2013-2014 Final Report (pdf)

Recommendations 14

• R1
  That the Board of Supervisors instruct Mariposa County Human Resources Department to conduct an employee survey of all county employees every two to three years.
• R2
  That the 2012 King County Employee Survey, or another deemed by the County’s HR Director and the Grand Jury to be of high quality, be used as basis for the survey. Responses We require the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors respond to this report. EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION WITHIN THE MARIPOSA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT SECOND INVESTIGATIVE REPORT BY THE 2013-2014 MARIPOSA COUNTY GRAND JURY Introduction For the last three years Mariposa County Grand Juries have been aware that the Human Services Department would be a likely subject of a review. Last year’s Jury received two formal complaints against Human Services, initiated preliminary inquiries, and at the end of its term conducted a survey of Human Services employees in cooperation with the department’s leadership. Though the results of that survey were provocative, it was not until this year’s Grand Jury received a letter of concern and two additional formal complaints and heard of the Director’s planned resignation that we decided to launch a thorough investigation, conducted under authority of California Penal Code § 925, which states in part “The grand jury shall investigate and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, or functions of the county…” Human Services is the County’s largest agency, employing 108 people with an annual budget of around $30 million. It is organized in two major service divisions: Behavioral Health and Recovery Services (BHRS) and Social Services (SS), each with a deputy director in charge. BHRS primarily works with clients with mental illness and alcohol and drug problems. SS deals mostly with adults, families and children in crisis. A third major department within Human Services is Fiscal Administration. There are 30 employees with BHRS, 42 in SS, 18 in Fiscal Administration and the remainder work in Office Support. The complexities of the financial aspects of Human Services are considerable, and they have been recently examined and addressed by the County Auditor. This investigation concentrated on specific personnel issues within the agency with an eye toward their ultimate impact on the delivery of services. Methods All Human Services employees were invited by the Grand Jury to participate, anonymously, in an employee satisfaction survey. Employees were contacted via email and the survey was conducted using an Internet web-based system. To preserve anonymity of the respondents, we only asked that they identify the major Human Services division within which they worked and their general employee rank. Several respondents (11 out of 53) still chose to not indicate within which division they worked. Thus, the survey data does not allow us to know the specific units or program areas responses are coming from, but it does allow us to make comparative assessments between the major Human Services divisions and across employee ranks. The survey inquired into nine different aspects of the Human Services work environment: training, communication, appraisals, organization, management, recognition, career advancement, satisfaction and aspects of their major division within Human Services. For each category four or more positive statements were made such as “Hard work is formally recognized at Human Services.” Employees were asked to respond by indicating “strongly agree”, “agree”, “neutral”, “disagree” or “strongly disagree.” Employees were able to include a written response to each statement, and each of the nine categories included an open-response question asking for suggested changes or improvements. The survey concluded with three additional questions: “How would you rate your overall experience working for Human Services? (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, Terrible)”, “Would you refer others seeking employment to Human Services, and if not, why?”, and “If you had an opportunity to make any single change at Human Services, what improvement would you make?” We also interviewed the acting director, deputy directors, supervisors, line staff, and former employees. Here we concentrated our attention on those working in or supervising Child Welfare Services and the Emergency Response Unit (both within SS) and Adult Systems of Care (within BHRS). These interviews took place in the Grand Jury office and usually lasted for more than an hour. Facts Results from the Survey
• R3
  When the answers were converted to numbers (strongly disagree = -2; disagree = -1; neutral = 0; agree = 1; strongly agree = 2) and averages were computed for each response, a more specific picture of the department’s strengths and weaknesses appeared (Table 1). The most positive average ratings were for the following statements:  “My manager holds me accountable for the work I perform.” (average response = 1.2)  “I enjoy my work.” (1.1)  “I find my work challenging.” (1.1)  “I know what is expected of me in my job.” (.9)  “I am aware of promotion opportunities within the department.” (.8)  “I am aware of available training and development activities.” (.7)  “Customer satisfaction is a primary concern within my division.” (.6) The most disagreement was recorded for the following statements:  “Employees within the department are treated with respect regardless of their job.” (-.9)  “Human Services has an image of a high quality government department.” (-.8)  “My division has an adequate number of employees with the necessary skills to meet the demand for the services we are expected to provide.” (-.8)  “The management at Human Services makes wise decisions.” (-.7)  “Hard work is formally recognized at Human services.” (-.7)  “The work policies are well developed and organized.” (-.7)  “The relationship between management and employees is good.” (-.6)  “Job promotions within the department are fair and reasonable.” (-.6)  “The morale within my division is generally high.” (-.5)
• R4
  In response to the question “How would you rate your overall experience working for Human Services?”, about 50% said excellent or good, about 20% said average, and about 30% said poor or terrible.
• R5
  When the responses from senior management were analyzed separately (Figure 1), 75% or more of the responses were to “agree” or “strongly agree” with the positive statements in every category except Organization. Virtually no disagreement was registered within any category.
• R6
  The supervisors’ responses were highly positive within most categories— especially trainings, appraisals and satisfaction—receiving high levels of endorsement (Figure 1). Some disagreement did appear here in the areas of organization, management and recognition.
• R7
  Lead workers and line staff presented very similar patterns of results (Figure 1). In every category there were significant amounts of disagreement and strong disagreement with the positive statements. 50% or more of the responses were negative in the areas of communication, recognition, organization and career. For lead workers there were no positive responses in the area of recognition.
• R8
  In response to the question “Would you refer others seeking employment to Human Services, and if not, why?”, 18 respondents indicated “yes”, 14 said “no”, 6 were neutral, and 15 did not answer. Senior management was uniformly positive. Supervisors were mixed with some saying “yes” and others adding comments such as “not currently with the misappropriation of funds still hanging over our heads,” and “No, not as a place to start or continue a career.” The most negative comments came from line workers who said things like, “No, I am actually ashamed and embarrassed to mention where I work,” and “No there are colleges in the Valley that tell their students not to apply in Mariposa due to the negligent management.”
• R9
  In response to the question “If you had the opportunity to make one single change at Human Services, what improvement would you make?”, 20 respondents mentioned changes in management, 4 mentioned increases in pay, 16 had no response, and the remainder addressed unique matters. Facts Derived from the Interviews
• R10
  When asked “Do you believe Human Services is an honest, ethical place to work?”, supervisors were immediate and very positive in their response. Most staff responses ranged from a pause followed by a nuanced answer to a simple “no.”
• R11
  One supervisor and one deputy director lack the appropriate college degrees in their field, and there is considerable resentment among staff about who has and has not been promoted. Staff also reported cases of official hiring procedures not being followed and pre-determined candidates being selected.
• R12
  Staff believe that when they confront a supervisor or make a formal complaint against them, retaliation follows.
• R13
  Informal groups of line workers have banded together around their discontent with management. This places other staff, especially new hires, in the position having to be “with them” or not.
• R14
  A seemingly high number of staff positions (around 50) have been vacated in the last three years. Management tends to cite ordinary factors such as a better job elsewhere, shorter commute, etc., while staff—including some who told us they would be leaving in the next few months—cite the poor working environment. Employees leaving the department are provided an opportunity to participate in an exit interview and complete an exit survey; however, repeated requests by the Grand Jury to the acting director for these interviews and surveys, or their summaries, have produced no documentation.