John Naimo AUDITOR-CONTROLLER AUDIT DIVISION Arlene Barrera CHIEF DEPUTY Peter Hughes ASSISTANT AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Mike Pirolo INTERIM DIVISION CHIEF September 13, 2018 Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors DEPARTMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNTY EQUITY OVERSIGHT PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS REVIEW PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 PRIORITY 3 REPORT #K17CX John Naimo AUDITOR-CONTROLLER AUDIT DIVISION Arlene Barrera CHIEF DEPUTY Peter Hughes ASSISTANT AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Mike Pirolo INTERIM DIVISION CHIEF September 13, 2018 FACT SHEET Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors DEPARTMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNTY EQUITY OVERSIGHT PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS REVIEW With the support and participation of the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors’ County Equity Oversight Panel (CEOP) and various County departments, we completed a review of County department implementation of CEOP recommendations. Our review focused on the implementation of recommended discipline by County departments, timeliness of discipline, and issues impacting the discipline process. Our review included examining CEOP and department records, and interviews with CEOP and department personnel. Key Outcomes We identified opportunities for Countywide improvements in discipline recommendation and implementation processes; some of which are as follows:  CEOP establish improvements to the recommended discipline tracking process that include tracking all outcomes of recommended discipline (e.g., fully implemented, reduced discipline), issues impacting the discipline process, and implementation times, and notify the Department of Human Resources or the Board of Supervisors of any significant or systemic issues that need to be resolved.  CEOP evaluate reductions in recommended levels of discipline (e.g., grievance, appeal, and department decision) to identify the reasons for reductions, work with appropriate departments and agencies to resolve issues going forward, and potentially reevaluate recommendations in the future (if necessary).  CEOP work with all stakeholder groups involved in the equity complaint process to identify any improvements that can be made to improve the timeliness and efficiency of the overall equity complaint process. It should also be noted that although our review did not specifically focus on other areas of the equity complaint process (i.e., processes prior to issuance of CEOP recommendations), no significant issues came to our attention in those areas. FAST FACTS The County Policy of Equity Program was established to safeguard the workplace from inappropriate conduct (e.g., discrimination). CEOP reviews the results of investigations into violations of the County Policy of Equity, and recommends discipline for County departments to implement. PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 Impact These enhancements will provide greater levels of program oversight and department accountability, continually ensure corrective actions are reasonable and appropriate, and improve timeliness of implementing discipline. Audit Contract Monitoring Investigation Services PRIORITY 3 This report is also available online at auditor.lacounty.gov Report Waste, Fraud, and Abuse: fraud.lacounty.gov For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact Mike Pirolo, Audit Interim Division Chief, at mpirolo@auditor.lacounty.gov or (213) 253-0100. REPORT #K17CX ot COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES tO5 DEPARTM ENT OF AUDITOR.CONTROLLER ¡l '+ KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 5OO WEST TEMPLE STREET, ROOM 525 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9OO1 2-3873 PHONE: (213) 97 4-8301 FAX: (21 3) 626-5427 * JOHN NAIMO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER September 13,2018 TO: Supervisor Sheila Kuehl, Chair Supervisor Hilda L. Solis Supervisor Mark Rid ley-Thomas Supervisor Janice Hahn Barger Superviso r Kath FROM: John Naimo Auditor-Co ller SUBJECT: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DEPARTMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNTY EQUITY OVERSIGHT PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS The County Policy of Equity Program (Program) was established in July 2011 to preserve the dignity and professionalism of the workplace, and protect the right of employees to be free from discrimination, unlawful harassment, retaliation, and inappropriate conduct based on a protected status or activity. County employees can file complaints of Program violations with the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors' County lntake Specialist Unit (CISU), and if warranted following preliminary investigations, a thorough investigation will be conducted by the Department of Human Resources' County Equity lnvestigations Unit (CEIU). lnvestigative reports prepared by CEIU are sent to the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors' County Equity Oversight Panel (CEOP). CEOP reviews investigative reports (both initial recommendations from CISU and further investigations by CEIU), meets with departments to discuss the facts of the investigation, and issues recommendations for disposition and discipline. Departments are responsible for implementing recommended discipline, if any. Help Conserve Paper - Print Double-Srded "To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service" Board of Supervisors September 