Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Report overview
Response synthesis and audit

Responses to Office of the Public Guardian: How Well Do They Protect Riverside County’s Most Vulnerable?

Final supplied positions, implementation claims, future actions and stated refusals are attributed separately to the responding agencies or signatories.

Official response PDFOfficial report PDF

Response by See per-item agency attribution

8

Addressed

2

Partially addressed

0

Not addressed

0

Unclear

County's stated disposition

These categories reflect the County's response to each recommendation, separate from this audit's assessment.

2

Implemented

1

Will be implemented

1

Requires further analysis

0

Will not be implemented

0

Unclear

How to read this audit

Assessment concerns statutory response clarity, explanation, coverage and traceability, not which party is factually correct or whether a legal violation occurred. Implementation is an agency claim unless explicitly established otherwise. No inference of nonresponse or lateness follows a source gap. Finding clarity scores are separate from coverage and support; recommendations have dispositions, not finding scores. September 15 minutes adopt the attached Board position. Software, visit and scheduling claims are not independently verified implementation.

Commitments

Actions stated in the response

These are commitments extracted from the County's response. They describe what the response says will happen; they do not verify that implementation occurred.

2

Extracted commitments

2

Definite or bounded timing

0

Conditional timing

0

No timeframe

BOARD-R2 · Exact date

Assess master scheduling, travel coordination and appropriate facility visit planning.

2026-12-16

BOARD-R4 · Bounded timeframe

Phase in suitable digital training while retaining individual supervision and field coaching.

Implementation expected to continue through June 30, 2027; not a promise to replace all modules or complete every training activity by that date.

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 10 of 10 items

finding · BOARD-F1

The Public Guardian does not regularly or consistently track in-person visits in a systematic manner to ensure that all conservatees are visited at least once every ninety days.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees about inconsistent systematic tracking.

Audit analysis

Pages 4–5 accept the documentation issue without asserting that every undocumented visit failed to occur. The finding concerns reliable tracking, not automatic proof of missed visits.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Pages 4–5 accept the documentation issue without asserting that every undocumented visit failed to occur. The finding concerns reliable tracking, not automatic proof of missed visits.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 14Response page 5
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F2

The Panoramic software used by the Public Guardian is customizable and must be updated to specifically track and report in-person visits with conservatees by deputies so that Public Guardian Management can ensure that individual deputies are able to complete in-person visits as required.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Partly agrees; says a new Panoramic last-visit report already functions.

Audit analysis

Pages 5–6 distinguish customizable capabilities and current configuration from prior use gaps. This is a clear temporal/capability distinction, not independent testing of visit data.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Pages 5–6 distinguish customizable capabilities and current configuration from prior use gaps. This is a clear temporal/capability distinction, not independent testing of visit data.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 14Response page 5
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F3

A master schedule must be developed and implemented to ensure that a vehicle filled with an appropriate number of deputies travels once every ninety days to each facility where multiple conservatees are housed.

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

Partly agrees on coordination but questions a master calendar as the primary control.

Audit analysis

Pages 6–7 discuss individual case responsibility and a supplementary calendar. The disputed primary-control premise is not explicit in the finding; the reply does not clearly isolate its position on the full required facility/vehicle schedule.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

8/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Pages 6–7 discuss individual case responsibility and a supplementary calendar. The disputed primary-control premise is not explicit in the finding; the reply does not clearly isolate its position on the full required facility/vehicle schedule.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 15Response page 6
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F4

Deputies are subject to a restrictive work schedule which requires them to be present in the office every Tuesday and Thursday, and this interferes with their ability to complete in-person visits once every ninety days.

Audit: Partially addressed

Response says

Partly agrees that flexibility helps and defends office days’ operational purpose.

Audit analysis

Pages 7–8 describe record work, meetings and support access. Disputing an inferred lack of purpose does not clearly isolate the finding’s actual interference claim about the two-day requirement.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

8/10

3/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
1/2

5/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
1/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Pages 7–8 describe record work, meetings and support access. Disputing an inferred lack of purpose does not clearly isolate the finding’s actual interference claim about the two-day requirement.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 15Response page 7
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F5

Training new deputies is a daunting task that involves supervising deputies sitting down with one or more new deputies over the course of their first year on the job to go over twenty-seven training modules. Supervising deputies also get involved when a more experienced deputy needs refresher training or skills reinforcement.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees about training demands.

