Report

The 2005- 06 Grand Jury created the Reports & Response Review Committee to follow up on

past responses from the Board of Supervisors. In some of the past responses, the term, “ The

recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,” or, “ The

recommendation requires further analysis” was used. These responses do not follow the penal

code mandated format of responding. The Jury contacted the Office of the Chief Administrator

and requested meetings to review past reports to encourage County Departments to place

timeframes on responses, as prescribed by the penal code. The following past reports were

reviewed:

FY 2003- 2004 Report

• Regarding the expansion of the current Animal Control facility in South Lake Tahoe, the

report now states that the expansion and correction to any infraction cited by the Grand

Jury is anticipated to be completed in the fall of 2007. A total of six recommendations

failing to comply with the penal code requirements were cited.

• The General Services Department will evaluate options for window upgrades and a

selection will be implemented by fall of 2006.

• The Material Recovery Facility responded to two ( 2) Findings and Recommendations.

These were addressed and have been implemented. No follow- up is necessary at this

time.

FY 2004- 2005 Report

• South Lake Tahoe Mental Health facility responded to four ( 4) Findings and

Recommend- ations. Roof and gutters, as well as heat and air circulation, have been

addressed and implemented. ADA compliant problems of the building will be addressed

by moving this department to new facilities. Anticipated move is to be completed by fall

of 2008.

Other responses are being studied. The Grand Jury in cooperation with the Chief Administrative

Office has initiated a follow- up procedure to track responses that require a timeframe for

implementation.

Commendation

The Grand Jury wishes to thank the Board of Supervisors and the CAO for their help in initiating

this Reports & Response Review tracking system. Future Grand Juries will continue to track the

necessary responses to insure the proper responses as per the penal code.

3

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

HIRING PROCESS

GJ 05- 029

Reason for the Report

The 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the hiring, by the El Dorado Irrigation

District ( EID), of a high level employee with an alleged criminal background. This matter was

reported locally in the newspaper.

Background

EID had a procedure in place requiring prospective employees to fill out an application. This

procedure was not followed in this case.

Scope of the Investigation

People Interviewed

• None

Documents Reviewed

• Copies of newspaper articles

• Employment agreements between the employee and EID

• Job description of affected employee’s position

• Current employment packet for new applicants to EID

• Letter from EID Counsel

Facts

1. In January 2004, an agreement was entered into by EID and the employee to perform the

duties of Human Resources Director.

2. In June 2005 the employee’s alleged criminal past came to light and he was placed on

administrative leave while the matter was investigated by EID.

3. In June 2005, the employee and EID entered into a new agreement for the employee to

resign as Human Resources Director and to assume the duties of Assistant to the General

Manager.

• The new duties were to perform organizational analysis and other duties as

assigned by the General Manager

• The employee has no supervisory duties and no district employees report to him

5

Findings/ Recommendations

1F. Finding: By EID’s own admission, in a letter dated November 7, 2005, they failed to follow

their own procedure for a completed employment application in the hiring of the employee in

question.

1R. Recommendation: Training of department managers to ensure compliance with

established procedures.

2F. Finding: New procedures have been put in place for a completed employment application,

as well as a full background check, on all new employees. Applicants must also sign a

Certification of Information/ Release when filing an application for employment.

2R1. Recommendation: Clearly establish a central repository in Human Resources for

all employment applications filed with EID

2R2. Recommendation: Periodic review of all applications to ensure procedures are

followed by all department managers.

A response is required by the El Dorado Irrigation District within sixty ( 60) days. See Table of

Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”

6

EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

EXECUTIVE WELLNESS PROGRAM

GJ05- 028

Reason for the Report

On October 24, 2005 the Grand Jury received a complaint concerning the implementation of the

Executive Wellness Program ( EWP), also known as the Management Wellness Program of the

El Dorado Irrigation District ( EID).

Scope of the Investigation

People Interviewed:

• General Manager of EID

• Employee of EID

Documents Reviewed:

• E- mails:

July 12, 2004 from Human Resources Director to EID Board of Directors and

Department Heads

July 12, 2004 from Human Resources Director to EID Board of Directors

July 19, 2004 from Human Resources Director to Payroll Clerk

July 28, 2004 from employee to EID Counsel

• EID Website

• Memorandum from employee to EID General Manager, May 10, 2004

• Letter from CPA to Human Resources Director, August 2, 2004

• Letter from EID General Manager to Grand Jury, December 23, 2005

• Letter from EID General Manager to Grand Jury, February 28, 2006

• Government Code Section 53200

Background

A health insurance plan for EID employees was in effect from 1980 with revisions made in 1983

and 1994. Prior to July 2004 the Board of Directors received “ cash- in- lieu” benefits for medical

expenses.

The EWP, also known as Management Wellness Program, was implemented on July 1, 2004. It

provides benefits up to $ 5,000 annually for medical, dental, vision and healthcare costs and

expenses incurred that are not covered by an insurance plan. This applies only to the Board of

Directors, General Manager, General Counsel, Department Heads, Assistant Department Heads,

their spouses and their dependents.

An additional $ 250 ( an all employee benefit) is provided, if the eligible EWP member belongs to

a health club.

7

Also, paid administrative leave for the management group was increased to 80 hours ( from an

unknown base) in addition to vacation and holiday time.

This EWP was initiated by and under the authority of the General Manager and the then Human

Resources Director.

Facts:

1. The General Manager and the Director of Human Resources made an executive decision

to initiate this EWP.

2. An e- mail notice sent on July 12, 2004, stated that the EWP was retroactively

implemented on July 1, 2004. Reimbursements under the Program are subject to Section

105 of the Internal Revenue Code.

3. No written notice was given to the Board of Directors and no discussions were held with

the Board before this announcement.

4. The Grand Jury requested copies of minutes regarding this program and was informed by

the General Manager that no minutes existed.

5. No written records exist regarding the criteria or codification of the EWP.

6. In response to an inquiry of the EID Human Resources Director, a certified public

accountant ( CPA), in a letter dated August 2, 2004, stated the following:

“ I researched the discrimination rules for ‘ self funded’ insurance

plans. Section 105 of the IRC states a self- insured health plan may

not discriminate in favor of certain individuals and must satisfy

certain ‘ nondiscriminatory rules’ which include covering 70% of the

total employees or make at least 70% of employees eligible to

participate, provided 80% if those eligible actually participate; or

cover a classification of employees that the IRS finds does not

discriminate in favor of ‘ highly compensated individuals.’ For

purposes of applying for these tests, the El Dorado Irrigation

District‘ s proposed plan did not qualify under these rules.

Consequently any benefits payable to any individuals under the

proposed plan would be deemed discriminatory and therefore taxed

to the individuals. Research of current revenue rulings and other

associated regulations failed to yield an allowable exception to the

above law.”

7. When the EWP policy was initiated no source of funding was identified.

8. During the same time frame, employees were asked to give up raises for 2 years and rate

payers were billed for rate increases in both January, 2005 and January, 2006.

8

9. The General Manager had the authority to approve expenditures of up to $ 50,000

annually without Board approval.

10. The maximum cost of the EWP was estimated not to exceed $ 60,000.

Findings/ Recommendations:

1F. Finding: The EID General Manager violated district administrative procedures that has a

$ 50,000 limitation by implementing a benefit program exceeding approved expenditure

guidelines.

1Ra. Recommendation: The EWP should be formally brought before the Board of

Directors for public hearing and vote.

1Rb. Recommendation: In the future, all employee benefit plans, including

management’s, should be presented before the Board of Directors for public hearing and

vote.

1Rc. Recommendation: Suspend the $ 5,000 EWP benefit until an independent audit

determines the legality under IRS guidelines.

2F. Finding: The criteria utilized for benefit coverage under the EWP is very broad in terms of

eligibility, dependents and coverage.

2Ra. Recommendation: Define specific criteria for those activities eligible for

reimbursement.

2Rb. Recommendation: Specifically define what constitutes a dependent.

3F. Finding: No requirement exists for certification of a medical condition and related expenses

not covered by an insurance plan.

3R. Recommendation: Certification should be required from a physician for

reimbursement of expenses eligible under the EWP.

4F. Finding: The practice of giving Board of Directors “ cash- in- lieu” benefits prior to

07- 01- 2004 appears to be illegal.

4R. Recommendation: An audit must be conducted by an independent agency to

determine the legality of the “ cash- in- lieu” program.

A response is required by the El Dorado Irrigation District within sixty ( 60) days. See Table of

Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”

9

BLANK PAGE

10

EL DORADO COUNTY COMMISSION ON AGING

GJ05- 022

Reason for the Report

The El Dorado County Grand Jury received a complaint regarding a meeting of the Commission

on Aging, on November 18, 2004, wherein a violation of The Brown Act is alleged to have

occurred.

Scope of the Investigation

People Interviewed

• Commission on Aging Members

Documents Reviewed

• Meeting Agenda for November 18, 2004

• Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2004

• California Government Code Sections 54950- 54963

o The Brown Act

• Meeting Minutes and Agendas for random months

o November 2004

o August 2005

o September 2005

o October 2005

o November 2005

Background

The Commission on Aging is an advisory body to the Department of Human Services and the El

Dorado County Board of Supervisors, regarding programs administered by the Department of

Human Services.

The Commission on Aging meets monthly to conduct business. Agendas are posted to inform the

public of the time, place, and subject matter. Minutes of the meeting are published.

During the meeting of November 18, 2004 a member of the Commission suggested that they

adjourn to closed session. According to testimony they did adjourn to a closed session and

excluded members of the public.

The Agenda did not include that a closed session was planned at that particular meeting. The

Minutes reflect that a closed session was held; however, no synopsis of the discussion was

posted.

Testimony also indicates that the Commission routinely asks members of the public in

attendance to identify themselves and whom they represent.

11

As a sanctioned Commission of El Dorado County, the Commission on Aging is covered by

California Government Code Sections 54950- 54963. These sections are known as The Brown

Act and cover what is allowed and how meetings must be conducted, and to insure full public

disclosure.

The following sections are a summary of the legislation wording.

Section 54954 ( a) in summary states that if an advisory committee or standing committee posts

an agenda at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting the meeting shall be considered as a

regular meeting of the legislative body for purposes of The Brown Act.

Section 54954.2 ( a) in summary states that the agenda must be posted at least 72 hours before a

regular meeting and must contain a brief general description of each item of business to be

transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. The

only exceptions to the requirement of posting agenda items are: “( 1) Emergency situations, ( 2)

Two- thirds vote of the body determines there is need for immediate action and the item came to

their attention after the posting of the agenda, and ( 3) The item was posted for a prior meeting

and the meeting was not more than five calendar days prior and the item was continued to the

meeting where action is being taken”.

Section 54957.1 ( a) in summary requires a public report of any action taken in closed session

and the vote or abstention of every member present. If no action is taken the minutes should

reflect that fact.

Section 54953.5 ( a) in summary states that a member of the public shall not be required, as a

condition of attendance, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a

questionnaire, or otherwise fulfill any obligation precedent to his or her attendance

Section 54960.1 In summary, by subsections, lists penalties regarding violations of The Brown

Act.

Facts

1. On November 18, 2004 at a regular meeting of the Commission on Aging a closed

session was held.

2. This closed session had not been properly noticed as required by The Brown Act.

3. The Minutes reflect that a closed session was held, however, no indication as to the

subject matter discussed was recorded.