13, 2018 Page 2 Review Scope and Summary of Findings We reviewed County departments’ implementation of CEOP recommended discipline, the timeframes for implementation, and issues impacting the discipline process. Our review included examination of CEOP and department records, and interviews with CEOP and department personnel. We noted that the process for tracking implementation of recommended discipline could be improved, departments often implement lower levels of discipline than recommended, and the timeliness of implementing discipline needs to be enhanced. The following are the detailed results of our review. Tracking Outcomes of Recommended Discipline CEOP tracks implementation of recommended discipline using a departmental reporting process. If departments decide to implement reduced levels of discipline, they must notify CEOP by providing a written justification letter (although CEOP cannot determine whether departments comply). We noted that CEOP’s tracking process should be enhanced to track all outcomes of recommended discipline. An enhanced tracking mechanism would also include fully implemented recommendations, recommendations where discipline was reduced outside of department’s control (e.g., appeals), issues impacting the discipline process, and discipline implementation timeframes. Better tracking of outcomes would allow CEOP to improve Program oversight, department accountability, and timeliness of recommended discipline. CEOP should also notify the Department of Human Resources (DHR) or the Board of Supervisors of any significant or systemic issues that need to be resolved. Recommendation 1. 1 County Equity Oversight Panel management establish improvements to the recommended discipline tracking process that include tracking all outcomes of recommended discipline (e.g., fully implemented or reduced discipline), issues impacting the discipline process and implementation timeframes, and notify the Department of Human Resources or the Board of Supervisors of any significant or systemic issues that need to be resolved. [PRIORITY 1]1 Priority Ranking: Recommendations are ranked from Priority 1 to Priority 3 based on the potential seriousness and likelihood of negative impact on departmental operations if corrective action is not taken. See Attachment II for definitions of priority rankings. Board of Supervisors September 13, 2018 Page 3 Department Implementation of Recommended Discipline We reviewed 50 CEOP recommendations for discipline made between October 2015 and October 2016 to identify whether departments implemented discipline according to the recommendations. Levels of discipline ranged from written reprimands to discharge. The following is a summary of the implementation status for the 50 recommendations: DEPARTMENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS (AS OF JUNE 2017) A. Department Fully Implemented Recommended Discipline B. Department Implemented Reduced Level of Discipline C. Discipline Pending Investigation, Appeal, or Litigation D. No Action Taken to Implement Discipline E. Discipline Not Currently Possible (Employee Leave or Resignation) CEOP Recommendations Reviewed (October 2015 - October 2016) 17 16 6 6 5 50 (34%) (32%) (12%) (12%) (10%) (100%) Departments have either implemented reduced levels of discipline or have not taken any action to implement discipline for 22 (44%, Line B + Line D) CEOP recommendations. Departments Implementing Reduced Level of Discipline We reviewed the 16 recommendations in which departments implemented reduced levels of discipline to identify the basis for the decision (Line B), and noted the following: • Grievance or Appeal Proceedings: Nine recommendations were reduced during the employee grievance or appeal proceedings. • Department Discretion: Departments made the decision to reduce discipline for seven recommendations. The departments indicated they made their decision based on the specific details of the investigation, County guidelines, and employee personnel history (e.g., no previous issues). CEOP management should evaluate discipline reduced at department discretion, or during grievance or appeal proceedings, to identify the specific reasons for the reductions, and work with appropriate departments/agencies (e.g., CEIU) to resolve any issues going forward and reevaluate future recommendations (if necessary). 1 Priority Ranking: Recommendations are ranked from Priority 1 to Priority 3 based on the potential seriousness and likelihood of negative impact on departmental operations if corrective action is not taken. See Attachment II for definitions of priority rankings. Board of Supervisors September 13, 2018 Page 4 Recommendation 2. County Equity Oversight Panel management evaluate discipline reduced at department discretion, or during grievance or appeal proceedings, to identify the specific reasons for reductions, and work with appropriate departments/agencies (e.g., County Equity Investigations Unit) to resolve any issues going forward and reevaluate future recommendations (if necessary). [PRIORITY 1]1 No Action Taken to Implement Discipline Departments have not taken action to implement discipline for six recommendations (Line D). Five recommendations were outstanding for over six months and one was outstanding for over one year. The Departments indicated that they encountered various delays, but the most common reasons were departmental staff shortages, turnover, and competing priorities. As indicated earlier, CEOP should monitor department progress in implementing the recommended discipline, and notify DHR or the Board of Supervisors of any significant or systemic issues that need to be resolved (see Recommendation 1). Timeliness of Implementing Discipline Given the timelines for implementing discipline discussed above, we evaluated the total time involved in the equity complaint process for the 33 CEOP recommendations that were implemented. On average, discipline was implemented 18 months after the initial equity complaint. AVERAGE TIME INVOLVED IN EQUITY COMPLAINT PROCESS EQUITY COMPLAINT CISU CEIU CEOP DEPARTMENTS 1 MONTH 10 MONTHS 2 MONTHS 5 MONTHS DISCIPLINE IMPLEMENTED 18 MONTHS CEOP should work with all stakeholder groups involved in the equity complaint process (e.g., CISU, CEIU, County departments, and County Counsel) to identify any improvements that can be made to improve the timeliness and efficiency of the overall equity complaint process. 