Countywide Equity Audit: Multnomah County shows commitment to equity; more accountability is crucial for ensuring meaningful progress

_{report issued July 2025}

Report Highlights

Multnomah County shows commitment to equity; more accountability is crucial for meaningful progress

What We Found	Why This is Important
There are systemic issues that limit accountability and feedback	Without accountability and feedback, toxic behaviors can persist, harming morale and productivity. Lack of anonymous feedback stifles honest reporting, preventing issues from being addressed.
Several departments do not perform equity data analysis	Effective equity work relies on expertise to measure progress. Without data analysis, departments can't identify disparities, evaluate the success of programs, or hold themselves accountable. This undermines the purpose of equity efforts.
There are different outcomes for employees based on their demographic groups	Countywide, Asian employees are less likely to be supervisors, Black or African American employees are less likely to pass the trial service period and are more likely to be fired, and LGBTQIA2S+ employees are more likely to quit.
There is a lack of formal accountability of the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan (WESP)	The WESP lacks clear accountability and has faced implementation challenges. This is significant because the WESP is the county's overarching plan for addressing equity. Without consistent implementation and a clearly responsible party, it risks becoming a symbolic document rather than a driver of real change.

---

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge that the pursuit of equity is a complex and ongoing process that demands dedication, resources, and a willingness to confront challenging realities. This audit benefited greatly from the generous contributions of many individuals and groups. We express our gratitude to the staff at the Office of Diversity and Equity, department equity staff, department HR managers, union staff, and other county employees for their guidance and expertise, and the Employee Resource Groups for their passionate advocacy and insightful feedback. Your collective contributions were essential to assessing the county's progress toward equity and identifying areas for improvement.

---

Why does equity work matter?

Equity work is important because it helps ensure that the county serves all of its residents fairly and effectively, and that all employees are given opportunities to be successful, recognizing that historical and ongoing systems of oppression can create unequal starting points. Studies have shown that when people with different backgrounds and experiences work together, it leads to more innovation. This is especially important for communities that have been marginalized or excluded through institutional practices and power imbalances. For example, a public health agency that is culturally competent is better equipped to understand the health disparities that exist in our society. This can lead to better health outcomes for all members of the community.

The definition of equity we used for this audit recognizes that we do not all have the same advantages and we must customize our support to ensure everyone has the tools they need to thrive. A common image used when describing equity is the one below. It shows that giving everyone the same bicycle does not help if the bicycle is not customized to individual needs.

Examples of obstacles that prevent people from being on a level playing field include poverty, trauma, and/or discrimination based on race, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, or disabilities. However, this list is not exhaustive. For this audit, we measured outcomes for groups when we had information available, which was for race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability status. We recognize that there are other factors at play that cannot be captured with data, and we interviewed people to add additional context to our analysis. 

---

Equity work at Multnomah County

Multnomah County has demonstrated a commitment to equity through several key initiatives. The Board of County Commissioners has affirmed this dedication in both email communications and public statements. This commitment is further underscored by having an Office of Diversity and Equity, the presence of designated equity managers in most county departments, and high employee attendance at equity training programs. The county also supports Employee Resource Groups, which are groups for employees to connect with others who have a shared lived experience.

Another important aspect of equity comes from the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan (WESP). In April 2018, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the first WESP. In that plan, Multnomah County Employee Resource Group leaders wrote, “We entered collectively into this process with hope and trepidation. This wasn’t the first time that Multnomah County asked us to share our stories, or surveyed us for our experiences. We have seen previous efforts start and stop. And we hope and expect that this time is different.”

Unfortunately, some of those fears came to pass. The 2021-2022 Multnomah County WESP Annual Report found that the county struggled to implement goals related to manager training; manager and human resource disability focused training; employee training focusing on cultural responsiveness and inclusionary practices; and reviewing job descriptions. Additionally, employees we interviewed described the painful effects of the WESP not being fully realized. However, the WESP annual report also showed some progress, including hiring equity managers, expanding employee survey questions about belonging, and incorporating cultural responsiveness, equity, and racially just practices in management-level hiring.

Then in 2023, the Office of Diversity and Equity collaborated with others at the county to develop the WESP Steering Committee to devise a new WESP. They intended it to be an addition to, rather than a replacement of, the original WESP. The Board of County Commissioners adopted it in 2024.

Employees expressed concern that this version may also fall short of full implementation. This concern led us to include WESP accountability in our audit objectives. However, because the WESP renewal process was happening during our audit, we limited our audit scope to avoid disrupting it. We interviewed WESP Renewal Steering Committee members to understand the current state of the WESP and ensure our audit complemented, rather than duplicated, ongoing efforts.

This audit is not intended to cover every aspect of equity. Based on employee interviews, our objectives became: 

• Evaluate each department's progress and current standing within an equity maturity model framework.
• Identify and analyze disparities in turnover rates, wages, and management representation across demographic groups.
• Assess the WESP's goal-setting and accountability framework.
• Evaluate the adequacy of resources and support for equity initiatives and accountability.

---

Department Equity Assessments

Each department has a unique approach to equity. This makes sense since every department serves unique populations and performs distinct jobs. Even with customized equity processes for each department, there are still best practices that apply countywide. The following sections evaluate the employee outcomes and equity maturity model for each department.

Why use employee outcome measures? 

A common theme we heard during audit interviews is that people are exhausted from trying to prove that different groups have different outcomes. Data analysis is beneficial because it gives people answers about these different outcomes and then the conversation can move past trying to prove that a problem exists and move forward to finding solutions.

For this audit, we analyzed human resources data from July 1, 2019 through July 1, 2024 from Workday, the county’s HR and enterprise resource planning system. This time period allowed us to see trends that occurred over time, instead of looking at shorter periods that were potentially impacted by a one-time event. To ensure consistency, we utilized demographic descriptors from Workday. We acknowledge that these terms may not always be preferred. We spoke with the Multnomah County Evaluation and Research Unit to ensure we had a shared understanding of the data definitions in Workday. Additionally, we chose to show data from small groups of people because, as explained by groups such as the Native Data Transparency Project (a group which promotes accurate and authentic collecting and reporting of Indigenous data), omitting small groups from reporting is a form of erasure.

The amount of information in Workday differs based on the demographic. Some demographics have high response rates, with only 4% of employees choosing “Decline to Answer” or leaving it blank for race or ethnicity; and for gender, only 2% have “Prefer Not to Answer.” However, some demographics have less information, which could limit the analyses. For example, for sexual orientation, 62% of employees selected “Prefer Not to Answer” or left it blank; and for disability status, 74% selected “I prefer not to answer”, “I don’t know”, or left it blank.

We used multiple regressions to see if there were differences in outcomes. Those with a p-value less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. In other words, there is a low likelihood that this difference in outcomes was due to chance. The statistically significant differences are the only ones noted in the employee outcome measures. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant.