4. Members of the public in attendance at Commission on Aging meetings are routinely

asked to identify themselves.

12

Findings/ Recommendations

1F. Finding: The members of the Commission on Aging are not well versed in the requirements

and penalties of The Brown Act.

1R. Recommendation: Members of the Commission on Aging be issued copies of The

Brown Act to be read and applied.

2F. Finding: On November 18, 2004 the Commission on Aging went into closed session without

prior public notice on the Agenda. Government Code Section 54954.2 ( a) grants exception

where a body may go into closed session without notice, however, none of the exceptions were

met in this instance.

2R. Recommendation: Future closed sessions should strictly adhere to the provision of

the law.

3F. Finding: Minutes of the November 18, 2004 meeting reflect the closed session, however, no

synopsis of the item discussed was recorded.

3R. Recommendation: Amend the Minutes of the November 18, 2004 meeting to reflect

the item discussed and the result.

4F. Finding: The Commission on Aging does not hold closed sessions often. This is supported

by testimony and review of Agendas.

4R1. Recommendation: Protocol be put into place to ensure new members, when

appointed, receive proper training and a copy of The Brown Act.

4R2. Recommendation: Support staff must become familiar with The Brown Act to

ensure that proper posting and notification of closed sessions is provided in public

documents.

5F. Finding: The Commission on Aging routinely asks people in the audience to identify

themselves and whom they represent.

5R. Recommendation: The Commission on Aging require identification only from those

persons addressing the Commission as a whole on a specific matter.

A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of

Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”

13

BLANK PAGE

14

EL DORADO COUNTY COURT SECURITY

GJ05- 032

Reason for the Report

The Grand Jury received a citizen complaint regarding the security provided for the Superior

Courts in El Dorado County. Upon investigation, the Grand Jury believes that the security needs

to be improved. In addition, budgetary accounting from the County for the security provided is

not detailed and does not fully substantiate payment requests.

Scope of the Investigation

During jury year 2005- 2006, members of the Grand Jury made visits to all the court facilities in

El Dorado County.

People Interviewed:

• El Dorado County Sheriff

• Various Sheriff Department Employees

• Sheriff Sergeant In Charge Of Court Security

• Superior Court Executive Officer

• Various Superior Court Employees

Documents Reviewed:

• 2001- 2002 Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between Court and Sheriff

• Draft of 2006- 2007 MOU

Buildings Inspected:

• 2850 Fairlane Court, Bldg. C, Placerville

• 495 Main Street, Placerville

• 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe

• 3321 Cameron Park Dr., Cameron Park

Background

The employees of the Superior Courts of El Dorado County are State employees. Many of the

court’s support services are provided by El Dorado County. Court security is provided by the El

Dorado County Sheriff’s Department. The court buildings are owned by El Dorado County,

although they are to be turned over to the State in the future. Security is contractually

documented in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the Court and the Sheriff.

While the most recent MOU expired in 2002, service has continued with all requirements and

pricing handled without a contract. A new MOU is being developed for FY 2006/ 2007. This

MOU draft specifies a fixed amount to be paid by the court.

15

Department 7 is located downstairs in County Building C and has a metal detector, but the

detector is only functional while court is in session. The unscreened access beyond the metal

detector is still accessible when court is closed. A weapon could be hidden in this area while

court is closed and then retrieved later while court is in session.

Department 7 has two small holding areas, one each for men and women. These areas are often

loaded beyond their capacity.

Department 8 is located on the ground floor of County Building C and has no metal detector for

screening court entry. Department 8 is not a criminal court, but does have family court and traffic

court hearings, both potentially volatile situations.

The Court and the Sheriff’s Department both wish to improve security in Departments 7 and 8.

This would require relocating the metal detection unit upstairs to service both courts. It would

also require limiting downstairs access near Department 7 to prevent off- hour access. These

efforts have been rebuffed by the county because it would be a hindrance to other county

departments and/ or citizens who do business in building C.

Departments 3, 4, 11, and 12 are co- located in South Lake Tahoe. Departments 3 and 4 are

criminal courts, without a holding cell. Prisoners enter through employee hallways and often

must remain in public or employee hallways ( albeit with a Sheriff) until called to court.

Facts

1. MOU for court security expired 2002

2. 2006/ 2007 MOU calls for fixed dollar amount to be paid

3. Departments 7 and 8 are in County Building C, which was never built to be a court

4. Holding area in Department 7 is often over- crowded

5. Department 8 has no metal screening

6. Courts in South Lake Tahoe do not have a holding area

Findings/ Recommendations

1F. Finding: Memorandum of Understanding for court security specifies a fixed dollar amount

for the year with some provision for changes.

1R. Recommendation: All payment requests from the Sheriff for court security should

be based on the actual hours the Sheriff spent on court security. Time keeping reports

should be provided detailing all hours and other expenditures.

16

2F. Finding: Both the Sheriff and Court management agree that security for Departments 7 and

8 needs to be improved. Failure to do so exposes the Court employees and Court clients to

unnecessary risk.

2R. Recommendation: Immediately relocate the metal detector in Building C to provide

screening of both Departments 7 and 8. Install gates to close off court areas when in

recess.

3F. Finding: South Lake Tahoe does not have a holding cell.

3R. Recommendation: Provide a holding cell in South Lake Tahoe court.

4F. Finding: The west slope courts are located in logistically diverse locations, in buildings that

are not suited for the issues that a 21st century court must face.

4R. Recommendation: Aggressively pursue consolidating the west slope courts into a

new, single facility, co- located with the county jail. Identify County and State funding required

to move forward quickly.

A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of

Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”

17

BLANK PAGE

18

EL DORADO COUNTY JAILS/ JUVENILE HALLS

GJ05- 060

Reason for the Report

Per Penal Code § 919( b) members of the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury inspected the correctional

facilities located within the boundaries of the county.

Scope of the Inspection

Members of the Grand Jury made a physical visit to each facility. All accessible areas were

toured.

• At the Jails and Juvenile Halls, Managers and Supervisory Staff briefed Grand Jury

members on the operations and conducted tours.

• Explanations were given for:

1. Staffing levels.

2. Programs in each facility.

3. Future expansion plans

Background

With the exception of the South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Hall all facilities are aging and, for the

most part, are well maintained. ( Exceptions noted under findings)

Outside agencies, such as U. S. Marshals, will house prisoners on as needed basis in the County

Jails. Alpine County contracts with El Dorado County for jail services.

A contract nurse is on duty and a doctor is on call at all Jail and Juvenile Hall facilities. A

contract dentist provides emergency dental care on premises.

Food at all facilities is provided by on premise kitchen staff as well as inmate workers. The

menus are varied and provide necessary nutritional value. The facilities are inspected on a

regular basis for compliance with applicable health codes. Staff receives periodic training to

insure proper food handling.

Facts

1. Employees at each facility are well trained and appear to enjoy their jobs.

2. Supervisory staff at each facility encourages employee participation in resolving

problems encountered in the workplace.

3. El Dorado County Jail in Placerville was visited April 3, 2006. No adverse conditions

were observed.

4. El Dorado County Juvenile Hall in Placerville was visited March 13, 2006. No adverse

conditions were observed.

19

5. El Dorado County Juvenile Hall in South Lake Tahoe was visited May 4, 2006. No

adverse conditions observed.

Findings/ Recommendations

1F. Finding: El Dorado County Jail in South Lake Tahoe was visited May 4, 2006. It

was noted that the carpet in the control room is frayed.

1R. Recommendation: Inspect all carpeted areas and repair/ replace carpeting as needed.

COMMENDATION

May 25, 2006, the Grand Jury toured the Growlersburg Conservation Camp located in

Georgetown. This facility is to be commended for their on- site program. The facility is jointly

run by the CA Department of Corrections and CA Department of Forestry.

A garden provides a large number of fresh vegetables for inmates throughout the growing season

that saves a substantial amount of budget monies.

The wood shop constructs furniture for governmental agencies on a cost of materials basis. The

quality of work is excellent. The wood shop manages to continue running despite recent budget

cuts. This shows a dedication by staff to have a meaningful program in place for inmates.

A response is required by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors within ninety

( 90) days. See Table of Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”

20

DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BUILDING

Internal Investigation

GJ05- 057

Reason for the Report

The Grand Jury visited and inspected buildings in the county that were built prior to 1950.

After inspecting the buildings located at 515 & 525 Main Street in Placerville, it was determined

that the Office of the District Attorney, housed at the above addresses, required further attention.

Scope of the Investigation

Members of the Grand Jury toured the District Attorney’s Office by appointment on October 13,

2005. We were given a history of the building and briefed on the operations of the District

Attorney’s office.

People Interviewed:

• District Attorney Personnel

• Court Executive Officer

• Court Operations Managers

• Administrative Personnel

• General Services Personnel

Documents Reviewed:

• Prior Grand Jury Reports regarding the District Attorney’s Office Building

• Letters between the Grand Jury and CAL OSHA regarding the condition of the

District Attorney’s Office Building

• General Service’s Interdepartmental Memo

• Board of Supervisor’s Agendas, May 22 and June 12, 2001 regarding the District

Attorney's Office Building

Background

The building which houses the District Attorney’s Office is one of historical significance. It was

first built and used as a Post Office.

To enter the District Attorney’s Office one must walk up several stairs to the door. There is no

sign advising citizens with disabilities how to enter the building. Upon entering the office it is

apparent that space is limited and that employees have outgrown the space allotted to them. The

aisles are congested with boxes of files. The lighting in the main “ support staff” area is dated,

yellowed and does not appear to give sufficient light to the employees. Most employees have

additional lighting on their desks. Numerous fans throughout the office are used by the personnel

to cool and move the stale air.

21

The basement of the District Attorney’s Office at 515 Main Street was flooded on October 9,

2000, resulting in a mold problem; all mold has been removed at great expense. The Board of

Supervisors issued an action item in June, 2001 that stated employees could not work

permanently in this area. This level is used for storage, a conference room, a photo enlargement

room, IT work area, and a make- shift workout area with shower. There is no elevator to this area.

It is dark, damp and the air smells musty.

Clearly this building has served the community well in the past, but it is no longer able to

comply to certain codes ( i. e. fire sprinklers, ADA) and it would not be wise to spend money to

retrofit the building into compliance, or to try to expand office space into the basement.

Facts

1. 515 Main Street is an old building that is of historic significance.

2. There is no sign at the street entrance directing persons with disabilities to enter at the

rear of the building.

3. Parking is insufficient for current as well as future needs.

4. The employees of 515 Main Street are allowed to use only the main floor for office

space.

5. There is insufficient room for the current staff with no room for growth.

6. Aisles are congested with boxes for storage.

7. Old PC hardware is stored in numerous areas, under desks and on file cabinets.

8. Lighting in the support area is inadequate.

9. Due to the age of the building, overhead fire sprinklers are not legally required; however,

there are important, original, irreplaceable documents and evidence that can be destroyed

in the event of a fire.

10. As of the date of our inspection fire drills had not occurred, although procedures are in

place.

11. Ceiling tiles at the main level are water stained from either current or previous roof leaks.

12. Repairs to the lower level of the office building will not solve the myriad of other

significant deficiencies.

13. There is no elevator between floors in the building.

14. The ceiling in conference room in the lower level is peeling and does not appear to have

been repaired since the Grand Jury report of 2002/ 2003 first reported the problem.