1 Priority Ranking: Recommendations are ranked from Priority 1 to Priority 3 based on the potential seriousness and likelihood of negative impact on departmental operations if corrective action is not taken. See Attachment II for definitions of priority rankings. Board of Supervisors September 13, 2018 Page 5 Recommendation 3. County Equity Oversight Panel management work with all stakeholder groups involved in the equity complaint process (e.g., County Intake Specialist Unit, County Equity Investigations Unit, County departments, and County Counsel) to identify any improvements that can be made to improve the timeliness and efficiency of the overall equity complaint process. [PRIORITY 2]1 Review of Report We discussed the results of our review with CEOP management. CEOP’s attached response (Attachment I) describes the actions they have taken or plan to take to implement the recommendations in our report. We thank CEOP management for their cooperation and assistance during our review. If you have any questions please call me, or your staff may contact Mike Pirolo at (213) 253-0100. JN:AB:PH:MP:ZP Attachments c: Sachi A. Hamai, Chief Executive Officer Vickey L. Bane, Executive Director, County Equity Oversight Panel Celia Zavala, Acting Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors Lisa M. Garrett, Director of Personnel, Department of Human Resources Department Heads Audit Committee Countywide Communications 1 Priority Ranking: Recommendations are ranked from Priority 1 to Priority 3 based on the potential seriousness and likelihood of negative impact on departmental operations if corrective action is not taken. See Attachment II for definitions of priority rankings. CELIA EATMJA ?tI'l'ihi'U COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS KEN OI- TEMPLE ROOM 3-35 LUS- W012 (Eli) 1- Attachment Page 1 of 3 MEMBERS OF THE 913115. MARK JAY-TE jib-Hill August 31. 2018 TD: John Naimo Auditor-Controller SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE ALI REVIEW OF COUNTY DEPARTMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF OEOP RECOMMENDATIONS FROM: Celia Acting ecutive O?i Attached is the Executive Of?ce of the Board of Supervisors response to the Auditor- Controller?s review of Department Implementation of {Bountyr Equitv Oversight Panel Recommendations. We agree withr and have initiated actions to address the recommendations contained in the report. The CEOP program has established itself as a nationwide leader in the investigation and disposition of equity complaints, and continues to look for opportunities for improvement. We have initiated menv enhancements to the overall process and are currently partnering with the Department of Human Resources to create a more seamless database which will optimize business processes and accountability. We would like to thank you and vour department for your professionalism and assistance during this review. If you have any questions. please let me know or your staff mayr contact ?v'ickev Bane. CEOP Executive Director, at BS Attachment c: .Jerarnvr Grailr Vickev Bane Attachment Page 2 of 3 Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors Response to the Auditor-Controller?s Review of County Department Implementation of Recommendations Recommendation 1: County Equity Oversight Panel management establish improvements to the recommended discipline tracking process that include tracking ali outcomes of recommended discipline fully implemented, reduced discipline}, issues impacting the discipline process and implementation timeframes, and notify the Deparlment of Human Resources or the Board of Supervisors of any signi?cant or systemic issues that need to be resolved. Dogmnent Response: Agree The estabiished process has been to require departments to submit a ?Justi?cation Letter?, signed by the Department Head, to the Executive Director of GEDP in the event the department eiects not to toiiow the Panei?s recommendations. CEDP enhance its tracking process by requiring departments to provide the status on air' Penei recommendations to ensure recommendations are impiemented timely and to identity issues impacting the discrpiine process. CEOP notiijr the Department of Human Resources shatter the Board of Supervisors of any significant or systemic issues that need to be resoived. Our Department has been partnering with the Department of Human Resources on a number of enhancements to the overaii process, inciuding creating a more seamiess database which optimize business process eii'iciency and System enhancements be made to the recommended discrpiine tracking process. Pending these system enhancements. CEOP management has deveioped an aitemate tracking toot. Recommendation 2: County Equity Oversight Panel management evaluate discipline reduced at department discretion, or during