We evaluated the following outcome measures based on suggestions from people we interviewed:  

• Rate of Being Hired 2019–2024: This measure looks at how often each demographic group was hired. We reviewed all applicants who applied for a job opening at the county from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024. We only included those who were considered for the job. We did not include those who were disqualified due to things such as not meeting the minimum qualifications, failing a background check or entrance exam, or having an incomplete application. Some columns will say “no data” for this outcome measure because fewer demographics are collected during the hiring phase.
• Rate of not Passing Trial Service Period 2019–2024: This measure looks at how often employees from each demographic group did not pass their trial service period. We reviewed employees who worked at the county from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024. We counted anyone with a termination reason of “Probationary Dismissal” in Workday.
• Rate of Being Fired 2019–2024: This measure looks at how often each demographic group was fired. We reviewed employees who worked at the county from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024. We counted anyone with an involuntary termination in Workday, except those with a probationary dismissal.
• Rate of Quitting 2019–2024: This measure looks at how often each demographic group quit. We reviewed employees who worked at the county from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024. We counted anyone with a voluntary termination in Workday, except those who were retiring.
• Rate of Being Promoted 2019–2024: This measure looks at how often each demographic group was promoted. We reviewed employees who worked at the county from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024. We counted anyone with a promotion in Workday.
• Change in Pay from 2019 to 2024: This measure looks at the numeric change in pay from 2019 to 2024. We reviewed the same employees who worked at the county on July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2024. We converted pay to an hourly rate so that those who changed the number of hours worked per week during that time would not skew the results. For each individual, we examined how much their pay changed from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024.
• Rate of Having a Supervisory Position in 2024: This measure looks at the percentage of employees who are supervisors. We reviewed employees who worked at the county on July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2024. We included anyone who has an employee who reports to them.

Why use the equity maturity model framework?

To guide our evaluation, we adopted the "Governing for Equity" framework developed by Dr. Benoy Jacob, the director of the community development institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Jacob's research explores the development and governance of cities, with a focus on public finance, the relationship between states and localities, and social equity. This framework, published by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), provides a framework for measuring and driving progress towards equity.
 

Dr. Jacob's model outlines four key phases:

• Initiating Equity: This phase involves actively creating and adopting an equity-oriented vision, and meaningfully engaging with community stakeholders on equity issues.
• Readiness: This phase involves the organization's readiness to implement equity initiatives.
• Establishing an Equity Infrastructure: This phase focuses on developing the organizational infrastructure necessary for equity implementation.
• Sustaining Equity: The final phase ensures the long-term success of equity initiatives by embedding them into the organization's culture and practices.

To ensure an impartial assessment of departmental equity initiatives, we used this standardized framework grounded in best practices and research. This framework provides a consistent methodology for evaluating progress, identifying strengths and areas for growth, and offering a roadmap for continued improvement. While acknowledging the unique context and goals of each department, this approach ensures fairness in our analyses and provides valuable insights for advancing equity across the county. Using an equity maturity model framework and incorporating data from the 2023 countywide employee survey, we assessed and categorized departmental equity progress.

Description of Criteria: 
Each department's progress in meeting equity maturity model requirements is classified as Implemented, In Process, or Not Implemented. 

• Implemented indicates successful fulfillment of these requirements, evidenced by a documented equity vision and strategic plan, consistent equity data collection and analysis, a comprehensive equity training plan, routine reporting and evaluation of equity initiatives, and integrated equity practices into decision-making processes.
• In Process signifies ongoing efforts towards meeting these requirements, with progress being made in developing an equity vision and strategic plan, implementing equity data collection and analysis, establishing a comprehensive equity training plan, tracking of equity initiatives, and integrating equity practices into decision-making.
• Not Implemented shows that the department has not yet initiated or demonstrated progress towards meeting the requirements, with key components such as those listed for the Implemented classification being absent.

In addition to the maturity model, the department's performance in specific areas is also categorized based on the 2023 countywide employee survey: Above Average, Average, or Below Average.    

• Above Average signifies that the department is in the upper third for the percent of employees who reported having opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor, feeling a strong sense of belonging within their department, and perceiving their workload as properly distributed within their unit.
• Average demonstrates that the department is in the middle third for these same measures.
• Below Average signifies that the department is in the bottom third.

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Definition	Above Average or Implemented	Average or In Process	Below Average or Not Implemented
Equity vision	The department has a written vision for promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion in all its activities and services.	Department has a written equity vision.	Department is developing an equity vision.	Department does not have a written equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	Department collects and analyzes data related to equity, including any metrics or indicators used.	Department conducts comprehensive data collection and analysis of equity data.	Department conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data.	Department does not conduct data collection and analysis of equity data.

Phase II: Readiness	Definition	Above Average or Implemented	Average or In Process	Below Average or Not Implemented
Equity plan	The department has a comprehensive, actionable plan with goals, strategies, and accountability measures to advance equity. This plan can be a stand-alone equity strategic plan or be fully integrated into the department's overarching strategic plan.	Comprehensive equity plan is in place.	Equity plan is being developed.	No equity plan exists.
Equity training participation	Data comes from Workday and looks at the percent of employees who have taken an equity training. It does not include on-call staff, interns, limited duration, or temporary positions.	75% or more of staff have taken an equity training.	Between 50% and 75% of staff have taken an equity training.	Less than 50% of staff have taken an equity training.
Equity staff	The department has an equity manager and dedicated equity support staff.	Department has two or more dedicated equity employees, including an equity manager.	Department has one dedicated equity employee.	Department has no dedicated equity employees.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Definition	Above Average or Implemented	Average or In Process	Below Average or Not Implemented
Equity training plan	The department has developed comprehensive training programs and initiatives aimed at promoting equity.	Department has a comprehensive equity training plan.	Department is developing an equity training plan.	Department does not have an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	How frequently the department tracks the effectiveness of its equity initiatives, including through WESP tracking.	Department regularly tracks equity initiatives.	Department infrequently tracks equity initiatives.	Department does not track equity initiatives.
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Data comes from the 2023 countywide employee survey and measures the percent of employees who agree with the statement, “I have opportunities to provide feedback to my supervisor.”	The department is in the upper third. For this question, to be in the upper third of departments, 92% or more of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.	The department is in the middle third. For this question, to be in the middle third of departments, between 87% and 92% of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.	The department is in the bottom third. For this question, to be in the bottom third of departments, less than 87% of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Definition	Above Average or Implemented	Average or In Process	Below Average or Not Implemented
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Data comes from the 2023 countywide employee survey and measures the percent of employees who agree with the statement, “I feel like I belong in my department.”	The department is in the upper third. For this question, to be in the upper third of departments, 84% or more of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.	The department is in the middle third. For this question, to be in the middle third of departments, between 81% and 84% of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.	The department is in the bottom third. For this question, to be in the bottom third of departments, less than 81% of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Data comes from the 2023 countywide employee survey and measures the percent of employees who agree with the statement, “My work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.”	The department is in the upper third. For this question, to be in the upper third of departments, 85% or more of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.	The department is in the middle third. For this question, to be in the middle third of departments, between 82% and 85% of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.	The department is in the bottom third. For this question, to be in the bottom third of departments, less than 82% of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Data comes from the 2023 countywide employee survey and measures the percent of employees who agree with the statement, “The workload in my work unit is properly distributed.”	The department is in the upper third. For this question, to be in the upper third of departments, 60% or more of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.	The department is in the middle third. For this question, to be in the middle third of departments, between 53% and 60% of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.	The department is in the bottom third. For this question, to be in the bottom third of departments, less than 53% of employees agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	The department embeds equity considerations into decision-making processes, for example, in its hiring and budgeting processes.	Department has embedded equity practices across all key decision-making processes.	Department has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes.	Department has not embedded equity practices in decision-making processes.