15. Mold was visible in the shower and on the shower curtain in the “ workout” area.

16. On June 11, 2001, the Board of Supervisors for El Dorado County found that “ the

basement space is inadequate for the District Attorney’s staff . . . including space needs

and inability to fully comply with the requirements of the ADA.”

17. DA Investigators are housed in a separate building, 525 Main Street, creating workplace

inefficiencies.

22

Findings/ Recommendations

1F. Finding: The District Attorney and staff have outgrown their office space.

1R. Recommendation: Relocate the District Attorney and his office staff into one office

facility.

2F. Finding: 515 & 525 Main Street are not suitable for any tenancy in their` current condition.

2R. Recommendation: Renovate these buildings if required for future county use.

Commentary:

To our knowledge there is no long range plan to build a new facility that would accommodate

the District Attorney and other related offices. The County owns properties that could

accommodate such a structure combined with a new, efficient and modern Justice Center for the

DA and other related county departments. See Grand Jury Report regarding leased facilities.

A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within sixty ( 60) days. See Table of

Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”

23

BLANK PAGE

24

COUNTY LEASED BUILDINGS EXPENDITURE

Internal Investigation

GJ05- 055

Reason for the Report

El Dorado County government offices are housed in both county owned and county leased

properties. The County pays over $ 2.2 million a year on leased properties. El Dorado County

continues to unnecessarily lease, rather than own, facilities for county departments. The County

should aggressively replace leased facilities with owned facilities.

Scope of the Investigation

Discussions and Interviews with:

• CAO

• General Services personnel

• Auditor and various personnel

• Members of the Board of Supervisors

Documents Reviewed:

• El Dorado County Leased Facilities, rev. 08- 24- 05

• Building Rents and Leases Spreadsheet

• General Services Proposed Capital Improvement Plan, rev. 01- 30- 06

• Rental Expenses: FY05 MS Excel Spreadsheet

Background

El Dorado County spent over $ 2.2 million on real estate leases in FY2005.

El Dorado County has grown enormously over the past 10 years and will continue to grow. With

growth comes the need to increase county services. New personnel require an expanded as well

as a safe and adequate workplace.

County citizens are currently paying tax dollars to lease buildings, when their tax dollars could

be going toward buildings the county would eventually own.

The County leases certain office space due to program reimbursements from local, State and

Federal Governments. Most county health department offices are in leased facilities. There is a

misconception that funding sources would be lost if these departments were housed in county

owned buildings.

For the benefit of county residents, a current list of the departments housed in leased facilities is

attached to this report.

25

Facts

1. The County paid the following approximate sums for leasing these facilities in FY2005:

a. $ 175,000 to house the Department of Transportation in South Lake Tahoe

b. $ 96,000 to house a satellite office to the Building Department in El Dorado Hills

c. $ 86,000 to lease space for the Probation Department, 471 Pierroz Road, Placerville

d. $ 79,000 to house the office of the Public Defender in Placerville

e. $ 68,000 to house the Sheriff’s detectives in Diamond Springs

f. $ 40,000 to house the Department of Transportation in El Dorado Hills

g. $ 23,900 to lease space for the D. A. Victim Witness/ MDIC at 550 Main Street,

Placerville

h. $ 13,755 a year to lease space for a Law Library at 550 Main Street, Placerville

2. Many Governmental health programs will reimburse the County for office space in

County owned buildings as well as in County leased buildings.

3. The County has issued bonds in the past to purchase buildings or land.

Findings/ Recommendations

1F. Finding: The County spends in excess of $ 2,000,000 per year on real estate leases.

1R. Recommendation: The County should purchase land and build facilities for

permanent long term use.

2F. Finding: The County currently builds facilities or acquires property on a cash basis.

2R. Recommendation: The County pursue various creative financing options to

accelerate acquisition of property and to build facilities, i. e., lease options, land swaps,

bonds, lease revenue bonds, County Developer Partnerships, etc.

3F. Finding: It is a misconception by various county officials that the County would lose

program reimbursed funds if they were housed in a County owned facility.

3Ra. Recommendation: Analyze program contracts/ agreements to determine financial

impact of owning versus leasing.

3Rb. Recommendation: Educate senior county managers regarding specific program

reimbursement of funds for leased and owned buildings.

A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of

Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”

26

El Dorado County Leased Facilities

Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS

FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 9,056 04/ 01/ 97 0.976 $ 106,105.68

3057 Briw Road, Suite B 03/ 31/ 04

Placerville, CA 95667

HUMAN SERVICES 29,819 01/ 01/ 96 1.004 $ 359,216.88

3057 Briw Road, Suite A 12/ 31/ 02

Placerville, CA 95667

LAW LIBRARY 1,667 10/ 01/ 00 0.688 $ 13,755.00

550 Main Street 09/ 30/ 05

Placerville, CA 95667

COMM. SER/ CARE SERVICES 5,340 09/ 15/ 02 1.227 $ 78,654.48

Office Space 09/ 14/ 05

630 Main Street

Placerville, CA 95667

HEALTH DEPARTMENT 960 09/ 01/ 00 1.223 $ 14,093.28

Health Promotions 08/ 31/ 03

941 Spring Street, # 7

Placerville, CA 95667

HEALTH DEPARTMENT 3,060 01/ 01/ 00 0.961 $ 35,271.48

EMS/ Ambulance Billing 12/ 31/ 02

415 Placerville Drive, Suites J, K & L

Placerville, CA 95667

HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1,320 06/ 15/ 02 0.935 $ 14,810.52

Vital Statistics 05/ 31/ 05

415 Placerville Drive, Suites M & N

Placerville, CA 95667

HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1,320 09/ 01/ 03 1.000 $ 15,840.00

Health Promotions 08/ 31/ 06

415 Placerville Dr., Suites S & T

Placerville , CA 95667

HEALTH DEPARTMENT 660 09/ 20/ 02 0.913 $ 7,227.84

Health Promotions 09/ 19/ 05

415 Placerville Drive, Suite R

Placerville, CA 95667

SO STAR PROGRAM 1,253 01/ 01/ 05 n/ a n/ a

6051 Gold Hill Road 12/ 31/ 08

Placerville, CA 95667

27

Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS

FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually

MENTAL HEALTH/ Admin. 7,567 06/ 01/ 98 1.014 $ 92,034.00

344 Placerville Drive 05/ 31/ 03

Suites 12- 18 & 20

Placerville, CA 95667

MENTAL HEALTH 1,162 11/ 01/ 00 1.025 $ 14,288.16

344 Placerville Drive 10/ 31/ 03

Suite 11

Placerville, CA 95667

MENTAL HEALTH 3,700 05/ 01/ 96 1.000 $ 44,218.44

Day Treatment Program 04/ 30/ 01

2808 Mallard Lane

Placerville, CA 95667

D. A. VICTIM WITNESS/ MDIC 1,460 09/ 01/ 04 1.250 $ 23,900.04

550 Main Street, Suite H

Placerville, CA 95667

HUMAN SERVICES 1,838 04/ 01/ 99 1.237 $ 27,273.84

JOB ONE PROGRAM 02/ 28/ 06

4535 Missouri Flat Rd., Suite 1A

Placerville, CA 95667

SHERIFF'S OUTREACH 1,004 09/ 15/ 04 1.550 $ 18,674.40

El Dorado Hills Sub- Station 09/ 14/ 07

981 Governor Drive, Suite 104

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762

SHERIFF'S OUTREACH shared 12/ 01/ 03 n/ a n/ a

Pollock Pines Sub- Station space 11/ 30/ 08

6430 Pony Express Trail

Pollock Pines, CA 95726

S. O. WNET TASK FORCE 1,300 06/ 01/ 00 1.212 $ 18,912.24

3330 Cameron Park Drive, Suite 900 05/ 31/ 05

Cameron Park, CA 95682

SHERIFF'S DETECTIVES 3,755 12/ 01/ 04 1.500 $ 67,590.00

720 Pleasant Valley Road 12/ 31/ 08

Diamond Springs, CA 95619

SHERIFF'S OUTREACH shared 12/ 01/ 03 n/ a n/ a

Fort Jim Sub- Station space 11/ 30/ 08

3700 Fort Jim Rd.

Placerville, CA 95667

28

Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS

FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually

SHERIFF'S STORAGE 4,000 09/ 20/ 02 0.702 $ 33,708.96

3615 China Garden Rd. ( Stage Coach) 09/ 19/ 05

Placerville, CA 95667

HUMAN SERVICES n/ a 01/ 09/ 96 n/ a $ 100.00

5941 Union Mine Road 01/ 08/ 06

El Dorado, CA 95673

HUMAN SVCS- 24 PARKING 24 parking 06/ 01/ 01 n/ a $ 5,820.00

3047 Briw Rd. spaces 05/ 31/ 03

Placerville, CA 95667

COMM. SERV./ SR. MEAL SITE n/ a 07/ 01/ 03 n/ a $ 12,240.00

Shingle Springs Community Center 06/ 30/ 04

4440 South Shingle Road

Shingle Springs , CA 95682

COMM. SERV./ SR. MEAL SITE n/ a 07/ 01/ 00 n/ a $ 5,195.64

Pollock Pines Senior Center 04/ 01/ 01

5581 Gail Street

Pollock Pines, CA 95726

COMM. SERV./ SR. MEAL SITE n/ a 07/ 01/ 00 n/ a $ 18,000.00

Mother Lode Lions Club 06/ 30/ 02

1741 Missouri Flat Road

Diamond Springs, CA 95619

PROBATION DEPARTMENT 7,000 12/ 12/ 04 1.028 $ 86,378.04

471 Pierroz Rd. 12/ 11/ 07

Placerville, CA 95667

S. O. FIRING RANGE n/ a 01/ 09/ 96 n/ a n/ a

5941 Union Mine Rd. 01/ 08/ 06

El Dorado, CA 95673

COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL land only 03/ 08/ 82 n/ a

2301 Coolwater Creek Road 03/ 09/ 07 $ 1.00

Placerville, CA 95667

SHERIFF 2,520 07/ 01/ 99 0.205 $ 6,204.00

3 Training Classrooms 07/ 31/ 03

100 Placerville Dr.

Placerville, CA 95667

OAKRIDGE COUNTY LIBRARY 6,400 09/ 01/ 99 0.716 $ 55,004.00

1120 Harvard Way 08/ 31/ 04

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762

29

Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS

FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually

BUILDING DEPARTMENT 6,680 06/ 20/ 03 1.204 $ 96,480.60

4507 Golden Foothill Parkway 3 Sierra 06/ 30/ 08

El Dorado Hills, CA 95762

PUBLIC DEFENDER 5,500 10/ 01/ 01 1.136 $ 75,000.00

4327 Golden Center Drive 09/ 30/ 08

Placerville, CA 95667

IHSS 2,100 01/ 01/ 01 1.126 $ 28,362.96

694 Pleasant Valley Road, Suite 9 12/ 31/ 05

Diamond Springs, CA 95619

GEORGETOWN ZOB OFFICE 100 03/ 01/ 98 0.900 $ 1,080.00

6680 Orleans St., Suite D mo to mo

Georgetown, CA 95634

GEORGETOWN LIBRARY 1,200 10/ 01/ 98 0.750 $ 10,800.00

6680 Orleans Street, Suite 3 09/ 30/ 03

Georgetown, CA 95634

MENTAL HEALTH 3,562 02/ 10/ 04 2.004 $ 85,650.84

Day Treatment Program 01/ 31/ 09

1120 Third Street

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

HUMAN SERVICES 7,200 01/ 01/ 01 2.174 $ 187,791.48

971 Silver Dollar 12/ 31/ 05

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156

HUMAN SERVICES 3,836 01/ 01/ 01 2.115 $ 97,370.76

981 Silver Dollar, Suites 1- 5 12/ 31/ 07

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156

MENTAL HEALTH 3,745 01/ 01/ 01 2.115 $ 95,027.52

981 Silver Dollar 12/ 31/ 07

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156

DOT 6,000 04/ 15/ 02 2.440 $ 175,680.00

924 Emerald Bay Road 04/ 14/ 07

South Lake Tahoe, CA 95616

HUMAN SERVICES - JOB ONE 477 mo to mo 1.400 $ 8,016.00

1029 Tekala, Suite 5

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 6,000 07/ 15/ 02 2.451 $ 176,448.84

924 Emerald Bay Road 07/ 14/ 07

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

30

Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS

FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually

DOT SNOW REMOVAL CREW 1,408 1.172 $ 6,600.00

551 McKinney Creek Road

Tahoma, CA 96142

TOTALS $ 2,218,826.92

annual cost

31

BLANK PAGE

32

PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES

GJ05- 050

Executive Summary

The 2005- 06 Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint about the planning and building

processes used by the new Development Services Department. The complainant wanted the

Grand Jury to investigate the Planning and Building Divisions toward the goal of improving

overall performance, including customer satisfaction. The following deficiencies were pointed

out by the complainant:

• The divisions do not seem to have guidelines or processes in place to help staff identify

how long a project will take from application to permit issuance.

