Citizen Portal
Sign In

Fresno supervisors order independent audit of county social‑services practices after workers, foster families raise concerns

Fresno County Board of Supervisors · April 7, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Supervisors unanimously directed the CAO to commission an independent audit of Fresno County Department of Social Services practices after resource parents, former social workers and oversight committees described problems with responsiveness, case follow‑up and alleged overrides of frontline assessments.

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on April 6 to direct the county administrative officer to contract for an independent audit of Department of Social Services (DSS) practices focused on child‑welfare decision making, oversight and legal compliance. The motion, introduced by Supervisors Bradford and Chavez, asks the CAO to develop options for an audit that would review placement decisions, reporting procedures and whether legal review is being used consistently before significant placement changes.

Supporters said the audit is intended to identify system strengths and areas needing improvement, not to assign blame. "We need transparency, accountability, and accurate information," a board member said during the hearing. Chief Administrative Officer Theo (S29) told the board he has already contacted the California Department of Social Services and planned to begin joint case reviews with county counsel and the department's quality‑assurance representative while preparing options for an independent firm.

The motion followed extended public testimony in which resource parents and former and current social‑services employees described repeated failures to respond to urgent child‑safety concerns, delayed supervisory follow‑up, high staff turnover and what some speakers said were decisions that overrode social‑worker recommendations. Resource family Stefan Montenegro (S26) said repeated calls and emails about behavioral regression received no response: "I don't get a callback. I don't get no response," he told the board. Retired social worker Lorraine Ramirez (S31) said she expected the audit to reveal a culture that had harmed some children and elderly clients and said staff complaints had been dismissed.

Representatives of the county's foster‑care oversight committee and several partner agencies urged broad scope for the audit. Rosemary Alanis (S16), chair of the Foster Care Standards and Oversight Committee, asked that case studies (with protective information redacted), interviews with school personnel, and coordination with the ombudsman be included.

County officials gave data and staffing context: DSS director Sonia Begay (S14) reported a 14% vacancy rate but said child‑welfare caseloads have fallen and that the department has approval to hire 35 social workers to prepare for a major CARES system implementation. Begay also said some workload increases reflect new assessments and child‑and‑family team requirements. Several board members emphasized the need to protect children and to avoid returning children to unsafe situations.

The board directed the CAO to move forward with procurement of an audit firm and agreed that the CAO would report progress to the board. The motion passed unanimously; the CAO said he would return with scope, potential vendors and a timeline.

Next steps: The CAO will develop an engagement plan and report back to the board; county staff also said they will pursue state assistance and begin joint reviews of complex cases in the interim.