---

Department of Community Justice 

Employee Outcome Measures

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Some outcome measures have no data because this demographic information is not collected during the hiring phase. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{Equity Maturity Model Performance}

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Performance	Description
Equity vision	Implemented	DCJ has an equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	In Process	DCJ conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data.

Phase II: Readiness	Performance	Description
Equity plan	Implemented	DCJ has a comprehensive action plan for meeting the goals of the WESP.
Individuals have taken equity trainings	Above Average	Nearly 94% of DCJ employees completed training in Workday.
Equity staff	Implemented	DCJ has two funded FTE including a WESP Project Manager and Equity Manager.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Performance	Description
Comprehensive equity training plan	Implemented	DCJ has an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	Implemented	DCJ regularly tracks equity initiatives.
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 89% of DCJ employees have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Performance	Description
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Below Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey revealed that 77% of DCJ employees feel a sense of belonging within their department.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Below Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 80% of DCJ employees feel their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Average	According to the 2023 countywide employee survey, 59% of DCJ employees indicated that the workload in their unit is properly distributed.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	Average	DCJ has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as having equity managers present across departmental budget meetings.

The Department of Community Justice (DCJ) shows a commitment to equity in multiple ways: an equity vision, a comprehensive action plan for meeting the goals of the WESP, and high employee equity training completion rates. They have established an equity infrastructure with two funded FTE including a WESP Project Manager and an Equity Manager, have a comprehensive equity training plan, and regularly track equity initiatives. They have integrated equity considerations into their budgeting processes. But DCJ conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data, and has some areas for improvement in employee feedback on belonging, response to discriminatory behavior, and workload distribution.

Maturity model overview - Department of Community Justice

We recommend that the Department of Community Justice, no later than March 1, 2026:

1. Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding belonging and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.
2. Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding responding to discriminatory behavior and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.      

3. Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

   ---

Department of Community Services 

Employee Outcome Measures

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Some outcome measures have no data because this demographic information is not collected during the hiring phase. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

Equity Maturity Model Performance

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Performance	Description
Equity vision	Implemented	DCS has an equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	In Process	DCS conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data.

Phase II: Readiness	Performance	Description
Equity plan	Implemented	DCS has an equity plan and a 2024-2028 WESP implementation schedule and plan.
Individuals have taken equity trainings	Average	66% of DCS employees completed training in Workday.
Equity staff	In Process	DCS has one dedicated equity employee.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Performance	Description
Comprehensive equity training plan	Implemented	DCS has an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	Implemented	DCS regularly tracks equity initiatives.
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 88% of DCS employees have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Performance	Description
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey revealed that 82% of DCS employees feel a sense of belonging within their department.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 84% of DCS employees feel their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Above Average	According to the 2023 countywide employee survey, 61% of DCS employees indicated that the workload in their unit is properly distributed.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	Average	DCS has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as decision making through community engagement and budget prioritization.

The Department of Community Services (DCS) demonstrates a commitment to equity through an established equity vision, a comprehensive equity plan (including a 2024-2028 WESP implementation schedule), a comprehensive equity training plan, and the integration of equity practices into a few decision-making processes, such as community engagement and budget prioritization. DCS also regularly tracks equity initiatives. While they have one dedicated equity employee and a significant portion of employees have completed equity training, DCS conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data. Employee survey results indicate a positive work environment with high rates of employees having opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor. However, perceptions of belonging and response to discriminatory behavior, along with concerns regarding workload distribution, suggest areas for improvement. Despite a strong focus on employee development and generally positive work environment indicated by the countywide employee survey results, the limited data analysis capacity may hinder DCS's ability to fully measure progress and ensure accountability in their equity work.

Maturity model overview - Department of Community Services

We recommend that the Department of Community Services implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:

1. Advocate to the Board for funding to build capacity for equity data collection and analysis to inform equity efforts.
2. Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

---

Department of County Assets 

Employee Outcome Measures

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Some outcome measures have no data because this demographic information is not collected during the hiring phase. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{Equity Maturity Model Performance}

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Performance	Description
Equity vision	Implemented	DCA has an equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	In Process	DCA conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data.

Phase II: Readiness	Performance	Description
Equity plan	Implemented	DCA has a comprehensive equity plan that is embedded into DCA’s Departmental Strategic Plan.
Individuals have taken equity trainings	Above Average	100% of DCA employees completed training in Workday.
Equity staff	Implemented	DCA has two dedicated equity employees, including an equity manager.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Performance	Description
Comprehensive equity training plan	Implemented	DCA has an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	Implemented	DCA regularly tracks equity initiatives.
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 93% of DCA employees have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Performance	Description
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey revealed that 87% of DCA employees feel a sense of belonging within their department.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 85% of DCA employees feel their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Above Average	According to 2023 countywide employee survey, 72% of DCA employees indicated that the workload in their unit is properly distributed.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	Average	DCA has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as budgeting and interview panels.

The Department of County Assets (DCA) demonstrates a strong commitment to equity through an established equity vision, a comprehensive equity plan embedded into DCA’s Departmental Strategic Plan, a dedicated team of two equity employees, and high employee equity training completion rates. The 2023 countywide employee survey results indicated a positive work environment, with high rates of employees feeling a sense of belonging and having opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor, along with positive perceptions of workload distribution. While equity practices are embedded in a few decision-making processes, such as budgeting and interview panels, further integration is needed to strengthen their equity framework.

Maturity model overview – Department of County Assets

We recommend that the Department of County Assets implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:

1. Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

   ---

Department of County Human Services 

Employee Outcome Measures

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Some outcome measures have no data because this demographic information is not collected during the hiring phase. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{Equity Maturity Model Performance}

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Performance	Description
Equity vision	Implemented	DCHS has an equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	In Process	DCHS conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data.

Phase II: Readiness	Performance	Description
Equity plan	Implemented	DCHS has an equity plan.
Individuals have taken equity trainings	Average	62% of DCHS employees completed training in Workday. See note below.
Equity staff	Implemented	DCHS has two dedicated equity employees, including an equity manager.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Performance	Description
Comprehensive equity training plan	Implemented	DCHS has an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	Implemented	Department regularly tracks equity initiatives.
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 92% of DCHS employees have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Performance	Description
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey revealed that 84% of DCHS employees feel a sense of belonging within their department.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 83% of DCHS employees feel their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Above Average	According to the 2023 countywide employee survey, 60% of DCHS employees indicated that the workload in their unit is properly distributed.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	Average	DCHS has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as having Equity Manager's participation in leadership team meetings, policy reviews, and budgeting.

_{Note: For the training performance measure of our equity maturity model, we used equity training data from Workday to score departments to maintain uniform audit criteria. During our audit, DCHS provided a list of equity training they had offered to staff, but participation in these trainings was not recorded in Workday. DCHS should consider getting this information entered into Workday.} 

The Department of County Human Services (DCHS) demonstrates a commitment to equity, as evidenced by their established equity vision and equity plan. They have two dedicated equity staff, a comprehensive training plan in place, and regularly track equity initiatives. Employees also report high rates of opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor. DCHS has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as the Equity Manager's participation in leadership team meetings, policy reviews, and budgeting. However, DCHS conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data. Additionally, we heard concerns from staff about their pronouns not being used correctly. Overall, DCHS needs to strengthen its data infrastructure, enhance a sense of belonging and response to discriminatory behavior, and prioritize broader embedding of equity practices in decision-making.