• Permit issuance for all projects ( residential, discretionary and ministerial) is taking too

long.

• There is no consistency as to the information being disseminated; it varies depending on

the staff member who is waiting on and/ or working with the customer.

• Staff uses personal judgment in the planning processes instead of following applicable

rules.

• There are no standardized checklists for customers to use to assist them in the permit

process.

• There is a backlog of cases related to the General Plan implementation and the

department has no strategy in place to deal with the problem.

• There is no communication between affected department heads to insure the expeditious

processing of discretionary projects.

• The County Planning Commission rubber stamps departmental staff decisions instead of

setting policy for issues that come under its jurisdiction.

• Staff spends the majority of its time “ fighting fires” instead of managing the divisions.

• The department internet website provides incorrect information.

• The planning and building divisions do not provide enough emphasis on customer

satisfaction.

After numerous interviews with departmental management, other County staff, members of

various county trades and business organizations, county residents, and a thorough review of

public records, the Grand Jury decided to write a report.

33

The Grand Jury found that high expectations have been placed on the department top

management to complete the merger of the two separate departments, implement the General

Plan, eliminate case backlog, and continue to process new applications, all on a timely basis.

Although the new Director has made many positive changes in a short period of time, the fact

remains that the divisions do not have sufficient personnel. The divisions have had recruitment

problems with Senior Planners and Engineers who are used in the Plan Check process depending

on the complexity of the project. The Board has recently approved a new compensation package

designed to alleviate this problem and time will tell if the increase is sufficient to entice

candidates.

The department has indicated that it does not plan to hire additional personnel due to a decrease

in building projects; however, single family dwelling permits are taking eight weeks or longer,

discretionary projects are taking six to nine months before they go to public hearing and

ministerial projects such as pools, decks and inspection exempt agricultural buildings are taking

six weeks. The lack of sufficient and qualified personnel is resulting in very unpopular and

unacceptable delays in issuing permits. It results in increased building costs for the County and

delays in the implementation of measures under the General Plan since most of the Planners have

been on board two years or less. The Grand Jury recommends the hiring of additional plan

checkers in the applicable classifications and/ or allocating funds for outside consultants.

The Grand Jury recommends more training for personnel to insure consistency in dissemination

of information to the customers and to eliminate mistakes made by Building Inspectors on

building sites. The Grand Jury also recommends changes to departmental participation in

discretionary projects to make sure that the customer is not subject to numerous changes and

extra expense.

Additionally, the Grand Jury recommends the establishment of specific performance standards to

gauge work completion, customer satisfaction and cost effectiveness. Furthermore, it

recommends that Customer Questionnaires be handed out with the final permit and the final

building inspection in order to obtain a more complete picture of their performance.

In conducting its investigation, the Grand Jury had great difficulty in obtaining individuals who

would speak to the Jury for fear of retaliation by departmental personnel. They had chosen not to

speak up before because their livelihood depends on them staying on good terms with

departmental staff. The Grand Jury stated that it is the Board of Supervisors who are ultimately

responsible for the implementation of the General Plan, and that any retaliation against a

customer by staff will be subject to disciplinary action.

Background

The county department, headed by the Director of Development Services, has a budget of

$ 11,644,579 and 122 allocated positions of which approximately 99 are filled. Under the

Director, 3 Deputy Directors oversee the Planning, Building and Administration functions

respectively. The Deputy Director- Administration functions as an office manager overseeing

such functions as personnel, purchasing, and other administrative duties. The Deputy Director

34

over Building supervises three Branch Managers who are responsible for managing the three

Permit Centers located in Placerville, El Dorado Hills and South Lake Tahoe. These Permit

Centers are designed to function as a one stop center for plan review, issuance of permits,

building code compliance and inspections.

The major responsibilities of the Building Division are to issue building and grading permits for

commercial and residential buildings; conduct plan checks and building inspections to insure that

plans comply with applicable building codes; and assist the public with building concerns and

code enforcement issues.

The Planning Services Division has three distinct functions: current planning, long range

planning and special projects. The Current Planning unit is focused on permit and development

application processing in conjunction with the Permit Centers. The staff assigned to this function

is primarily responsible for processing discretionary development applications, such as land

divisions, special use permits and zoning applications including the required California

Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) analysis. The Long Range planning unit is responsible for

the implementation of the County General Plan and compliance with a variety of State long

range planning requirements. The Special Projects unit prepares and oversees the preparation of

CEQA documents for County capital improvement projects related to new or expanded facilities

such as park projects as well as new County buildings. This unit also participates in the

development of plans and administration of regional, State, and Federal endangered species,

programs, habitat conservation, and cultural resources management.

The department also has a new Code Enforcement Section with three staff members headed by a

Zoning Administrator. This unit enforces violations of the County Code and other related codes

and ordinances. Hearings are conducted by the officers related to matters involving safety related

or non- permitted items such as illegal business, fire created hazards and substandard or

dangerous housing. This section works in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Department to enforce

the vehicle abatement program.

The department provides staff to the County Planning Commission who is the Board’s advisor

on land use planning. The Commission has five members, each one appointed by a member of

the Board of Supervisors from his/ her respective District. The Commission reviews matters

related to planning and development. The Commission either approves or denies or makes

recommendations to the Board. The Commission meets twice a month.

Scope of the Investigation

People Interviewed

Member, Board of Supervisors

County Administrative Officer ( CAO)

Assistant County Counsel

Director, Department of Development Services ( DS)

DS Deputy Director – Planning

DS Deputy Director – Building Official

DS Deputy Director - Administration

35

DS Branch Manager – Placerville Permit Center

DS Branch Manger – El Dorado Hills Permit Center

DS Principal Planner

DS Building Inspector

Chairman, Planning Commission

Member, Building Industry Advisory Committee ( BIAC)

Housing Standards Program Manager, State Department of Housing and Community Development

Members of various County trade and business organizations, professional associations,

members at large of the building community and county residents

Documents Reviewed

2005- 2006 Fiscal Year DS Department Budget

County General Plan adopted by Board of Supervisors on July 19, 2004

County Website on Planning and Building Services

DS Department Organizational Chart

Personnel allocation figures for DS Department

Permit Center Application and Plan Check Review Process Flow Chart Sheet

Building Fee Funded Activities handout

Building Services Permit Activity handout ( 2001- 2005)

Placerville Permit Center Customer Service and Building Inspection Activity ( 2005)

Permit Fee 2006 Current Distribution handout

DS Year in Review - 2005 and Key Goals for 2006

Building Inspections Checklist Summary

General Plan Consistency Checklist

Customer Service Questionnaire

Class Specifications for Building Inspector, Planner and Engineer Series

23 different checklists used by Planning Division for processing development

applications

2005 Permit Application Packet for Single Family Dwellings in Lake Tahoe Basin

Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan Application

Rule 223- 2 Fugitive Dust- Asbestos Hazard Mitigation Information

California Government Code Sections 818.4 and 818.6 pertaining to Liability of Public

Entities and Public Employees

“ Slow Growth Proves Costly- Problems Mount in Santa Barbara”- Sacramento Bee,

March 27, 2006

Facts

1. The County approved a new General Plan in July 19, 2004 to comply with the Writ of

Mandate issued by the Court on July 19,1999 directing the County to correct deficiencies

in its original approval of the 1996 General Plan. In August 31, 2005, the Sacramento

Superior Court ruled that the County had successfully addressed each of the issues raised

in the writ. The writ was lifted and on October 3, 2005 and the County began accepting

new applications that previously were prohibited under the writ.

36

2. That court ruling was appealed to the State Appellate Court in late fall 2005 and until the

court ruled on that appeal, the County continued processing development applications

under the 2004 General Plan. However, the County continued to exercise caution in the

interpretation and implementation of the General Plan while they waited for final

adjudication.

3. On April 18, 2006, the County and the El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth

reached an agreement that settled the litigation. Under the settlement agreement, the

petitioner agreed to drop its appeal and the County waived its claim for attorney’s fees

($ 21,000) and agreed to maintain the current interpretation of the General Plan Policy

related to oak woodland habitat.

4. The current Director, hired in January, 2005, was assigned the tasks of completing the

merger of the then existing Planning and Building Departments and the implementation

of the newly adopted General Plan. Additionally, he inherited a backlog of 64

development projects waiting for the writ to be lifted and 1,500 open code enforcement

cases. 30 new cases of code enforcement violations are received each month. The

department also processes over 6,000 permits a year of which over 1,500 are for new

dwellings. In 2005, over 39,000 inspection stops were conducted, and close to 24,000

individual customers were served from the Placerville office alone.

5. During 2005, the new Director was able to achieve major changes in the department such

as:

a. Created Branch Manager positions to oversee planning and building functions in

each Permit Center

b. Recruited six Planning staff to support Permit Center functions

c. Reorganized building Plan check responsibilities

d. Established a New Case review process for all new major planning projects

c. Re- established “ Express plan check” for certain categories of permits

f. Implemented a new General Plan consistency checklist for all new projects

g. Obtained contracts for “ as needed” planning services to handle increased workload

while recruitment of senior level Planners and Engineers, was underway

h. Issued a request for proposals to planning and environmental services firms to

establish a list of “ on call” consultants to assist with priority projects.

i. Prepared a revised Grading Ordinance

j. Created a Code Enforcement and Vehicle Abatement Hearing Officer position

k. Established a tracking system by which all permit applications will be monitored

by staff to identify and reduce delays in the permit process

l. Implemented a Building Information Counter Log where by all planning related

calls received will be returned on the same day or the day after.

6. The 2004 General Plan provides for long range direction and policy for the use of land

within the County ( El Dorado Forest comprises 57% of the County’s land base). The

General Plan relies upon measures identified in each element that implements the

policies. Modification of the measures requires amendment of the General Plan. There

are nine elements in the General Plan ( land; transportation; housing; public services and

37

utilities; health, safety and noise element; conservation and open space; agriculture and

forestry; parks and recreation; and economic development). The land use element alone

has 15 measures, many of them with multiple implementation requirements and a

significant number of them have a one to two year implementation timetable.

