Grand Jury Says Shift Fraud Unit to D.A. : Welfare: The move is recommended to make the group more effective and signal that the county is serious about prosecuting.

The Ventura County grand jury has recommended transferring a demoralized welfare fraud unit to the district attorney’s office, a move that would end a power struggle between the prosecutor and the county’s welfare department.

In a report sent Friday to the Board of Supervisors, the grand jury said the welfare department’s 15-person Fraud Special Investigation Unit is poorly trained and organized and suffers from low productivity and self-esteem.

Moving the unit to the district attorney’s office would “send a clear message to violators that welfare-fraud restitution and prosecution will be given more serious attention,” the report said.

The grand jury said fraud investigators referred an average of just 1.7 criminal cases a month to prosecutors during a 27-month period ending in January. That is “very low” considering that the county has about 15,000 food stamp and dependent children cases, it says.

The jury also concluded that strong philosophical differences on how to deal with welfare cheats has led a power struggle between Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury and Public Social Services Director James E. Isom for control of fraud inquiries.

Bradbury could not be reached for comment Friday. But he said in a memo that he tried to absorb the welfare fraud unit five years ago to improve its professional standards but that he was rebuffed by Isom.

“At present there is little or no emphasis placed on conducting professional high-quality investigations,” Bradbury said in the memo to Superior Court Presiding Judge Steven Perren, who oversees the grand jury.

“For example, when a welfare investigator recently went on injury leave, his 52 pending investigations were simply terminated rather than reassigned to other investigators,” Bradbury said.

In response, Isom said Friday that Bradbury is attempting a blatant power grab because welfare fraud cases attract media attention.

“I can’t see any other reason why he would want it,” Isom said. “Welfare bashing is popular right now, and you can have your picture on the front page of the paper every day if you want it.”

Two welfare investigators reached by The Times said they had told the grand jury that they favored the move to the district attorney’s office because they are now poorly equipped and trained, their office lacks discipline and sometimes they duplicate the efforts of district attorney’s child support division.

One investigator who requested anonymity said that until a recent crackdown, welfare investigators were allowed so much freedom that some had been dubbed “The Breakfast Club” because they would regularly meet for long meals during the workday.

Evidence of the meetings, gathered by the district attorney’s office this year, was presented on a videotape to the grand jury, the investigator said.

Special Assistant Dist. Atty. Donald Coleman confirmed that his office had conducted surveillance of “a small number of investigators” after several grand jury members told him about the breakfast meetings.

Coleman would not say whether the district attorney’s office provided the grand jury with a videotape of the meetings.

“The allegation was that The Breakfast Club would meet frequently during working hours at local eating establishments and spent a great deal of time there--to the point where county business was not being conducted,” he said.

The district attorney’s criminal investigation into the practice remains open, he said, because Isom has yet to forward expense and mileage reimbursement claim forms to prosecutors.

Isom, in an interview Friday evening, said he has disciplined--but did not fire--two investigators based on information provided by the district attorney. Isom would not detail the problem or his disciplinary action. But a fraud investigator said the two were suspended for two days without pay.

Isom challenged Bradbury’s motive for assigning one set of county investigators to watch another set of county investigators.

“They can’t prosecute misdemeanors because they don’t have the staff, but they have time to follow somebody else around.” Isom said. “My gut feeling (is that Bradbury) did it because it supports his contention that there are good reasons to move the fraud unit to the district attorney’s office.”

Coleman said Isom’s assumption is untrue. “That sounds like an effort to mislead,” he said. “Instead of dealing with the issues, he creates new ones.”

After a six-month investigation, the grand jury generally supported Bradbury’s conclusions about the welfare fraud unit, finding “severe problems” in it.

The grand jury’s report said it launched a probe because of complaints that the welfare unit was demoralized and inefficient and in response to a January letter from the investigators’ labor union that requested the transfer to the district attorney’s office.

In the letter, the union told the grand jury that a majority of its members favored the move. Welfare investigators said their vote was split 7 to 5.

Indeed, the grand jury found “a lack of trust between two differing factions of investigators” who generally operate on their own rather than as a cohesive unit.

“Several cases reviewed by the grand jury show where one investigator spent a minimum amount of time . . . before disposing of the referral due to lack of evidence,” the report said. “Other investigators, however, following up on the same cases were able to find fraudulent activities running into the thousands of dollars.”

The jury also noted a rift between Isom and Bradbury on how to handle fraud cases--a social service approach that emphasized repayment over prosecution versus a prosecutorial approach that more aggressively pursues criminal charges.

Court decisions require that restitution be sought before criminal charges are filed, the report said. The grand jury said it could not decide which approach was better.

But overall it concluded: “The effectiveness of the (unit) could be significantly improved by a complete change in working environment.” With the change, precise goals should be set for investigators. Advancement opportunities and training also should be offered to eliminate fraud investigators perception of themselves as second-level peace officers, it said.

The report said the welfare department recently took steps to get an upgraded radio system for investigators, provide them with county cars and add two supervisors to the unit.

However, the “underlying problems . . . are still pervasive,” it said.

Anticipating the grand jury’s recommendation, Isom said he has fought the unit’s transfer through conversations with supervisors and a memo to the board.

He has argued that his unit effectively collects restitution from welfare cheats, such as $201,000 during one three-month period in 1991. And, he said, a statewide trend toward reassigning welfare investigators to district attorney’s offices has not always proved successful.

Isom said he disagrees with filing criminal cases just to pad his statistics. A former sheriff’s sergeant, Isom said, “I still believe that criminals should be prosecuted.

“There’s a difference,” he said, “between a robber and a rapist . . . and a mother who commits fraud to put food in a child’s mouth or put clothes on a child’s back.”

Often, he said, locking up a welfare parent only leads to costly incarceration and $500-per-month payments for foster care for each child.

He also said that shifting investigators to the district attorney’s office would cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars a year in additional administrative overhead. He said the shift would hurt cooperation between investigators and the welfare workers who refer cases to them.

Isom acknowledged that his investigators have split into two factions. But he said the problem soon will be worked out at a retreat designed to air grievances.

“There’s nothing in this report that can’t be fixed with the Public Social Services Agency,” he said. “And there’s not one single thing that the district attorney can do any better than we’re doing now.”

The grand jury report and Isom’s written response to it will be placed on the supervisor’s agenda soon, he said.