Maturity model overview – Department of County Human Services

We recommend that the Department of County Human Services implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:

1. Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

   ---

Department of County Management 

Employee Outcome Measures 

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Some outcome measures have no data because this demographic information is not collected during the hiring phase. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{Equity Maturity Model Performance}

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Performance	Description
Equity vision	Implemented	DCM has an equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	Not Implemented	DCM does not conduct data collection and analysis of equity data.

Phase II: Readiness	Performance	Description
Equity plan	Implemented	DCM has an equity plan.
Individuals have taken equity trainings	Average	66% of DCM employees completed training in Workday.
Equity staff	Implemented	DCM has two dedicated equity employees, including an equity manager.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Performance	Description
Comprehensive equity training plan	Implemented	DCM has an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	Implemented	Department tracks equity initiatives.
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 93% of DCM employees have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Performance	Description
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey revealed that 86% of DCM employees feel a sense of belonging within their department.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 92% of DCM employees feel their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Above Average	According to the 2023 countywide employee survey, 72% of DCM employees indicated that the workload in their unit is properly distributed.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	Average	DCM has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as budgeting.

The Department of County Management (DCM) has established a good foundation for equity work with a clear vision, a departmental equity plan, two dedicated equity staff (including an equity manager), and a comprehensive equity training plan. They also regularly track equity initiatives. Employee survey data reveals positive perceptions of workplace belonging, responsiveness to discriminatory behavior, and high rates of employees having opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor, all indicating strong commitment. However, implementation and infrastructure gaps remain. Specifically, DCM does not conduct equity data collection and analysis, hindering its ability to measure progress and ensure accountability comprehensively. While 66% of DCM employees have completed equity training, and equity practices are embedded in a few decision-making processes such as budgeting, employees report concerns regarding workload distribution. Formalizing comprehensive data analysis and evaluation processes, along with broader integration of equity into all key decision-making processes, is needed.

Maturity model overview – Department of County Management

We recommend that the Department of County Management implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:

1. Advocate to the Board for funding to build capacity for equity data collection and analysis to inform equity efforts.

2. Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

   ---

District Attorney’s Office 

Employee Outcome Measures

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Some outcome measures have no data because this demographic information is not collected during the hiring phase. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{Equity Maturity Model Performance}

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Performance	Description
Equity vision	Implemented	The DA’s Office has an equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	In Process	The DA’s Office conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data.

Phase II: Readiness	Performance	Description
Equity plan	Implemented	The DA’s Office has an equity plan.
Individuals have taken equity trainings	Above Average	77% of DA employees completed training in Workday.
Equity staff	In Process	The DA’s Office only has one equity employee.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Performance	Description
Comprehensive equity training plan	Implemented	The DA’s Office has an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	Not Implemented	The DA’s Office does not track equity initiatives.
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Below Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 82% of DA employees have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Performance	Description
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey revealed that 81% of DA employees feel a sense of belonging within their department.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 82% of DA employees feel their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Average	According to the 2023 countywide employee survey, 53% of DA employees indicated that the workload in their unit is properly distributed.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	Average	The DA’s Office told us they have embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as conflict resolution practices and trauma informed training and mediation.

While the District Attorney’s Office (DA) has established a foundation for equity work with a defined vision and high completion rates for employee training, several key areas require attention to solidify their equity infrastructure and ensure sustainable progress. Although data collection and analysis efforts were initiated in previous years, the DA’s Office told us these were paused during the transition to a newly elected District Attorney. Although a strategic plan was developed in 2024, its effective implementation hinges on securing adequate staffing, including filling the vacant equity analyst position. Additionally, the DA should prioritize developing a robust system for regular reporting and evaluation of equity initiatives to track progress, measure impact, and ensure accountability.

Maturity model overview – District Attorney’s Office

We recommend that the District Attorney’s Office implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:

1. Hire an equity analyst.
2. Establish a centralized system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of all equity initiatives. This system should include clear metrics, standardized reporting procedures, and a mechanism for collecting feedback from both employees and the community.

3. Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.
    

   ---

Health Department 

Employee Outcome Measures

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Some outcome measures have no data because this demographic information is not collected during the hiring phase. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{Equity Maturity Model Performance}

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Performance	Description
Equity vision	Implemented	HD has an equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	Not Implemented	HD does not conduct data collection and analysis of equity data.

Phase II: Readiness	Performance	Description
Equity plan	Not Implemented	HD does not have an equity plan.
Individuals have taken equity trainings	Above Average	75% of HD employees completed training in Workday.
Equity staff	In Process	While HD has recently hired a Deputy Director of Policy, Strategy, and Equity position, the department currently lacks an equity manager.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Performance	Description
Comprehensive equity training plan	Implemented	HD has an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	Not Implemented	HD does not track equity initiatives
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 87% of HD employees have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Performance	Description
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey revealed that 82% of HD employees feel a sense of belonging within their department.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Below Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 78% of HD employees feel their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Average	According to the 2023 countywide employee survey, 56% of HD employees indicated that the workload in their unit is properly distributed.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	Average	HD has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as recruitment and budgeting processes.

The Health Department (HD) has taken initial steps towards establishing an equity framework, as evidenced by their equity vision and an equity training plan. A significant portion of HD employees have also completed equity training. While HD has recently hired a Deputy Director of Policy, Strategy, and Equity, the department currently lacks an equity manager and does not conduct equity data collection and analysis. Furthermore, HD does not yet have a formal equity plan or regular tracking of equity initiatives, which impedes progress and accountability. Although HD has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as recruitment and budgeting, a more robust infrastructure with dedicated equity leadership, comprehensive planning, and ongoing tracking of equity initiatives is needed to achieve meaningful and sustainable progress towards equity goals.

Maturity model overview – Health Department

We recommend that the Health Department implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:

1. Hire an equity manager.
2. Advocate to the Board for funding to build capacity for equity data collection and analysis to inform equity efforts.
3. Develop a comprehensive equity plan that outlines specific goals, strategies, and initiatives for advancing equity.
4. Establish a centralized system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of all equity initiatives. This system should include clear metrics, standardized reporting procedures, and a mechanism for collecting feedback from both employees and the community.
5. Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding responding to discriminatory behavior and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.
6. Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

---

Homeless Services Department 

Employee Outcome Measures

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Some outcome measures have no data because this demographic information is not collected during the hiring phase. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{Equity Maturity Model Performance}

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Performance	Description
Equity vision	Implemented	HSD has an equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	In Process	Department conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data.

Phase II: Readiness	Performance	Description
Equity plan	In Process	HSD is developing an equity plan.
Individuals have taken equity trainings	Average	70% of HSD employees completed training in Workday.
Equity staff	Implemented	HSD has a dedicated team of six equity employees, including an equity manager.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Performance	Description
Comprehensive equity training plan	Implemented	HSD has an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	Implemented	The HSD regularly tracks equity initiatives
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 92% of HSD employees have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Performance	Description
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey revealed that 90% of HSD employees feel a sense of belonging within their department.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 95% of HSD employees feel their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Below Average	According to the 2023 countywide employee survey, 52% of HSD employees indicated that the workload in their unit is properly distributed.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	Average	HSD has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as policy reviews and budgeting.