7. Each year the 2,000 to 3,000 permit applications filed require a full plan check. During

the Plan Check process the plans are reviewed by building inspectors, planners and/ or

engineers ( otherwise known as plan checkers) depending on the size and complexity of

the project. The plans are reviewed for consistency with planning, grading and building

ordinances and codes. Under the new General Plan, any structure over 120 square feet

must be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan.

8. The Planning Division currently has one Principal Planner assigned to General Plan

implementation. In addition, there are one Principal Planner, four Senior Planners and six

Assistant Planners assigned to current planning functions and one Principal Planner

assigned to special projects. Tentative maps, parcel maps and subdivision maps have not

been done by the department in six years and there is no one in the staff, with few

exceptions, that know how to do it. The majority of the planning staff has been on board

for two years or less. Several amendments to the Zoning Code have created interpretation

conflicts. Agricultural setbacks have become confusing. The review and update of the

Design Standards Manual, adopted in 1986 and last amended in 1990, is a top priority

under the General Plan and no one has been assigned to that project.

9. Management staff has indicated that they could keep five Planners occupied fulltime for

the next five years implementing the General Plan.

10. The department has been unsuccessful in filling four vacancies at the Senior and

Principal Planner classifications, and three at the Senior Engineer level. The latter three

are needed in the in the Building Division; one in grading plan review and two in plan

check. Management indicates that salary and retirement benefits are not competitive with

surrounding jurisdictions. Top management believes that a 15% salary increase would be

more competitive as well as changes in retirement benefits ( employees picking up the

additional cost).

11. On April 25, 2006 the Board of Supervisors approved three new recruitment tools to

entice new employees: a five percent increase in salary for Senior Planners and Civil

Engineers, a six thousand dollar signing bonus for “ hard to recruit” classifications, and up

to five thousand dollar moving allowance with a two year minimum stay on the job if the

new employee takes the moving allowance.

12. 180 building inspections are conducted each work day by approximately 25 inspectors.

The Development Services Department is mandated by law to enforce minimum

construction and equipment standards and codes to protect life, limb, health, property and

public welfare. The inspector’s responsibilities do not include review of quality of

workmanship by the contractor. The majority of the Inspectors are hired at the II level.

Senior Building Inspectors are assigned to non - residential projects. Building Inspectors

38

are rotated every 6 months. Employees are required to have a minimum of one

certification ( building inspection) but they perform all types of inspections including,

electrical, mechanical and plumbing. Time of inspections varies from 15 minutes to 45

depending on the type of inspection ( foundation and framing taking longer).

13. Under California Government Code 818.6, the County itself is immune from liability not

only for negligence in failing to make an inspection but for negligence in the inspection

itself.

14. In 1999 there were 15 people assigned to the Building Department Customer Counter in

the Placerville location, including staff members from the Planning, Environmental

Management ( EM) and Transportation ( DOT) departments. That number has been

reduced to five with no representation from either Environmental Management or DOT.

15. In 2005 $ 150,000 in contract planning services were spent to expedite plan check review,

priority been given to employment generated commercial projects.

16. The Department is requesting an allocation of $ 1 million in the 2006- 07 budget for

contract planning services for General Plan implementation. Management expects that

this amount will cover implementation of some measures, such as floor area ratio, Option

B under tree canopy retention and upgrade and construction work on Missouri Flat Road.

17. By state law the Department cannot profit from the building fees that it charges. Without

any additional monies from the General Fund, the Department must raise fees to fund

new positions.

18. In the 2005- 2006 budget, the department identified several key issues to work on such as:

a. The relocation of the Courts from the main floor of Building C to allow full

implementation of the Placerville Permit Center with permit service participation

from the Departments of Transportation ( DOT) and Environmental Management.

b. The commercial grading function currently with DOT to transfer to Development

Services in July, 2005.

c. Reducing plan review times to 30 days or less on a consistent basis since the

times had reached seven weeks due to high activity levels. The department stated

that with the lifting of the writ and continued build- out of approved projects in El

Dorado Hills, it expected an increase in development activity with a

commensurate increase on both plan check and building inspection services.

None of the above identified key issues have been implemented as of the writing of this

report ( May, 2006).

19. Management has indicated that it does not plan to ask the Board of Supervisors to fund its

full allocation of positions beyond the key Planners and Engineer’s positions because the

current workload does not justify it.

Findings/ Recommendations

39

1F. Finding: High expectations have been placed on the department top management by the

Board of Supervisors, the building community at large and the residents of the county to

complete the merger, implement the County General Plan, eliminate the backlog of all cases and

continue to process new projects and permits, all in a timely basis. Even though the new Director

has made many positive changes in such a short period of time, the fact is that the department

does not have sufficient personnel, neither in the Planning Services Division nor in the Permit

Centers, to accomplish all that it’s been requested to do without significant and unpopular delays.

Discretionary projects are currently taking 6- 9 months to get ready before going to public

hearing. Instead of spending $ 1 million in outside planning services, the County could hire three

Senior Planners at a cost of $ 300- 350,000, saving the County between $ 700,000 and $ 650,000.

Unfilled vacancies causes delays in the processing of construction projects further increasing

building costs to the County.

1R. Recommendation: The hiring and retention of new employees in the Senior Planner

and Engineer classifications must be monitored closely and further changes in

compensation shall be explored if current salary and benefits do not produced desired

results.

2Fa. Finding: Departmental staff has set a standard of issuing single family dwelling permits

within four weeks and express plan check permits ( pools, garages, decks, etc.) over the counter

on the same day, but that is not the norm. The lack of sufficient plan checkers is causing delays

of up to eight weeks and three weeks, respectively. Many builders and homeowners choose the

third party plan check option, at an additional cost, to minimize delays.

2Fb. Finding: Additionally, because all structures over 120 square feet have to be reviewed for

consistency with the General Plan, the consistency standards being applied to single dwelling

residences and other ministerial projects are those established for discretionary projects, creating

further delays.

2Ra. Recommendation: Develop new General Plan consistency standards for single

family dwellings and other ministerial projects in order to reduce the time in issuing

permits.

2Rb. Recommendation: Hire additional plan checkers, in the applicable classifications,

to insure the 30 day or less plan review time for residential permits and one day for

express plan check permits.

3F. Finding: The merger of the two departments ( Planning and Building) into the new

Development Services Department has resulted in the hiring of new personnel and the

reassignment of some existing employees. Implementation of the General Plan and revision of

codes and ordinances continue to generate regular changes that staff must assimilate in order to

provide accurate information to the public. In some cases, this has resulted in wrong information

being issued and different information being provided by different staff members. This causes

frustration and costly changes on the part of the public and results in negative publicity for the

department. Furthermore, applicants still need to go to other departments ( Department of

40

Transportation and Environmental Management) after receiving their permit to seek their

respective approval.

3Ra. Recommendation: The regular weekly meetings being held by the Director with

other top management should be held on an ongoing basis. These meetings are designed

to insure consistency in the interpretation of the General Plan, codes and ordinances.

Additionally, the assignment of one Principal Planner to the Permit Centers as a central

point to answer difficult planning questions for non- discretionary projects is a step in the

right direction.

3Rb. Recommendation: Expand the length and/ or frequency of the one- hour weekly

training sessions held for the Development Technicians and other counter personnel to

insure consistency in the dissemination of information.

3Rc. Recommendation: Efforts to move the Courts out of the Placerville office should

be expedited so Development Services can complete its plans to absorb the other building

and planning related functions of Department of Transportation and Environmental

Management such as transportation planning, commercial grading permits sewer, wells,

septic, demolition and waste recycle.

3Rd. Recommendation: Institute an inside Learning Academy to provide a structured

training program in both technical and customer oriented areas.

4F. Finding: The Technical Advisory Committee ( TAC) comprised of representatives from

various departments ( DS, Environmental Health, DOT) is used by the Planning staff to review all

discretionary projects with each applicant. TAC meetings are scheduled for Monday afternoons

to review pending projects. The problems with TAC are numerous: the departments do not

provide their input in a timely manner; department representatives either don’t show up or send a

different representative to each meeting; the representatives have no authority to speak for the

department thereby resulting in multiple and costly changes for the applicant; Planning lacks the

authority to require other department’s attendance; decisions communicated over the phone lack

documentation; and there is no designated Chairman. Often outside agencies, such as EID and

fire districts, do not provide input on a timely fashion. And sometimes, the Planning Services

Division fails to contact affected agencies ( both outside and inside agencies, such as the

Agricultural Commission) and issues permits without the proper authorization. Again, delays

result in frustrated customers, agencies and increase costs to the applicants.

4R. Recommendation: Departmental representatives assigned to TAC must have the

authority to speak for the department. All changes requested from the applicants must be

put in writing and signed by all affected departments and outside agencies. Additional

changes should not be permitted except for extraordinary circumstances.

5F. Finding: The Department lacks comprehensive performance standards by which they can

measure customer satisfaction. As an example, the staff assigned to the Current Planning unit has

a 30 day limit for internal review of projects and distribution of plans to other affected agencies

( i. e. EM, DOT, school district, fire district, etc.). Beyond the 30 day limit, there is no other

41

performance standard that addresses work completion. The department has a Customer Service

Questionnaire that is found on their website but it is not found in all their Permit Center counters.

If available and completed at the counter, the department is only measuring customer satisfaction

for services performed in only one small segment of the process.

5Ra. Recommendation: Develop appropriate and specific performance standards for

each division to gauge work completion, customer satisfaction and cost effectiveness.

Revise existing Customer Service Questionnaire to reflect new performance standards.

5Rb. Recommendation: Enclose a Customer Service Questionnaire with the issuance of

all aspects of the permit review and issuance process.

5Rc. Recommendation: Make Questionnaires available in visible locations at all Permit

Centers.

5Rd. Recommendation: Questionnaires and return envelopes should be handed out to

the contractor or owner/ builder after final inspection.

5Re. Recommendation: Questionnaires should be reviewed and discussed on a regular

basis by the Department Director and other top managers.

6F. Finding: The Department processes requests for building inspections on a timely basis.

However, there is a departmental attitude toward the role of the Building inspectors as “ just spot

checkers” that conveys superficial and unsafe inspections and makes homeowners, contractors and

builders question the purpose of the inspections. Furthermore, some Building Inspectors have

provided wrong information related to building code requirements and have had to be corrected by

the contractor. Some of these inspectors were training junior inspectors which further exacerbate

the problem.

6Ra. Recommendation: Top management needs to change its attitude as to the role of

Building Inspectors and educate the employees and the public as to the seriousness of the

inspections.

6Rb. Recommendation: Assign a Senior Building Inspector to provide periodic in- house

training for all inspectors to insure current and consistent application of building codes.

7F. Finding: The website needs revisions to make it more user friendly.

7Ra. Recommendation: Include an organizational chart of the department with names,

telephones numbers and fax numbers of key contacts.

7Rb. Recommendation: Include a statement on the mission and vision of the department

to inform the user of the department’s responsibilities.

7Rc. Recommendation: Make it a top priority for the public to be able to get a permit and

pay fees on line.

42

8F. Finding: The Planning Commission meets twice a month during daytime hours. Sometimes

agenda items are rescheduled due to additional requests of information by either commissioners,

departments and/ or the public. This results in wasted time and frustration on the part of the

applicants.