grievance or appeal proceedings, to identify the speci?c reasons for reductions, and work with appropriate departmentsr?agencles County Equity Investigations Unit} to resolve any issues going forward and reevaluate future recommendations {if necessary). De?rtment Response: Agree in order to uphoid and maintain the integrity of the process, the Panei must independentiy evaiuate and issue recommendations regarding each investigation without being in?uenced by the outcome or third party review (such as the grievance, appeai process, etc}. with that understanding, CEOP management enhance its recommended discipiine tracking process to inciude evaiuating discipiine reduced at the departments? discretion, or during grievance or appeai proceedings, to identity the reasons for reductions, and wortr with appropriate departments/agencies to resoive any "issues.? CEDP management reguiariy engages with departments regarding the Panei?s recommendation process. CEDP management strongiy encourages Attachment Page 3 of 3 Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors Response to the Auditor-Controller's Review of County Department Implementation of CEGF Recommendations departments to arrive at Panei brie?ngs prepared and with the appropriate personnel in attendance. CEOP makes every effort to ensure the department tesves the briefing with sit the tests necessary to impiement any disciplinary recommendation made by the Panei. Recommendation 3: lL?n'runty Equity Oversight Panel management work with ali stakeholder groups involved in the equity complaint process County Intake Specialist Unit, Bounty Equity Investigations Unit, County departments. County Counsel] to identify any improvements that can be made to improve the timeliness and ef?ciency of the overali equity complaint process. . Department Response: Agree CEOP management witi continue its er?i?orts to improve the iimetiness and eiticiency at the eguihr cemptaiht process. CEOP management reguiah?y engages with departments. DHR, and Courier Counsei regarding the program, its investigative procedures, and the Panei recommendation process. CEOP management aiso encourages and meets with at stakeholders and activeiy seeks and considers improvement opportunities. These coitahorstive efforts and the impending system upgrade contin ue to improve the timeiiness of the equity compiaint process. in addition. recent increase in temporary staffing has contributed to a signi?cant improvement in the timeiiness oi compiaint pmcessing and pretiminary investigation, as wait as Panei brie?ngs. Attachment II Page 1 of 1 PRIORITY RANKING DEFINITIONS Auditors use professional judgment to assign rankings to recommendations using the criteria and definitions listed below. The purpose of the rankings is to highlight the relative importance of some recommendations over others based on the likelihood of adverse impacts if corrective action is not taken and the seriousness of the adverse impact. Adverse impacts are situations that have or could potentially undermine or hinder the following: a) b) c) d) e) f) The quality of services departments provide to the community, The accuracy and completeness of County books, records, or reports, The safeguarding of County assets, The County’s compliance with pertinent rules, regulations, or laws, The achievement of critical programmatic objectives or program outcomes, and/or The cost-effective and efficient use of resources. Priority 1 Issues Priority 1 issues are control weaknesses or compliance lapses that are significant enough to warrant immediate corrective action. Priority 1 recommendations may result from weaknesses in the design or absence of an essential procedure or control, or when personnel fail to adhere to the procedure or control. These may be reoccurring or one-time lapses. Issues in this category may be situations that create actual or potential hindrances to the department’s ability to provide quality services to the community, and/or present significant financial, reputational, business, compliance, or safety exposures. Priority 1 recommendations require management’s immediate attention and corrective action within 90 days of report issuance, or less if so directed by the Auditor-Controller or the Audit Committee. Priority 2 Issues Priority 2 issues are control weaknesses or compliance lapses that are of a serious nature and warrant prompt corrective action. Priority 2 recommendations may result from weaknesses in the design or absence of an essential procedure or control, or when personnel fail to adhere to the procedure or control. These may be reoccurring or one-time lapses. Issues in this category, if not corrected, typically present increasing exposure to financial losses and missed business objectives. Priority 2 recommendations require management’s prompt attention and corrective action within 120 days of report issuance, or less if so directed by the Auditor-Controller or the Audit Committee. Priority 3 Issues Priority 3 issues are the more common and routine control weaknesses or compliance lapses that warrant timely corrective action. Priority 3 recommendations may result from weaknesses in the design or absence of a procedure or control, or when personnel fail to adhere to the procedure or control. The issues, while less serious than a higher-level category, are nevertheless important to the integrity of the department’s operations and must be corrected or more serious exposures could result. Departments must implement Priority 3 recommendations within 180 days of report issuance, or less if so directed by the AuditorController or the Audit Committee.