The Homeless Services Department (HSD) demonstrates a strong commitment to equity through its established equity vision, a dedicated team of six equity employees, a comprehensive equity training plan, and regular tracking of equity initiatives. Positive employee feedback regarding opportunities to provide feedback to supervisors, a strong sense of belonging within the department, and high rates of employees feeling their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior further underscore this commitment. However, several areas require attention to strengthen their equity infrastructure and sustain progress. HSD currently conducts limited data collection and analysis of equity data, and is in the process of developing a comprehensive equity plan. Employees indicate concerns regarding workload distribution. Addressing these areas, particularly data collection, comprehensive planning, and workload imbalances, is crucial for HSD to achieve its equity goals effectively. 

Maturity model overview – Homeless Services Department

We recommend that the Homeless Services Department implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:

1. Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding workload distribution and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.    

2. Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

   ---

Library 

Employee Outcome Measures

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}
 

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Some outcome measures have no data because this demographic information is not collected during the hiring phase. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{Equity Maturity Model Performance}

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Performance	Description
Equity vision	Implemented	MCL has an equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	Implemented	MCL conducts data collection and analysis of equity data.

Phase II: Readiness	Performance	Description
Equity plan	Implemented	MCL has an equity plan.
Individuals have taken equity trainings	Average	60% of MCL employees completed training in Workday.
Equity staff	Implemented	MCL has two dedicated equity employees, including an equity manager.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Performance	Description
Comprehensive equity training plan	Implemented	MCL has an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	Implemented	MCL tracks equity initiatives.
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Below Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 84% of MCL employees have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Performance	Description
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Below Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey revealed that 76% of MCL employees feel a sense of belonging within their department.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Below Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 78% of MCL employees feel their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Below Average	According to the 2023 countywide employee survey, 45% of MCL employees indicated that the workload in their unit is properly distributed.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	Average	MCL has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as policy reviews and budgeting.

The Library (MCL) demonstrates a good foundation for equity work through a clear equity vision, implemented equity data collection and analysis, an established equity plan, and two dedicated equity employees. They also have a comprehensive equity training plan in place and regularly track equity initiatives. While a portion of MCL employees have completed equity training, and many report opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor, these areas, along with employees' sense of belonging and perceptions of appropriate responses to discriminatory behavior, suggest room for enhancement. Employees indicate significant concerns regarding workload distribution. Additionally, the embedding of equity practices is present in some decision-making processes, such as policy reviews and budgeting. Addressing the workload imbalances and further integrating equity into all key decision-making processes are important for enhancing their equity infrastructure and sustaining progress. 

Maturity model overview - Library

We recommend that the Library implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    To address the low scores related to opportunities for providing feedback, management should:
a.    Implement a process for documenting, analyzing, and responding to employee feedback in a timely and transparent manner.
b.    Implement multiple avenues for employees to provide feedback, such as regular one-on-one meetings, anonymous surveys, and employee focus groups.
c.    Provide training to supervisors on active listening, constructive feedback, and addressing employee concerns.    
2.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding belonging and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.    
3.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding responding to discriminatory behavior and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.    
4.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding workload distribution and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.    
5.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

---

Sheriff's Office 

Employee Outcome Measures 

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.}

_{We have noted only statistically significant differences in outcomes. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant. Some outcome measures have no data because this demographic information is not collected during the hiring phase. Statistically significant means that there is a low likelihood that the difference in outcomes was due to chance. Our analysis shows only outcomes, not their underlying causes.} 

_{Equity Maturity Model Performance}

Phase I: Initiating Equity	Performance	Description
Equity vision	In Process	MCSO is working on an equity vision.
Equity data collection and analysis	Not Implemented	MCSO does not perform equity data collection and analysis.

Phase II: Readiness	Performance	Description
Equity plan	Not Implemented	MCSO does not yet have an established equity plan. However, they have stated that they are working on developing one.
Individuals have taken equity trainings	Below Average	16% of MCSO employees completed training in Workday. See note below.
Equity staff	In Process	MSCO has one dedicated equity employee.

Phase III: Establishing an Equity Infrastructure	Performance	Description
Comprehensive equity training plan	Not Implemented	MCSO does not have an equity training plan.
Regular tracking of equity initiatives	Not Implemented	MCSO does not track equity initiatives.
Percent who say they have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor	Below Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 83% of MCSO employees have opportunities to provide feedback to their supervisor.

Phase IV: Sustaining Equity	Performance	Description
Percent who say they feel like they belong in their department	Below Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey revealed that 78% of MCSO employees feel a sense of belonging within their department.
Percent who say their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior	Above Average	The 2023 countywide employee survey found that 89% of MCSO employees feel their work unit appropriately responds to discriminatory behavior.
Percent who say the workload in their unit is properly distributed	Below Average	According to the 2023 countywide employee survey, 49% of MCSO employees indicated that the workload in their unit is properly distributed.
Equity practices are embedded in decision-making processes	Average	MCSO has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as budgeting.

_{Note: For the training performance measure of our equity maturity model, we used equity training data from Workday to score departments to maintain uniform audit criteria. The Sheriff informed us that equity training is offered to staff and reported to the State of Oregon, but participation isn't recorded in Workday. MCSO should consider getting this information entered into Workday.}

The Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) has started an equity framework, with work underway on an equity vision and one dedicated equity employee. However, they currently lack equity data collection and analysis and do not yet have an established equity plan or a comprehensive equity training plan. This hinders their ability to implement and sustain equity initiatives. Additionally, there is a lack of regular tracking of equity initiatives. MCSO has embedded equity practices in a few decision-making processes, such as budgeting. Overall, MCSO needs a more robust infrastructure with a clear vision, comprehensive planning, and increased analytical capacity to achieve meaningful and sustainable progress towards equity goals.

Maturity model overview – Sheriff’s Office

We recommend that the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    Hire an equity manager.
2.    Advocate to the Board for funding to build capacity for equity data collection and analysis to inform equity efforts.
3.    Develop a comprehensive equity plan that outlines specific goals, strategies, and initiatives for advancing equity.    
4.    Develop clear criteria for mandatory equity training completion and implement a process to hold managers accountable for ensuring both their own participation and the participation of their team members.        
5.    Develop a comprehensive equity training plan.    
6.    Establish a centralized system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of all equity initiatives. This system should include clear metrics, standardized reporting procedures, and a mechanism for collecting feedback from both employees and the community.     
7.    To address the low scores related to opportunities for providing feedback, management should:
a.    Implement a process for documenting, analyzing, and responding to employee feedback in a timely and transparent manner.
b.    Implement multiple avenues for employees to provide feedback, such as regular one-on-one meetings, anonymous surveys, and employee focus groups.
c.    Provide training to supervisors on active listening, constructive feedback, and addressing employee concerns.    
8.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding belonging and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.        
9.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding workload distribution and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.    
10.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

---

Countywide Equity Issues

This section of the report addresses a wide range of equity issues within Multnomah County. We learned about these problems from employee interviews and multiple listening sessions. These provided an opportunity for employees to share their experiences and perspectives on equity, revealing a variety of challenges related to accountability and overall workplace culture. While seemingly disparate, these concerns are interconnected. This section brings together what we heard, showing how seemingly isolated incidents contribute to a broader picture of systemic inequities and, importantly, how these incidents serve as indicators of the county's current position within the equity maturity model we referenced earlier in the report. By looking at these experiences through that model, we can figure out what specific roadblocks are stopping the county from making equity improvements.