8Ra. Recommendation: Management agrees that it needs to work closer with the

Commission in anticipating their needs. Periodic workshops between county staff and

Commissioners should be held to better define the role of the Commission.

8Rb. Recommendation: Standardize as much as possible the review process for

discretionary projects so as to preclude “ re- inventing the wheel” with every project.

8Rc. Recommendation: Timely and written responses by affected departments and outside

agencies should be required to expedite the review process.

8Rd. Recommendation: Planning Commission should meet during evening hours, such as

once a quarter, to obtain additional public input as it pertains to the implementation of the

County General Plan, code and ordinance changes and other land use policies. The value of

the additional public input surpasses that of any overtime payment required for county staff

( only the clerical staff would be subject to overtime payment).

9F. Finding: The Grand Jury had great difficulty in obtaining individuals in the community

( developers, builders, contractors, members of trade organizations, etc.), who would speak to the

Grand Jury as to their experiences for fear of future retaliation by DS planning and building staff.

A number of them expressed concern as to the hiring of personnel who, according to them, came

from slow growth or no- growth counties and were applying their individual interpretation to the

new General Plan. Those who came forward stated that they have chosen not to speak out in the

past because their livelihood depend on keeping on good terms with departmental staff so that their

building and planning projects are processed in a timely manner. Their experiences were specific to

the new department and did not involve any other county department.

9Ra. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors is ultimately responsible for the

implementation of the General Plan by providing leadership and direction to all parties

involved. The Board should it make very clear to all departmental personnel that any

retaliation by any employee against a customer will not be tolerated, and he/ she will be

subject to disciplinary action.

9Rb. Recommendation: The Department should convene the Building Industry Advisory

Committee ( BIAC), whose members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, on a more

regular basis, quarterly or as needed, to seek input not just on building matters but also on

planning issues.

9Rc. Recommendation: The Department should hold periodic workshops with professional

and trade organizations and the public at large to seek public input on issues of interest before

they are acted upon by departmental staff

43

A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of Contents,

“ Notice to Respondents.”

44

EL DORADO COUNTY

Grand Jury

2005- 2006 Mid- Year Report

January 4, 2006

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

EL DORADO COUNTY

POST OFFICE BOX 472

PLACERVILLE, CA 95667

GRAND JURY

Telephone ( 530) 621- 7477

e- mail: gand. iwvliaco. eldorado~

FAX: 530- 295- 0763

January 4,2006

El Dorado County Board of Supervisors

Placerville Office

Rusty Dupray, Supervisor, District I

Helen K. Baurnann, Supervisor, District I1

James R. " Jack" Sweeney, Supervisor, District I11

Charlie Paine, Supervisor, District IV

Norma Santiago, Supervisor, District V

Dear Members of the Board,

The 2005- 2006 County Grand Jury is releasing an interim report detailing an audit into

SB- 163 as administered by the county department of Mental Health. Upon conclusion of

the audit by the H. M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, the grand jury has approved the

attached conclusions and recommendations. An investigation was originally initiated by

last year's grand jury and only recently completed.

This grand jury takes this report and the attached audit seriously. I would also like to

acknowledge the cooperation of the county employees, the department of Mental

Health, and the H. M.- ROS~ A ccountancy Corporation. - ;. -

;? - e ..&

We look forward to the continued cooperation between the Grand Jury, the Board of

Supervisors, the office of the Chief Administrator and the Mental Health Department.

Respectfully,

Douglas Clough, Foreman

2005- 2006 County Grand Jury

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

EL DORADO COUNTY

POST OFFICE BOX 472

PLACERVILLE, CA 95667

January 4,2006

Honorable Douglas C. Phimister

Superior Court

2850 Fairlane Court Placervil le,

CA 95667

Judge Phimister,

GRAND JURY

Telephone ( 530) 621- 7477

e- mail: grand. iu~@ co~ eldorado. ca. us

FAX: 530- 295- 0763

The members of the 2005- 2006 County Grand Jury have decided to release an interim

report detailing an investigation into the county department of Mental Health. Upon

conclusion of the investigation and an independent audit by the H. M. Rose Accountancy

Corporation, the grand jury has made the attached findings and recommendations. This

investigation was originally reported to last year's grand jury that was unable to conduct

an inquiry due to time constraints. The grand jury has made specific findings and

recommendations in accordance with the California Penal Code.

The grand jury takes its responsibility seriously and we look forward to completing the

term in a professional manner. I would also like to acknowledge the county employees,

the department of Mental Health, and the H. M Rose Accountancy Corporation for

assisting us with this investigation

Respectfully,

Douglas Clough, Foreman

2005- 2006 County Grand Jury

NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS

For the assistance of all Respondents, Penal Code Section 933.05 is summarized as follows:

How to Respond to Findings

The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ways:

1. That you agree with the finding.

2. That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall

specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the

reasons for the disagreement.

How to Respond to Recommendations

Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or entity must report

action on all recommendations in one of four ways:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action.

2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the

future, with a timeframe for implementation.

3. The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this

manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe

not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the

officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated.

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not

reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

Time to Respond, Where and to Whom to Respond

Depending on the type of Respondent, Penal Code Section 933.05 provides for two different

response times and to whom you must respond:

1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety

( 90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.

2. Elective Officer or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are

required to respond must do so within sixty ( 60) days to the Presiding Judge of the

Superior Court, with an information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors.

Mental Health Audit Report

GJ05- 001

Background

While the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury was investigating a complaint it became aware of issues

with the SB- 163 program, also known as the “ Wraparound Program”, that required

further examination and investigation. The analysis included program implementation,

fiscal records and tracking procedures within the Mental Health department. The Grand

Jury hired an outside auditor that specializes in county and state agency audits, the

Harvey M. Rose ( HMR) Accountancy Corporation. The Harvey M. Rose firm agreed to

do a financial audit of the SB- 163 program, which is administered by Mental Health. This

audit started in June of 2005 and was completed in November of 2005, with the final

report submitted in December of 2005.

Findings

The Grand Jury has accepted the Final Report of the audit of the El Dorado County SB-

163 program. The Grand Jury adopts the Report’s conclusions as its findings. The Grand

Jury also wholly agree with the findings ( conclusions) and recommendations thereof ( see

exhibit A). These findings ( conclusions) and recommendations have also been reviewed

and approved by the presiding judge of the El Dorado County Grand Jury. The Report’s

recommendations are itemized as follows:

Recommendations

1. Formally delegate management responsibility for the Wraparound program to the

Multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council to continue to be comprised of, at

minimum, the directors of the Departments of Human Services, Mental Health and

Probation.

2. Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound

management team to meet regularly such as quarterly for the purpose of overseeing

the Wraparound program including setting annual program goals and objectives,

determining funding and resource allocations at least once a year as part of the

County budget process, establishing operational guidelines, receiving and reviewing

regularly produced management reports on program outcomes and cost effectiveness,

and making adjustments to program operations when needed.

3. Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound

management team to operate in compliance with State laws governing the

Wraparound program.

4. Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound

management team to prepare annual summary evaluations of program and cost

effectiveness for their own review and transmission to the Board of Supervisors, to

include documentation of: program compliance with State law; the team’s meeting

records; achievement of program goals; staff training records; accessibility of the

program to the target population; and, program satisfaction by participating families.

5. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to amend the County

Wraparound Plan to include procedures and protocols for admitting and providing

services to non- revenue generating children in the program who are not assigned to

authorized service allocation slots.

6. Direct the Wraparound inter- departmental management team to amend the program

plan to include a definition of program “ cost savings to be reinvested in children’s

services” and to establish procedures for how decisions will be made regarding

expenditure of such funds.

7. Direct appropriate County staff to draft a new Wraparound program Memorandum of

Understanding for execution by the Departments of Mental Health, Human Services

and Probation to replace the MOU among these departments that expired in

September 2005.

8. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief

Administrative Officer to review the Wraparound program FY 2005- 06 revenue and

expenditure budget, its assumptions about the number of children to be served, slots

to be filled, actual number of “ slotted” and non- revenue generating children served

and actual revenues and expenditures year- to- date and report back to the Board within

six weeks on whether adjustments should be made to make the budget more realistic.

9. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief

Administrative Officer to prepare a budget plan each year based on the actual

revenues and expenditures for the previous year and documented assumptions about

the number of children to be served, both slotted and discretionary nonrevenue

generating, and the nature of services to be provided in the budget year.

10. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to at least quarterly

monitor actual program revenues and expenditures and number of children served for

comparison to the budget.

11. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to separately present the Wraparound

program budget each year in the proposed Department of Mental Health budget

document presented to the Board of Supervisors and to include planned and previous

year actual numbers of slotted and discretionary non- revenue generating children

program participants, hours of staff service provided, contractor service hours and

expenditures for unique external goods and services.

12. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief

Administrative Officer to develop an expenditure plan for the approximately

$ 173,244 Wraparound program fund balance and transmit the plan to the Board of

Supervisors for review.

13. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to include in its annual

program evaluation provided to the Board of Supervisors: statistics on the number of

children referred to and considered for the program; the number and backgrounds of

those admitted to the program and assigned to service allocation slots; and, the

number and backgrounds of those receiving services with Wraparound funding but

not assigned to service allocation slots.

14. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare written

procedures regarding eligibility and services offered to children receiving services

with Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.

15. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare annual

estimates of staff and contractor availability for the program and to use this as a base

line when service plans are prepared to ensure that there is greater consistency

between service plans and service provider availability.

This Grand Jury report must be responded to by the Board of Supervisors within ninety

( 90) days as directed by the Penal Code 933.05 ( b) ( 2) and ( 3).

Exhibit

A

Audit of Claiming and Financial and other Reporting

for the

Wraparound Program of El Dorado County

Prepared for:

The FY 2005- 06 El Dorado County Grand Jury

Prepared by:

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

December, 2005

Table of Contents

Section Page

Executive Summary................................................................................. i

Introduction............................................................................................ 1

1. Wraparound program overview & glossary of terms................................. 3

2. Compliance with Wraparound program requirements ............................... 6

3. Wraparound program fiscal management ............................................... 19

4. Wraparound program records................................................................ 29

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

i

Executive Summary

The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation was retained by the FY 2004- 05 and FY

2005- 06 El Dorado County Grand Jury to conduct a limited scope audit of El Dorado

County’s reporting, claiming and financial reporting processes for Wraparound, or S. B.

163, and other federal and State- funded programs administered by the County

Departments of Mental Health and Human Services.

A summary of the findings and recommendations contained in this audit report are as

follows. The recommendations are numbered according to their respective section in this

report.

A summary of the first section of the report is not presented here as it is an overview of

the County’s Wraparound program and does not contain findings or recommendations.

Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound Program Requirements

􀂉 Wraparound is a State- authorized program that allows counties to flexibly use

State and local funds that would otherwise be used for group home placements

to provide individualized services to prevent at risk children from being

placed in group homes. In El Dorado County, funding is obtained from the

State by the Department of Human Services, combined with County funds and

transferred to the Department of Mental Health which administers the

program.

􀂉 The County is not operating in full compliance with its key governance

documents: State law; the County Wraparound plan; and, a Memorandum of

Understanding between the Departments of Human Services and Mental

Health. Key areas of non- compliance include: the absence of an executive

management team assuming responsibility for planning and monitoring

program performance and a lack of procedures to ensure family understanding

of and input to the program. Among other impacts, the lack of a Wraparound

program management structure has resulted in under- expending available

program funds, lower service levels than anticipated and over- budgeting every

year of the program.

