📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
El Dorado County Grand Jury
• 2010-2011
El Dorado County Grand Jury 2010 – 2011 El Dorado County Detention Facilities Case Number Gj010-016
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 5 findings
F1
The current Department procedure requires consumer complaints and any responses be filed in individual building files, but does not require retention of all complaints in a single collective file. This procedure makes reviewing, monitoring and use for personnel customer service training difficult because of the overwhelming number of individual building files.
F2
The Department processes two types of complaints: first, those received from applicants; second, those received from persons or groups who have been impacted by Department decisions and wish to alter or void them. According to county public officials and members of the public, there is concern among both types of applicants who felt the Department does not "listen" or pay sufficient attention to their complaints. 92
F3
Applicants to the Department are of two general groups. The first group are professionals such as builders, architects and planners. This group generally understands the planning and building process and has fewer complaints. The second consists of members of the general public who possess little or no experience in building issues such as codes and fees. Our interviews indicate this group generates the most complaints.
F4
When anyone approaches the Development Services Department, they are given a large packet of papers containing applications, instructions and fee schedules. To the untrained person, this packet generally is perceived as overwhelming and unclear because the building codes are complex.
F5
The Department demonstrated an inconsistent quality of customer service during Grand Jury user interfaces. During interviews, county officials reported hearing complaints from the general public regarding customer service.
Recommendations 7
-
R1EDC should ensure that all future health care prescription service contracts include a strong provision for monitoring waste, fraud and abuse.
-
R2Provide readily available customer service feedback forms. Written feedback would assist the Department in monitoring and improving customer service.
-
R3Train personnel in effective customer service. It would improve the Department's
-
R4Create a network of volunteers who are professionals in the building trades to
-
R5The following sample script could be used when training Department personnel in how a volunteer group could be used to promote customer service. The Department customer service personnel could make a simple inquiry, "Are you familiar with the building permit process and the fees?” If the answer is, "No," the applicant would be advised of the volunteer group and be given a 93 94
-
R6The complainants affected by Department decisions could be supported by the same volunteer advisory group. The volunteer professional could explain the
-
R7Implementing best practices will improve the overall operation of the