Fresno supervisors direct CEO to hire independent audit of county child‑welfare practices

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors on April 14 directed the county CEO to retain an independent firm to audit practices in the Department of Social Services (DSS), focusing on child‑welfare decision‑making, legal compliance and recommendations to strengthen oversight.

Supervisor Chavez, who co‑authored the request, told colleagues the effort is meant to “tell us what we’re doing well, what needs work,” and to make sure “kids are in the most safe and healthiest environment possible.” He asked that the audit include verification that placement decisions going forward are vetted by county counsel.

The request follows public testimony from current and former social workers, foster‑family representatives and members of the county’s Foster Care Standards and Oversight Committee who described systemic concerns. Lorraine Ramirez, a recently retired social worker, told the board the audit “will uncover a culture … that led to negative effects caused to children and the elderly,” and urged the county to interview staff at every level.

Stefan Montenegro, a resource family, described repeated attempts to get case help for two children in his care and said follow‑up by county social workers was inadequate. “We received the girls… we provided a safe structure,” he said, and later reported regression after unsupervised visits; he told the board he received no effective response from supervisors.

County CEO (name withheld in the transcript) said he had already contacted the California Department of Social Services about possible assistance and proposed a joint review of complex cases by county counsel and the county’s quality‑assurance representative. Director Sonia Bugay told the board vacancy rates and workloads have improved in many child‑welfare units compared with several years ago, but she acknowledged some program areas (notably IHSS) remain under pressure and that the department had just been authorized to hire additional social workers.

Several oversight committee members and community partners urged broad scope for the audit: access to sanitized case studies, interviews with school liaisons and teachers, consultations with foster‑family agencies, and protections so staff who participate do not face retaliation. Rosemary Alanise, chair of the Foster Care Oversight Committee, asked that the audit receive compliance reviews and state audit findings so the committee can identify trends and systemic problems.

Supervisor Chavez moved to empower the CEO to identify and retain a qualified firm and to incorporate legal oversight in the review. The board approved the motion unanimously; the CEO will report back on selection and progress.

The board’s direction is procedural: it authorizes an outside audit and a joint review structure. It does not itself alter case‑level decisions or discipline staff. The audit’s scope, timeline, and any public release schedule will be set by the CEO and the contracted firm and reported back to the board.