􀂉 State legislation requires that counties providing Wraparound services

designate a number of service allocation slots for participating children. State

funding is provided based on the number of such slots filled each month. The

County’s Department of Mental Health has expanded program participation

by including children at risk of group home placement in addition to those in

the authorized service allocation slots. Services for these other children are

provided with funds not spent on the children in the authorized slots. The

methods for determining eligibility and expenditure levels for these additional

children have not been documented in the County’s Wraparound plan or any

other Department documents.

Executive Summary

􀂉 A Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human

Services and Mental Health calls for reinvestment of savings realized in the

Wraparound program to other children’s services. A definition of such savings

has not been established nor has a process for the two departments to

determine how funds should be reinvested. As a result, approximately

$ 173,244 in program funding has accumulated over the last three year fiscal

years that could have been reinvested in other services for children.

Recommendations

Based on the above findings, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors should:

2.1 Formally delegate management responsibility for the Wraparound program to the

multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council to continue to be comprised

of, at minimum, the directors of the Departments of Human Services, Mental

Health and Probation.

2.2 Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound

management team to meet regularly such as quarterly for the purpose of

overseeing the Wraparound program including setting annual program goals and

objectives, determining funding and resource allocations at least once a year as

part of the County budget process, establishing operational guidelines, receiving

and reviewing regularly produced management reports on program outcomes and

cost effectiveness, and making adjustments to program operations when needed.

2.3 Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound

management team to operate in compliance with State laws governing the

Wraparound program.

2.4 Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound

management team to prepare annual summary evaluations of program and cost

effectiveness for their own review and transmission to the Board of Supervisors,

to include documentation of: program compliance with State law; the team’s

meeting records; achievement of program goals; staff training records;

accessibility of the program to the target population; and, program satisfaction by

participating families.

2.5 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to amend the

County Wraparound Plan to include procedures and protocols for admitting and

providing services to non- revenue generating children in the program who are not

assigned to authorized service allocation slots.

2.6 Direct the Wraparound inter- departmental management team to amend the

program plan to include a definition of program “ cost savings to be reinvested in

children’s services” and to establish procedures for how decisions will be made

regarding expenditure of such funds.

2.7 Direct appropriate County staff to draft a new Wraparound program

Memorandum of Understanding for execution by the Departments of Mental

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

ii

Executive Summary

Health, Human Services and Probation to replace the MOU among these

departments that expired in September 2005.

Section 3: Wraparound Program Fiscal Management

􀂉 State and local funding is provided to the County’s Wraparound program based

on the number of “ service allocation slots” filled by children participating in the

program. Between its inception in August 2002 and June 2005, the County

authorized six service allocation slots per month but filled an average of only 4.8.

As a result, the County did not collect an estimated $ 182,484 in available program

funding that would have enabled services to an additional 18.7 children.

􀂉 In addition to under- recovered available revenue, program expenditures were

approximately $ 173,244 less than actual funding received during the three fiscal

years reviewed. These unspent funds have been carried over each year and are

still available for the program, but reflect lower service levels for program

participants and unnecessary encumbrance of County General Fund monies

during the review period. Combined with the $ 182,484 in funds not recovered due

to unfilled service allocation slots, the County did not provide $ 355,728 worth of

Wraparound services that could have been provided during the three fiscal years

reviewed.

􀂉 During the three years reviewed, actual Wraparound program revenues were

$ 327,938 less than budgeted revenues and actual program expenditures were

$ 628,547 less than budgeted. These substantial variances reflect a lack of program

planning and oversight by Mental Health and Human Services Department

executive management.

􀂉 Total reported Department of Mental Health salary and benefits costs for

Wraparound were only $ 4,775 and $ 10,912 the first two years of the program,

respectively, but increased to $ 304,547 in FY 2004- 05. Department of Mental

Health staff report that staff time sheet and billing records did not capture all staff

time dedicated to the program in its first two fiscal years. If actual staff costs were

higher than the amounts charged to program funds, those program costs were

covered by other Department funding sources, inappropriately curtailing other

services.

􀂉 Though encouraged by the Wraparound program concept, only $ 9,307, or 1.5

percent of total program expenditures during the three fiscal years reviewed, have

been spent on unique goods and services jointly identified by program

participants, their families and County staff as being in the best interests of the

child. Most of the program funding has been used for traditional County staff-provided

services.

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

iii

Executive Summary

Recommendations

Based on the findings presented in this section, it is recommended that the El Dorado

County Board of Supervisors:

3.1 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief

Administrative Officer to review the Wraparound program FY 2005- 06 revenue

and expenditure budget, its assumptions about the number of children to be

served, slots to be filled, actual number of “ slotted” and non- revenue generating

children served and actual revenues and expenditures year- to- date and report back

to the Board within six weeks on whether adjustments should be made to make

the budget more realistic.

3.2 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief

Administrative Officer to prepare a budget plan each year based on the actual

revenues and expenditures for the previous year and documented assumptions

about the number of children to be served, both slotted and discretionary non-revenue

generating, and the nature of services to be provided in the budget year.

3.3 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to at least quarterly

monitor actual program revenues and expenditures and number of children served

for comparison to the budget.

3.4 Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to separately present the Wraparound

program budget each year in the proposed Department of Mental Health budget

document presented to the Board of Supervisors and to include planned and

previous year actual numbers of slotted and discretionary non- revenue generating

children program participants, hours of staff service provided, contractor service

hours and expenditures for unique external goods and services.

3.5 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief

Administrative Officer to develop an expenditure plan for the approximately

$ 173,244 Wraparound program fund balance and transmit the plan to the Board

for review.

Section 4: Wraparound Program Records

􀂉 Claims for State Wraparound funding are filed by the Department of Human

Services each month as part of its larger claim for Foster Care funding. A

review of Department records showed that there is sufficient supporting

documentation for the Wraparound program claims filed between FY 2002-

03 and 2004- 05.

􀂉 The Department of Mental Health’s Wraparound program accounting,

timesheet and other records do not provide sufficient information to

determine if program funding has been properly accounted for since the

program’s inception. A new record- keeping system implemented in

February 2005 has improved this situation but since it was not in place for

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

iv

Executive Summary

the first two and a half years of the program, it is not possible to accurately

determine actual program costs during that time or the source of funding for

all services provided.

􀂉 A review of Department of Mental Health time sheets and contractor

billings for four randomly selected months showed that actual staff hours

and costs were higher than recorded in the Department’s financial records.

Time and cost records were not compiled or reviewed by program managers

prior to February 2005 to ensure that program funding was appropriately

used and accounted for.

􀂉 Program records are maintained reporting the number of children assigned

to service allocation slots but there is no documentation of the number of

children considered for Wraparound service allocation slots who were not

accepted in to the program. There is no documentation at all of the number

of other at risk children considered for and accepted in to the program who

are not assigned to service allocation slots. Such information should be

recorded to document that all children in the program meet the eligibility

criteria and to determine if adjustments are needed to the number of service

allocation slots authorized by the County.

􀂉 A review of treatment plans and time sheets for four randomly selected

months showed variances between services planned for children in the

program and what was actually delivered. While there may be valid reasons

to divert from original treatment plans as a child’s situation changes, a

comparison of planned to actual staff and contractor hours and services

should be regularly prepared to ensure that program resources are being

allocated effectively.

Recommendations

Based on the above findings, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:

4.1 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to include in its

annual program evaluation provided to the Board of Supervisors: statistics on the

number of children referred to and considered for the program; the number and

backgrounds of those admitted to the program and assigned to service allocation

slots; and, the number and backgrounds of those receiving services with

Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.

4.2 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare written

procedures regarding eligibility and services offered to children receiving services

with Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.

4.3 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare annual

estimates of staff and contractor availability for the program and to use this as a

base line when service plans are prepared to ensure that there is greater

consistency between service plans and service provider availability.

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

v

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

1

Introduction

The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation was retained by the Fiscal Year ( FY)

2004- 05 and FY 2005- 06 El Dorado County Grand Jury to conduct a limited scope audit

of El Dorado County’s reporting, claiming and financial reporting processes for

Wraparound, or S. B. 163, and other federal and State- funded programs administered by

the County Departments of Mental Health and Human Services. The objectives of the

audit were to determine:

· Whether the County’s Departments of Human Services and Mental Health maintain

appropriate records to demonstrate service levels and properly record costs of the

County's SB 163 Wraparound Program and any other related federal and State grant

programs administered by the two departments;

· Whether appropriate internal controls have been established and are followed by the

two departments to ensure that federal and State grant funds are expended for

intended purposes;

· Whether generally accepted cost accounting methodologies are followed by the two

departments when determining program costs related to these and other federal and

State funded programs; and,

· Whether excess reserves or surplus funds have accumulated, or if all funding

available has been made available to support services for program recipients.

While the initial focus of the audit was all federal and State- funded programs

administered by the County Departments of Mental Health and Human Services, the

Wraparound program was identified during the field work phase of the audit as the most

relevant program for review. The other program that was reviewed was the Supportive

and Therapeutic Options Program ( STOP), a State funded program that provides mental

health related day treatment and aftercare services to families with children at risk of out-of-

home placement and those exiting foster care. Because of the small amount of

program funding and expenditures ( actual expenditures were reportedly $ 28,678 for FY

2004- 05 as of July 7, 2005) relative to the Wraparound program, limited audit hours were

redirected to an analysis of the latter program after a review of key STOP program

documents.

Audit Methods

Methods used to conduct this audit included the following:

q Interviews with directors, relevant managers and key staff at the Department of

Human Services and the Department of Mental Health

Introduction

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

2

q Review of key program documents including enabling State legislation, the County’s

Wraparound plan and Memoranda of Understanding between all departments

involved in the program.

q Analysis of Wraparound program financial information and documents including

budget and revenue/ expenditure documents from the County’s financial system,

Department of Human Services foster care claim records and supporting

documentation, Wraparound program special fund General Ledger reports and journal

entry documentation.

q Review of written procedures regarding program eligibility and intake.

q Analysis of program participant rosters for each month that the program has been in

effect through June 2005.

q Review and analysis of Department of Mental Health case files, treatment plans and

billing records for a sample of children in the Wraparound program.

q Review of a sample of case files and outcome documentation.

q Review of minutes from Cross- Systems Operations Team and Placement- Referral

sub- committee minutes between August 2002 and June 2005.

q Review of literature on the Wraparound program.

q Review of County documentation on County’s Supportive and Therapeutic Options

Program ( STOP) program.

Field work was conducted between June and October, 2005. A draft audit report was

prepared with the results presented in three areas of findings and recommendations. The

draft report was provided to the Grand Jury and the directors of the Human Services and

Mental Health departments for their review and comments and an exit conference

meeting took place with the directors and other representatives of the departments before

the report was finalized and submitted to the Grand Jury in December 2005. This audit

was prepared in compliance with the work program submitted to and approved by the FY

2004- 05 El Dorado County Grand Jury in June 2005.

