Board of Supervisors Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0709:

The Board of Supervisors (“Board”) and County Administrator have identified four key County goals. The goals are far-reaching and challenging and are summarized under the following four groupings: (cid:131) Improved fiscal health (cid:131) Improved service delivery (cid:131) Build the organization and team (cid:131) Foster credibility and public education Response: Agree.

Contra Costa County does not have a formal, multi-year strategic plan to guide the County in a coordinated direction, to measure progress towards goals and objectives, and to take corrective actions when necessary. Response: Agree.

The County does not have a mechanism or process to solicit, change, or prioritize countywide goals and initiatives relative to its changing environment and needs. Input from department heads and employees are not documented. Further, there is no systematic mechanism to capture suggestions from community leaders, residents, and principle users of County services. Response: Partially disagree. The County primarily uses its annual budget process as the mechanism to annually review and establish priorities. That process recognizes and responds to the external forces that largely determine the Board’s ability to respond to the changing needs. The County operates in an environment that is structured by state and federal law, and intergovernmental and local revenues. The size of the County budget might imply that the Board of Supervisors has significant discretion over its program and service priorities. In reality, the Board has very limited discretion over most of the services provided by the County. Most are statutorily mandated or required by funding obligations. Similarly, state or federal program funding drive allocation of resources. Feedback occurs in several ways. The County Administrator regularly meets with department heads individually and as a group to discuss department operations, county-wide and multi-departmental issues and Board concerns. Individual departments have also adopted feedback mechanisms for clients input. For example, General Services, Employment and Human Services and Department of Information Technology use customer satisfaction surveys. Public Works and Community Development use staff assigned to a particular community. Health Services employs a variety of mechanisms and recently convened a Committee to examine their efficacy.

The Board and County Administrator do not have a formal mechanism for communicating a County plan and vision to all stakeholders. The County has more than 28 diverse departments in its organizational structure, many with their own mission, vision, and sets of priorities. There is no formal medium to periodically update Shoring Up County Management with Best Practices September 11, 2007 County Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0709 the direction of the County as a whole. Instead, the County relies on informal updates through periodic bulletins, newspaper editorials and articles, and public access television. Response: Disagree. Departments are reporting annually on their activities and accomplishments under each of the County’s goals (identified in Finding #1 above). The current formal mechanism for doing so is the County’s Annual Budget process and hearings. The formal medium to periodically update diverse departments on the County mission, vision, and values is the bimonthly department head meeting with the County Administrator. The Board of Supervisors communicates direction to County departments through the County Administrator. On financial matters, the County annually publishes the “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report” (CAFR), which details the County’s financial status, including financial trends and revenue and debt capacity. The CAFR also overviews the County’s long-term financial planning efforts and financial policies. Strategic actions to increase operational efficiency and leverage County resources are also identified in the CAFR. The County Administrator also publishes a quarterly “all County” newsletter to all County employees, advising them of significant changes and accomplishments and their relevance to the County’s goals.

The County’s Internet website is a key method of communicating to Contra Costa stakeholders. It supplements newspaper editorials, articles, bulletins, and public access television. The County’s website does not include an overall plan or vision, or set of priorities. The website’s “County Performance Reports” section provides some insights into departmental responsibilities, accomplishments, and challenges. However, the descriptions are lengthy, and “text heavy”. The “Government Performance Report” section is out-of-date and does not reflect the County’s financial experience over the past four years. The “County Budget Processes” section is also out-of-date relative to current financial information. Response: Agree with clarification. The "County Budget Processes" section was out-of-date as of the issuance of this report. The County Budget Documents, Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, and Lease Revenue Bond sections are current. Additionally, the latest Official Statement in the Lease Revenue Bond section contains a current "County Budget Processes" section, which has now been copied to the Financial Information section of the web-page. In addition, the new County Performance Reports reflecting FY 2006-07 year end material will be posted in the near future. It should also be noted that a complete revamping of the County’s website is currently underway.

In April 2007, the County’s Human Resources Department surveyed most of the department heads to determine the dates of their last formal performance evaluations. Fifteen of the 20 department heads that responded had not had a performance evaluation within the past 12 months. One of the 15 had not been reviewed in six years, and six had not received a formal review since they assumed their duties. Response: Agree. Note that the current County Administrator assumed office on March 3, 2006, and has developed a department head evaluation process and timetable that is resulting in annual performance evaluations. Shoring Up County Management with Best Practices September 11, 2007 County Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0709

The County Administrator is responsible for facilitating department head performance evaluations directly, or in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors. The County Administrator also is responsible for ensuring that all County employees receive departmental performance evaluations on an annual basis. The County Administrator is responsible for conducting performance evaluations for the seven staff members who report directly to him, and for reviewing evaluations for the rest of his department. Response: Partially agree. The County Administrator is responsible for performing evaluations of non-elected department heads and his direct reports. Department heads are responsible for performance evaluations within their departments.

During the County’s annual budget review process, the Board and the County Administrator meet with most department heads. This budget review time is also used to discuss performance expectations and progress toward achieving their respective goals and objectives. Response: Partially disagree. Since 2006, the County Administrator and staff have met with department heads in preparation of the County budget and development of performance goals. The Board of Supervisors has overseen this process via review and approval of the Recommended Budget.

Each department defines and manages their respective employee performance evaluation programs with only limited guidance from the County’s Human Resources Department. Response: Agree with clarification. Human Resources provides guidance and support as requested and consistently administers the Salary Review form and associated process.

Performance evaluations are not consistently administered across all departments. Response: Partially disagree. Performance evaluations are required in all departments. Salary Reviews of employees who have not reached the top of their salary range are consistently implemented in all departments and supported by the Human Resources Department. The Salary Review form includes a section that allows for comments on performance. Various Departments also utilize performance evaluation forms consistent with their specific job classifications.

The County does not have a mechanism to track the timeliness, completeness, and effectiveness of employee performance reviews. Response: Partially disagree. Through the Salary Review, the County has a centralized system for tracking the timeliness and completeness of performance reviews for employees who have not reached the top of their salary range. Individual departments also have tracking systems to monitor completion of performance reviews.

Over the past five years, the number of professional services contracts has increased by approximately one- third. Response: Disagree. Comparing the report produced by the Office of the Auditor-Controller for the Grand Jury on 2310 expenditures in 2006 to the same report for 2001 (neither of which include the Hospital or CCHP) it cannot be substantiated that over the past five years, the number of professional service contracts has increased by approximately one-third. The number of vendors paid and charged to 2310 is approximately the same, with a slight increase.

One professional services contract has been renewed consecutively over 34 years. Response: Agree.