Audit analysis

Pages 7–8 explain modules, field work and supervision. Agreement is clear and supported by named training practices, without requiring a disagreement explanation.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

Pages 7–8 explain modules, field work and supervision. Agreement is clear and supported by named training practices, without requiring a disagreement explanation.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 15Response page 7
Discuss finding and response

finding · BOARD-F6

Training in basic concepts and routine matters could be digitized with the help of workforce education and technology professionals to make this training more consistent and efficient and to relieve time pressures on supervising deputies who are responsible for most of the training of new deputies.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

Agrees that suitable concepts can be digitized while field coaching remains.

Audit analysis

The response accepts the proposed opportunity and describes its limited subject scope rather than treating every skill as suitable for replacement by recorded instruction.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

10/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

6/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
2/2
Reason specificity
2/2
Support traceability
2/2

The response accepts the proposed opportunity and describes its limited subject scope rather than treating every skill as suitable for replacement by recorded instruction.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 15Response page 8
Discuss finding and response

recommendation · BOARD-R1

Negotiate, schedule, and complete updates or alterations to the Panoramic software program so that it specifically tracks and reports on in-person visits to conservatees and then train supervising deputies and deputies to enter the necessary data and generate relevant reports. Based on Findings: F1, F2 Implementation Date: June 30, 2027 Fiscal Impact: Moderate

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Claims implementation of a last-visit report, data-entry expectations and staff guidance.

Audit analysis

Pages 9–10 identify the report fields, usage and training. No independent test of data completeness or ninety-day visit completion was performed.

Report page 15Response page 9

recommendation · BOARD-R2

Develop and maintain a master schedule that can be used to ensure that a vehicle filled with an appropriate number of deputies travels once every ninety days to each facility where multiple conservatees are housed. Based on Findings: F1, F2, F3 Implementation Date: December 31, 2026 Fiscal Impact: Minimal

County: Requires further analysisAudit: Addressed

Response says

Requires analysis of master scheduling and travel coordination by December 16, 2026.

Audit analysis

The answer gives an assessment scope and deadline, not a completed facility/vehicle schedule.

Extracted commitments

Assess master scheduling, travel coordination and appropriate facility visit planning.

Responsible party
Office of the Public Guardian
Timing
2026-12-16 · Exact date
Report page 15Response page 9

recommendation · BOARD-R3

Eliminate restrictive scheduling that requires all deputies to work in the office every Tuesday and Thursday to allow them more time and flexibility to complete in-person visits to conservatees once every ninety days. (This recommendation is not intended to eliminate the requirement that all deputies must be present in the office to regularly attend team and all staff meetings. Nor is this recommendation intended to eliminate supervision of deputy schedules by supervising deputies.) Based on Finding: F4 Implementation Date: October 30, 2026 Fiscal Impact: None

County: ImplementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Claims revised office scheduling is implemented.

Audit analysis

The response describes one regular office day with role/task exceptions and supervision retained; the jury did not request elimination of all office meetings.

Report page 15Response page 10

recommendation · BOARD-R4

With the assistance of workforce education and technology professionals, digitize deputy training materials on basic concepts and routine matters that do not change significantly over time. Based on Finding: F5, F6 Implementation Date: June 30, 2027 Fiscal Impact: Moderate

County: Will be implementedAudit: Addressed

Response says

Will phase in suitable digital training, with work expected to continue through June 30, 2027.

Audit analysis

Pages 10–11 distinguish reusable concepts from individual case work and field coaching. The expected continuation period is not a guarantee that every module is digitized by that day.

Extracted commitments

Phase in suitable digital training while retaining individual supervision and field coaching.

Responsible party
Office of the Public Guardian
Timing
Implementation expected to continue through June 30, 2027; not a promise to replace all modules or complete every training activity by that date. · Bounded timeframe
Report page 16Response page 10