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

3

1. Wraparound program overview and glossary of

terms

The Wraparound program was created by State legislation adopted in 1997 that allowed

California counties to use State foster care and Adoption Assistance funds in a flexible

manner to provide eligible youth with services as an alternative to group home care. The

program was originally designed for youths who are residing, or are at risk of being

placed, in group homes licensed at Rate Classification Levels 12- 141, the most costly out-of-

home facilities designed for youths with severe emotional disturbances. Under the

Wraparound program, qualified youth are provided with intensive, individualized family-based

services designed to keep them with their families, or to return them to their

families if they are already in an out- of- home placement. Services can be provided,

according to the State legislation, to youths living with their birth parents, relatives,

adoptive parents, licensed or certified foster parents, or guardians.

Funding for the program consists of State funding at the same rate as would be provided

for group home placements, which vary based on each participant’s Rate Classification

Level. The County is required to match the State funds provided at the rate of 60 percent

of the total cost. The funds are provided to the County’s welfare department ( Department

of Human Services in El Dorado County) which may enter into interagency agreements

with other County departments for the provision of wraparound services.

State law requires participating counties, at their option, to develop a plan for wraparound

services and monitor the provision of those services consistent with the plan. The plan, to

be submitted to the State Department of Social Services for informational purposes, is to

include:

q A process and protocol for reviewing and determining eligibility for the program

q Processes for developing, modifying and denying individualized services plans

for each youth participant

q A process for parent support, mentoring, and advocacy to ensure parent

understanding and participation in the program

q A planning and review process to support and facilitate the following program

principles:

o Focus on individual child through individualized service plans

o Providing services geared to enabling the participants to remain in the

least restrictive, most family- like settings possible

o Developing a close and collaborative relationship with the family

o Conducting a thorough, strengths- based assessment of each child and

family that serves as the basis of the individualized service plan

o Designing and delivering services that incorporate the religious customs,

and regional, racial, and ethnic values of the youths and families served

o Measuring consumer satisfaction to assess outcomes

1 See Glossary at the end of this section for definition of Rate Classification Level.

Section 1: Wraparound program overview and glossary of terms

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

4

q Written interagency agreements or memorandum of understanding between the

county departments of social services, mental health and probation that specify

jointly provided or integrated services, staff tasks and responsibilities, budget

considerations and related matters.

The statute also requires that each county evaluate its program to determine it cost and

effectiveness of outcomes. Each county is to ensure that staff participating in the project

has completed training provided or approved by the California Department of Social

Services.

The initial legislation established Wraparound as a pilot project to be concluded by

October 1, 2003. Subsequent legislation, adopted in 20002, expanded the definition of

eligibility to include children residing in, or at risk of residing in a group home at RCL 10

or above. The program ending date of October 2003 in the initial legislation was repealed

indefinitely, according to the California Department of Social Services3. Other than these

changes, most of the other program definitions remained the same.

Details on El Dorado County’s implementation of the Wraparound program are presented

in the next three sections of this report.

Glossary of terms used in this report

Client Goods and Services: A classification of expenditures used in this report for

Department of Mental Health expenditures for non- departmental

goods and services provided to children participants and their

families such as lessons for the children or transportation

services for families. Such services are identified by the child,

the child’s family and other members of his or her support team

usually through Wraparound program interactions facilitated by

County staff or contractor.

Eligible child: A child who is any of the following: 1) a child adjudicated as

either a dependent or ward of the juvenile court pursuant to

[ Welfare Institutions Code] Section 300, 601 or 602 and who

would be placed in a group home licensed by the department at a

Rate Classification Level of 10 or higher; 2) a child who would

be voluntarily placed in out- of- home care pursuant to Section

7572.5 of the Government Code; or, 3) a child who is currently,

or who would be, placed in a group home licensed by the

department at a Rate Classification Level of 10 or higher.

Group home: An alternative to traditional in- home foster care for children, in

which children are housed in a home- like setting with a number

of unrelated children who stay for varying periods of time. The

2 California Welfare & Institutions Code § 18252 and 18254, as amended by Assembly Bill 2706, Chapter

259, Statutes of 2000.

3 The ending date was repealed through separate trailer legislation according to a telephone interview with a

representative of the California Department of Social Services, October 4, 2005.

Section 1: Wraparound program overview and glossary of terms

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

5

children are supervised by a combination of house parents and/ or

staff. More specialized therapeutic or treatment group homes

have specially- trained staff to assist children with emotional and

behavioral difficulties. The make- up and staffing of the group

home can be adapted to meet the unique needs of its residents.

Program participant: Term used in this report for a child that has been assigned by the

County to the program either in a service allocation slot or

without one.

Rate Classification Level ( RCL):

A standardized classification system for children in placement

that measures their overall emotional and mental condition and

determines the type of facility and services they need.

S. B. 163: The original State legislation that authorized the first version of

the Wraparound program.

Service allocation slot: Defined in State Wraparound program law as a specified amount

of funds available to the county to pay for an individualized

intensive wraparound services package for an eligible child. A

service allocation slot may be used for more than one child on a

successive basis. [ California Welfare & Institutions Code 18251]

Support Team: A term used in this report to represent the family members and

others who comprise the team that provides and organizes

services for a Wraparound program participant child. Generally,

these teams meet regularly with a County or contract facilitator

and the child to monitor progress and plan and organize services.

Wraparound: Individualized family- based services provided as an alternative

to group home care. Services are “ wrapped around” a child

living with his or her birth parents, relatives, foster parents,

adoptive parents or guardians. Services emphasize the strengths

of the child and family and includes the delivery of coordinated

and highly individualized services to address the child’s needs

and to achieve positive outcomes.

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

6

2. Compliance with Wraparound program

requirements

q Wraparound is a State- authorized program that allows counties to

flexibly use State and local funds that would otherwise be used for group

home placements to provide individualized services to prevent at risk

children from being placed in group homes. In El Dorado County,

funding is obtained from the State by the Department of Human Services,

combined with County funds and transferred to the Department of

Mental Health which administers the program.

q The County is not operating in full compliance with its key governance

documents: State law; the County Wraparound plan; and, a

Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human

Services and Mental Health. Key areas of non- compliance include: the

absence of an executive management team assuming responsibility for

planning and monitoring program performance and a lack of procedures

to ensure family understanding of and input to the program. Among

other impacts, the lack of a Wraparound program management structure

has resulted in under- expending available program funds, lower service

levels than anticipated and over- budgeting every year of the program.

q State legislation requires that counties providing Wraparound services

designate a number of service allocation slots for participating children.

State funding is provided based on the number of such slots filled each

month. The County’s Department of Mental Health has expanded

program participation by including children at risk of group home

placement in addition to those in the authorized service allocation slots.

Services for these other children are provided with funds not spent on the

children in the authorized slots. The methods for determining eligibility

and expenditure levels for these additional children have not been

documented in the County’s Wraparound plan or any other Department

documents.

q A Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human

Services and Mental Health calls for reinvestment of savings realized in

the Wraparound program to other children’s services. A definition of

such savings has not been established nor has a process for the two

departments to determine how funds should be reinvested. As a result,

approximately $ 173,244 in program funding has accumulated over the

last three year fiscal years that could have been reinvested in other

services for children.

The key documents governing the Wraparound program are: 1) State legislation

authorizing the program; 2) the County’s Wraparound program plan; and, 3) two

Memoranda of Understanding ( MOUs) between the departments involved in the

programs, setting forth the roles and responsibilities of each. A review of the

Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound program requirements

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

7

requirements of these documents compared to actual program activity reveals that many

of the requirements have not been met.

State funding for the Wraparound program is claimed by and transmitted to the County

Department of Human Services as part of the County foster care program. The

Department of Mental Health provides direct services or arranges for contract services for

the children in the program. Participants are referred to the program by the Department of

Human Services- Child Protective Services division, the Department of Mental Health,

County schools and the Probation Department.

State legislation

There are two State statutes governing the Wraparound program. The first, adopted in

19971, allows each county to participate in the program and provide children with service

alternatives to placement in group homes. This legislation enables participating counties

to obtain State funding that would otherwise be provided for group home placement costs

and use it, in conjunction with a mandatory County contribution, for flexibly defined

family- based services provided to eligible children at risk of group home placement.

The original legislation defines eligibility for the program as children who are either

wards of the juvenile court or dependents and who would be placed in a group home with

a license for treating children classified at Rate Classification Level ( RCL) 12 or above 2.

Wraparound services are defined in the legislation as,

“ community- based intervention services that emphasize the strengths of the child and family and

includes the delivery of coordinated, highly individualized unconditional services to address needs

and achieve positive outcomes in their lives.”

The program is optional for counties but the legislation requires that any county that

chooses to participate has to develop a plan for Wraparound services and has to monitor

the provision of such services. The initial legislation established Wraparound as a pilot

project to be concluded by October 1, 2003. Subsequent legislation, adopted in 20003,

expanded the definition of eligibility to include children residing in, or at risk of residing

in a group home at RCL 10 or above. The program ending date of October 2003 in the

initial legislation was repealed indefinitely, according to the California Department of

Social Services4. Other than these changes, most of the other program definitions

remained the same.

1 California Welfare & Institutions Code § 18250- 18257, adopted as Senate Bill 163, Chapter 795, Statutes

of 1997.

2 Rate Classification Levels, or RCLs, are a standardized classification system for children in placement

that measures their overall emotional and mental condition and determines the type of facility and services

they need.

3 California Welfare & Institutions Code § 18252 and 18254, as amended by Assembly Bill 2706, Chapter

259, Statutes of 2000.

4 The ending date was repealed through separate trailer legislation according to a telephone interview with a

representative of the California Department of Social Services, October 4, 2005.

Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound program requirements

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

8

Some of the key requirements of State Wraparound legislation and El Dorado’s

compliance, are summarized in Chart 2.1 below.

Chart 2.1 shows that El Dorado County has complied with some but not all of the

requirements of State law governing the Wraparound program. A program plan is in

place and protocols have been established governing referrals and eligibility for six

County authorized service allocation slots, meaning that six children at risk of group

home placement can be officially enrolled in the program at any one time and the State

will provide its share of what would be the cost of placement in a group home for these

children. Formalized processes for monitoring the program’s accessibility to the target

population and for ensuring parent understanding of and involvement in the program are

not in place.

Treatment plans are prepared for every child in the program by the Department of Mental

Health but they are not different than treatment plans for other children served. They do

not specifically address family strengths or indicate what the family wants for the child.

An interagency Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the County

Departments of Mental Health, Human Services, Probation and Public Health and the

County Office of Education was executed in 2001 outlining program services and the

roles and responsibilities of each agency. That MOU expired in September 2005. A

separate MOU between the Departments of Mental Health and Social Services only was

executed in February 2005 covering the roles and responsibilities and financial

relationships of these two departments.

An evaluation of the program’s treatment and cost effectiveness was prepared by the

Department of Mental Health in 2000. While it presented information on some program

successes, it did not include actual program cost data and reported that half of the

children in the service allocation slots did end up in group home placements. Ideally, the

evaluation would have included an assessment of why these cases were not successful

and suggestions for decreasing the number of children in the program who are placed in

group homes.

Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound program requirements

Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation

9

Chart 2.1

El Dorado County’s Compliance with Key

Requirements of State Wraparound Legislation

State requirement Implemented Not implemented

1 County must develop a Wraparound

services plan to be eligible for

program funding.

County adopted a comprehensive

Wraparound plan, submitted to

the State in March 2000.

2 County must develop a protocol for

reviewing eligibility of children and

families in program and for

monitoring accessibility and

availability of services to the target

population.

Partial: County has a protocol for

reviewing eligibility of children

assigned to service allocatio