Improve accountability by analyzing anonymous feedback

In our interviews, lack of accountability was a theme that appeared repeatedly and from a wide range of groups. Employees expressed concern about the lack of disciplinary action taken against county employees despite reports of problematic behavior. This is why we believe that analysis of anonymous feedback should be done regularly so that patterns can be detected and responded to earlier. 

Two methods for collecting anonymous feedback are: 

• Annual 360 reviews of managers. These are performance evaluations, but the difference is that the information is collected from a variety of people, including the people who they manage. The information is collected anonymously, so staff can feel more comfortable giving honest feedback. We recognize that 360 reviews are already in the WESP 1.0. However, in the WESP 2021-2022 Annual Report it states, “The measures that presented the most barriers to completion for departments include… 360° feedback.” Because of the difficulty departments have had with implementing this, we believe that an audit recommendation will encourage departments to prioritize this initiative.
• Anonymous exit surveys. The county offers exit interviews, but they are not always anonymous. Because people have an incentive to maintain a reference, they may not feel comfortable sharing their honest reasons for leaving.

This data collection could also build upon the county’s new microaggression response. In January 2025, the county rolled out an organization-wide microaggression reporting form and response protocol. By adding 360 reviews and exit survey data to the microaggression information, the county could have a more comprehensive system to track feedback and responses.

Recommendations: 
To promote accountability and prevent patterns of abuse from going undetected:

• All department HR units should conduct 360 reviews for managers annually.
• All 360 reviews should be saved in Workday.
• All department HR units should give every employee leaving the county the opportunity to fill out an anonymous exit survey about their experience.
• The equity analyst for each department should aggregate information from both of these annually to identify patterns. The department director, department HR, and the equity manager should develop and implement plans to address issues.

Increase awareness and require staff expertise in disability accommodations

During listening sessions and interviews, employees voiced significant concerns about disability equity within the county. They reported feeling that disability issues are not given adequate priority within the WESP, citing a lack of representation and dedicated resources. This sentiment was underscored by frustrations with the accommodation process, which employees described as slow, complex, and potentially inequitable. Specifically, they cited lengthy wait times of up to eight months, even for individuals with visible disabilities. Employees expressed a desire for a centralized ADA accommodation process to address these inconsistencies, a recommendation echoed in the WESP 2.0. Employees also highlighted a lack of awareness regarding existing support mechanisms. This lack of prioritization and resource allocation directly impacts the county's ability to effectively move through the “Readiness” and “Establishing an Equity Infrastructure” phases of the Equity Maturity Model.

While there is a designated role to assist employees with the ADA accommodation process (Disability Equity Policy Analyst Senior), many remain unaware of this resource. This position is supposed to be a neutral liaison between employees and HR, helping both sides better understand the ADA accommodation process. Employees told us that this position may be moved to a soon-to-be-created centralized accommodations unit in HR. We are concerned that the Disability Equity Policy Analyst Senior will feel pressure to side with HR, rather than be a neutral party, if this position is moved.

Many employees expressed a desire for a centralized ADA accommodation unit, but some worried that the staff hired for this unit will have a generalist knowledge of HR and lack specific knowledge about the ADA accommodation process and disability justice. Staff told us they want those working in this unit to have a disability KSA (knowledge, skills, and abilities). It is important to note that possession of a disability KSA does not necessitate having a disability or disclosing a disability.

Recommendations:

• The Office of Diversity and Equity should ensure the Disability Equity Policy Analyst Senior position remains in their office, rather than moving it to the soon-to-be-created centralized accommodations unit in HR. This will allow the position to maintain independence from HR.
• The Office of Diversity and Equity should regularly publicize the Disability Equity Policy Analyst Senior position so that staff know this resource is available.
• Central and department HR should create disability KSAs that require staff to have expertise in all of the following: the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, disability justice, and the impacts of ableism.
• Central HR should require all staff working in the soon-to-be-created centralized accommodations unit to have a disability KSA.

Remove barriers to wider participation in the College to County Program

Multnomah County's College to County (C2C) Mentorship Program, launched 14 years ago by the Office of Diversity and Equity, offers paid summer internships to college students, many of whom are from underrepresented communities (including students of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, those with disabilities, and those from underserved or low-income backgrounds). This initiative strengthens career pathways through mentorship and professional development, while simultaneously creating a pathway for future employees to meet Multnomah County's anticipated workforce needs.

County departments demonstrate varying degrees of engagement with the C2C Mentorship Program. Funding remains a barrier to wider participation in the C2C Mentorship Program, with some offices expressing concerns about budgetary constraints or feeling overwhelmed by existing workloads and lacking the capacity to dedicate time to training interns.

Recommendation: 
The County Chair should expand the central pool of money available for the College to County internship program.

Ensure inclusion of equity practices in revised contracting processes

County contracting staff communicated to us their commitment to including equity practices and have met with the County Contracting Equity Workgroup, which was formed in 2020 to promote equity in the contracting processes.

Ensuring equity in countywide contracting processes is important because culturally specific providers often have a deep understanding of the unique needs of their communities. By giving these providers an equal playing field to apply for grants and contracts, counties can ensure that services are tailored to meet the specific cultural and linguistic needs of their diverse populations. This can lead to better outcomes in areas such as healthcare and social services. 

Recommendations: 
DCM Contracting should ensure that countywide contracting processes include equity, including: 
a.    plain language procurement documents
b.    technical assistance for vendors
c.    diverse evaluation panels
d.    interviewing culturally specific providers who have not been selected for county contracts to determine the barriers that they faced

Provide equity analysts with better access to data

We spoke with department equity analysts who said that they lacked the detailed demographic data they needed to perform their work. There is a report in the county’s data system called “MCR Flex worker report for researchers” with additional demographic fields that would better allow them to do the analysis they were hired to do. This data gap directly impacts the county's progress within the equity maturity model, specifically in the “Establishing an Equity Infrastructure” phase. Effective equity work relies on data-driven decision-making, and without access to the necessary data, analysts are unable to fully assess disparities or track the impact of equity initiatives. This limitation suggests that the county's infrastructure for equity is not yet fully developed, hindering its ability to move towards the “Sustaining Equity” phase.

Recommendation: 
The Central HR/Workday Team should give equity data analysts access to the Workday report “MCR Flex worker report for researchers” that has more detailed demographic data.

Support employees with family overseas by removing international telework bans

Multnomah County employees with families outside the United States face inequities due to the current ban on international telework, particularly when needing to care for sick family members. This is an inconsistent application of telework policies, given that the county permits out-of-state telework, as long as it doesn’t cause an administrative burden or significant costs.

Employees with family outside of the United States described difficult situations where they had to travel overseas to care for ill or dying family members. They detailed long periods of down time between medical appointments, time that could have been productively spent working. This forced them to exhaust their leave, preventing them from using it for personal vacations or other essential family events. In some cases, employees have been forced to take unpaid leave, creating financial hardship.

The current disparity in telework policies reveals a potential stagnation in the “Initiating Equity” phase of the equity maturity model. By failing to engage with employees to understand the challenges they face, the county risks hindering its progression towards reaching the next phase of the equity maturity model. Implementing a well-defined process for temporary international telework, with clear guidelines and safeguards, would demonstrate a commitment to equitable practices and a willingness to evolve its infrastructure to support all employees.

Recommendation: 
The County’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) should modify personnel rule 3-65 to allow employees to telework internationally for a limited duration while caring for a family member. If the request is denied, the employee should be provided the rationale in writing.

Improve retention by requiring HR consultation with Equity Managers

Both the first and second iterations of the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan included good strategies for improving retention, such as:

• Assign peer support or mentor to assist with onboarding and professional growth
• Employee training plan with inclusion of cultural responsiveness training
• Stay interviews and a report of recommendations based on those interviews
• Evaluate the barriers to employees to participating in Employee Resource Groups, community-building events, equity work and wellness benefits.

In addition to these, we would like to see equity managers be included in HR discussions related to employees who are facing potential termination. A department HR manager described a situation where someone was near the end of their trial service and was not meeting expectations. The HR manager consulted with an equity manager who used an equity lens to help them develop a plan to better support this employee, rather than terminate them. Equity managers were hired to help the county use an equity lens, but their skillset is often underutilized in termination decisions. 

Recommendation: 
Central and department HR should ensure that prior to terminating an employee, HR managers consult with an equity manager or a representative from the ODE. 

Improve employee work environments through rule enforcement and transparency

Employees told us about the negative impacts of a lack of rule enforcement and transparency. Some talked to us about the poor treatment they have received from coworkers and supervisors regarding their gender identity. In particular, employees said that increased awareness of how to properly use and respect pronouns is important. The WESP 2.0 has a recommendation for training that may help.

While training may improve things, it also needs to be accompanied by rule enforcement. Employees told us that they saw instances where Personnel Rule 3-42 (Gender Identity and Gender Expression Harassment and Discrimination Free Workplace) was not being enforced. This is an important issue because the Trevor Project’s 2020 report stated that, “Transgender and nonbinary youth who reported having pronouns respected by all or most people in their lives attempted suicide at half the rate of those who did not have their pronouns respected.”

Other employees expressed frustration over the Board issuing proclamations and bridge lightings for some causes, but not others. The Board utilizes a Proclamation Instruction Form, but it lacks criteria to determine what events or causes merit a proclamation. This highlights a need for greater transparency and consistency in the process.

Recommendations: 

• Central HR and department HR should enforce Personnel Rule 3-42 (Gender Identity and Gender Expression Harassment and Discrimination Free Workplace).
• The Board of County Commissioners should create specific criteria for determining what events or causes merit proclamations and/or bridge lightings.

Assign responsibility for WESP accountability

As mentioned earlier in the report, many people have communicated their frustration at the lack of progress with the WESP. To ensure that both versions of the WESP are implemented, someone must be ultimately responsible. The most recent WESP has an Executive Committee made up of the Chief Operating Officer (COO), Chief Human Resources Officer, and Chief Diversity and Equity Officer. This is a good step toward accountability, but if a department fails to meet WESP benchmarks, it is unclear who will hold them accountable. Since department directors report to the COO, it seems like a logical choice to assign final responsibility to the COO, as they have the proper authority to create a performance plan for department directors when equity goals aren’t met. Elected officials do not report to the COO, so in those departments the elected official should put together the performance plan with guidance from the WESP Executive Committee. It is important to note that performance plans are not necessarily punitive. The plans can include things such as additional resources, training, and support.

Recommendation: 
The WESP Renewal Process Executive Committee Members should assign responsibility, in writing, to the COO for the outcomes of both the 2018 Workforce Strategic Equity Plan (WESP 1.0) and the 2024-2028 Workforce Strategic Equity Plan (WESP 2.0). When performance measures are not met, the COO or the responsible elected official should put a performance plan in place. 

---

Department Specific Recommendations

County management has announced its plan to centralize HR functions over the next two fiscal years. Regardless of this structural change, we expect management to implement the intent of the HR-related recommendations.

We recommend that the Department of Community Justice, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding belonging and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.    
2.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding responding to discriminatory behavior and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.        
3.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

We recommend that the Department of Community Services implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    Advocate to the Board for funding to build capacity for equity data collection and analysis to inform equity efforts.
2.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

We recommend that the Department of County Assets implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

We recommend that the Department of County Human Services implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

We recommend that the Department of County Management implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    Advocate to the Board for funding to build capacity for equity data collection and analysis to inform equity efforts.
2.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

We recommend that the District Attorney’s Office implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    Hire an equity analyst.        
2.    Establish a centralized system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of all equity initiatives. This system should include clear metrics, standardized reporting procedures, and a mechanism for collecting feedback from both employees and the community.                     
3.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

We recommend that the Health Department implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    Hire an equity manager.
2.    Advocate to the Board for funding to build capacity for equity data collection and analysis to inform equity efforts.
3.    Develop a comprehensive equity plan that outlines specific goals, strategies, and initiatives for advancing equity.    
4.    Establish a centralized system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of all equity initiatives. This system should include clear metrics, standardized reporting procedures, and a mechanism for collecting feedback from both employees and the community.             
5.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding responding to discriminatory behavior and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.    
6.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

We recommend that the Homeless Services Department implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding workload distribution and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.        
2.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

We recommend that the Library implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    To address the low scores related to opportunities for providing feedback, management should:
a.    Implement a process for documenting, analyzing, and responding to employee feedback in a timely and transparent manner.
b.    Implement multiple avenues for employees to provide feedback, such as regular one-on-one meetings, anonymous surveys, and employee focus groups.
c.    Provide training to supervisors on active listening, constructive feedback, and addressing employee concerns.    
2.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding belonging and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.    
3.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding responding to discriminatory behavior and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.    
4.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding workload distribution and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.
5.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

We recommend that the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office implement the following, no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    Hire an equity manager.
2.    Advocate to the Board for funding to build capacity for equity data collection and analysis to inform equity efforts.
3.    Develop a comprehensive equity plan that outlines specific goals, strategies, and initiatives for advancing equity.    
4.    Develop clear criteria for mandatory equity training completion and implement a process to hold managers accountable for ensuring both their own participation and the participation of their team members.        
5.    Develop a comprehensive equity training plan.    
6.    Establish a centralized system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of all equity initiatives. This system should include clear metrics, standardized reporting procedures, and a mechanism for collecting feedback from both employees and the community.     
7.    To address the low scores related to opportunities for providing feedback, management should:
a.    Implement a process for documenting, analyzing, and responding to employee feedback in a timely and transparent manner.
b.    Implement multiple avenues for employees to provide feedback, such as regular one-on-one meetings, anonymous surveys, and employee focus groups.
c.    Provide training to supervisors on active listening, constructive feedback, and addressing employee concerns.    
8.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding belonging and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.        
9.    Investigate the concerns raised in the countywide employee survey regarding workload distribution and report to department staff on findings and steps for improvement.
10.    Embed equity practices in all decision-making processes.

Countywide Recommendations

County management has announced its plan to centralize HR functions over the next two fiscal years. Regardless of this structural change, we expect management to implement the intent of the HR-related recommendations.

We recommend that the Chair, Sheriff, and District Attorney ensure that the following be completed no later than March 1, 2026:
1.    All department HR units should conduct 360 reviews for managers annually.
2.    All 360 reviews should be saved in Workday.
3.    All department HR units should give every employee leaving the county the opportunity to fill out an anonymous exit survey about their experience.
4.    The equity analyst for each department should aggregate information from the 360 reviews and exit surveys annually to identify patterns. The department director, department HR, and the equity manager should develop and implement plans to address issues. 
5.    Central and department HR should ensure that prior to terminating an employee, HR managers consult with an equity manager or a representative from the ODE. 
6.    Central HR and department HR should enforce Personnel Rule 3-42 (Gender Identity and Gender Expression Harassment and Discrimination Free Workplace).

We recommend that the Office of Diversity and Equity should ensure the following be completed no later than March 1, 2026:
7.    Ensure the Disability Equity Policy Analyst Senior position remains in their office, rather than moving it to the soon-to-be-created centralized accommodations unit in HR. This will allow the position to maintain independence from HR.
8.    Regularly publicize the Disability Equity Policy Analyst Senior position so that staff know this resource is available.

We recommend that the County Chair should ensure that the following be completed no later than March 1, 2026:
9.    Central and department HR should create disability KSAs that require staff to have expertise in all of the following: the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, disability justice, and the impacts of ableism. 
10.    Central HR should ensure that all staff working in the soon-to-be-created centralized accommodations unit should be required to have a disability KSA.
11.    Expand the central pool of money available for the College to County internship program.
12.    DCM Contracting should ensure that countywide contracting processes include equity, including: 
a.    plain language procurement documents
b.    technical assistance for vendors
c.    diverse evaluation panels
d.    interviewing culturally specific providers who have not been selected for county contracts to determine the barriers that they faced
13.    Central HR/Workday Team should give equity data analysts access to the Workday report “MCR Flex worker report for researchers” that has more detailed demographic data. 
14.    The COO should modify personnel rule 3-65 to allow employees to telework internationally for a limited duration while caring for a family member. If the request is denied, the employee should be provided the rationale in writing.

We also recommend that the following be completed no later than March 1, 2026:
15.    The Board of County Commissioners should create specific criteria for determining what events or causes merit proclamations and/or bridge lightings.
16.    The WESP Renewal Process Executive Committee Members should assign responsibility, in writing, to the COO for the outcomes of both the 2018 Workforce Strategic Equity Plan (WESP 1.0) and the 2024-2028 Workforce Strategic Equity Plan (WESP 2.0). When performance measures are not met, the COO or the responsible elected official should put a performance plan in place. 

---

Objectives, Scope, & Methodology

The objectives of this audit were to:  

• Evaluate each department's progress and current standing within an equity maturity model framework.
• Identify and analyze any disparities in turnover rates, wages, and representation in management positions across different demographic groups.
• Assess the Workforce Equity Strategic Plan's goal-setting and accountability framework.
• Evaluate the adequacy of resources and support for equity initiatives and accountability.

During our audit, we heard concerns about the Complaints Investigation Unit (CIU). The Department of County Management’s Evaluation and Research Unit was simultaneously conducting a CIU study. To avoid potential duplication, we did not include the CIU in our audit scope.

To accomplish these objectives, we:

• Conducted 45 interviews with county employees
• Conducted 13 listening sessions with groups of county employees
• Extended an invitation to meet with every Employee Resource Group
• Researched literature
• Read audits and reports from other jurisdictions
• Reviewed program documents
• Analyzed human resources data
• Studied countywide employee survey data

For this audit, we analyzed human resources data from July 1, 2019 through July 1, 2024 from Workday. This time period allowed us to see trends that occurred over time, instead of looking at shorter periods that were potentially impacted by a one-time event. To ensure consistency, we utilized demographic descriptors from Workday, the county’s HR and enterprise resource planning system. We acknowledge that these terms may not always be preferred. We spoke with the Multnomah County Evaluation and Research Unit to ensure we understood the data definitions in Workday. Additionally, we chose to show data from small groups of people because, as explained by groups such as the Native Data Transparency Project (a group which promotes accurate and authentic collecting and reporting of Indigenous data), omitting small groups from reporting is a form of erasure.

To ensure the reliability of this data, we employed several methods: electronic testing for accuracy and completeness, interviews with knowledgeable county officials, review of related documentation, and close collaboration with county officials to identify any data problems. Based on these efforts, we determined the data were sufficiently reliable for this report's purposes.

We used multiple regressions to see if there were differences in outcomes. Those with a p-value less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. In other words, there is a low likelihood that this was due to chance. The statistically significant differences are the only ones noted in the employee outcome measures. Data in orange indicates a worse outcome for that demographic group, dark blue indicates a better outcome, and gray means that the difference in outcomes was not statistically significant.

We evaluated the following outcome measures based on suggestions from people we interviewed:  

• Rate of Being Hired 2019–2024: This measure looks at how often each demographic group was hired. We reviewed all applicants who applied for a job opening at the county from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024. We only included those who were considered for the job. We did not include those that were disqualified due to things such as not meeting the minimum qualifications, failing a background check or entrance exam, or having an incomplete application. Some columns will say “no data” for this outcome measure, because fewer demographics are collected during the hiring phase.
• Rate of not Passing Trial Service Period 2019–2024: This measure looks at how often employees from each demographic group did not pass their trial service period. We reviewed employees who worked at the county from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024. We counted anyone with a termination reason of “Probationary Dismissal” in Workday.   
• Rate of Being Fired 2019–2024: This measure looks at how often each demographic group was fired. We reviewed employees who worked at the county from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024. We counted anyone with an involuntary termination in Workday, except those with a probationary dismissal.
• Rate of Quitting 2019–2024: This measure looks at how often each demographic group quit. We reviewed employees who worked at the county from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024. We counted anyone with a voluntary termination in Workday, except those who were retiring.
• Rate of Being Promoted 2019–2024: This measure looks at how often each demographic group was promoted. We reviewed employees who worked at the county from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024. We counted anyone with a promotion in Workday.
• Change in Pay from 2019 to 2024: This measure looks at the numeric change in pay from 2019 to 2024. We reviewed the same employees who worked at the county on July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2024. We converted pay to an hourly rate so that those who changed the number of hours worked per week during that time would not skew the results. For each individual, we examined how much their pay changed from July 1, 2019 to July 1, 2024.
• Rate of Having a Supervisory Position in 2024: This measure looks at the percentage of employees who are supervisors. We reviewed employees who worked at the county on July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2024. We included anyone who has an employee who reports to them.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

---

Audit staff

Nicole Dewees, CIA, Audit Director

Sura Sumareh, CFE, Senior Auditor

---

 

Pdf version of report

Includes responses to the audit from the County Sheriff, District Attorney, and Chair, as well as the County Auditor's response to the Chair's response letter