2012-2013 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Improvements Are Needed in the Office of the Public

Conclusions 14

• CL1 Page 16
  As of August 2012, nearly two-thirds of the PAGC office Policies and Procedures have not been reviewed or updated for five years or more, as has been recommended by previous reports and audits.
• CL2 Page 16
  As of February 2013, less than one-third of the PAGC office Policies and Procedures are available on the department intranet for PAGC staff use.
• CL3 Page 16
  The PAGC policy (#204) that defines the review and revision procedure leaves undefined a maximum review interval for its office procedures.
• CL4 Page 17
  The PAGC has no documented process to record and track client or client advocate complaints.
• CL5 Page 17
  PAGC personnel do not consistently utilize the Panoramic Case Management System.
• CL6 Page 17
  The PAGC does not maintain case documents in a standardized fashion.
• CL7 Page 18
  The PAGC does not have clearly delineated personnel responsible for problem solving, maintenance, and training for the Panoramic software system.
• CL8 Page 18
  Not all PAGC Deputy Public Guardians, Conservators, or Estate Administrators are CAPAPGPC certified.
• CL9 Page 18
  PAGC Employee performance reviews, as stipulated by the SEIU Local 521 Performance Appraisal Program Agreement, are not being conducted.
• CL10 Page 18
  The PAGC does not hold regularly scheduled staff meetings.
• CL11 Page 19
  The PAGC does not have a clearly established procedure that governs staff sign-in and sign-out.
• CL12 Page 19
  The PAGC has not provided training in response to revised job descriptions and responsibilities.
• CL13 Page 19
  The PAGC does not consistently use training materials or have a training methodology in place for new office personnel.
• CL14 Page 14
  The Grand Jury investigated the operation of the Office of the PAGC. It conducted 21 interviews, reviewed 38 documents, and made two site visits. It is apparent that the personnel interviewed by the Grand Jury are dedicated to the welfare and well being of those they serve. The absence of several elements critical to the effective operation of the PAGC has impeded the ability of PAGC personnel to perform their job in an efficient and complete manner. Specifically, a majority of the PAGC P&P have not been reviewed for five years or more, despite recommendations for their review in reports dating from 2008. As of February 2013, less than one-third of them are posted on the department intranet. There also is no system in place within the PAGC for collecting information on and resolution of client and client advocate complaints. The absence of such a system prevents effective complaint oversight, as well as limiting the opportunity for identifying system and service delivery issues and opportunities for improvement. 25 ibid 14 Additionally, nearly four years after its introduction, an incomplete implementation of the Panoramic Case Management System has prevented it from meeting key design requirements. For example, an inadequate report-generating capability has limited its effective use by PAGC personnel. Obtaining operational and case oversight reports is reported to be difficult, and in some cases, impossible. Worse, an inability for the system to accommodate all relevant case documentation has resulted in case materials being scattered between various binders, individual deputy and administrators’ file folders, as well as the computer system. Should the need arise to transfer case materials between personnel, ensuring a complete transfer would be difficult. The Grand Jury is also concerned that PAGC Estate Administrators, Conservators, and Deputy Public Guardians are performing their work without proper certification and continuing education training. Up-to-date training and education is important to ensure that deputies are knowledgeable of the most current legislative requirements and are aware of the latest developments within their field of expertise. Trained deputies are less likely to make errors while performing their role as guardians of vulnerable and/or frail clients. Proper training allows deputies to develop into proficient and productive employees. Certified and trained personnel are more likely to contribute to the success of the PAGC office. Finally, staff employee performance evaluations are not being conducted in the PAGC under the mistaken notion that the SEIU prohibits evaluations. In fact, both the County of Santa Clara Ordinance Code and the SEIU collective bargaining agreement require that periodic employee evaluations be conducted. As a result of the absence of performance evaluations, significant opportunities for strengthening employee- management interaction and engagement have been lost. The Grand Jury concludes that the PAGC is not being managed in a manner consistent with good practice and the reasonable expectations of the residents of Santa Clara County. This is especially troubling because the PAGC bears responsibility for those who are unable to protect their own interests, and as a result, the PAGC carries a special burden of public trust. The investigation by the Grand Jury identified 13 issues of concern within the PAGC office, its operations, policies and procedures, and performance. In addition, this report includes 17 recommendations for improvement. 15 Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 As of August 2012, nearly two-thirds of the PAGC office Policies and Procedures have not been reviewed or updated for five years or more, as has been recommended by previous reports and audits. Recommendation 1a The County should require the PAGC to establish a completion date for the review and update of PAGC Policies and Procedures. Recommendation 1b The County should monitor the progress toward the timely completion of the review and update of the PAGC office Policies and Procedures. Finding 2 As of February 2013, less than one-third of the PAGC office Policies and Procedures are available on the department intranet for PAGC staff use. Recommendation 2a The County should require the PAGC to establish a completion date for the transfer of hard-copy Policies and Procedures to the department intranet. Recommendation 2b The County should monitor the progress toward the timely transfer to the department intranet of the PAGC office Policies and Procedures. Finding 3 The PAGC policy (#204) that defines the review and revision procedure leaves undefined a maximum review interval for its office procedures. Recommendation 3 The County should require a maximum review interval for all PAGC Policies and Procedures. 16 Finding 4 The PAGC has no documented process to record and track client or client advocate complaints. Recommendation 4 The County should require the PAGC to establish Policies and procedures to record and track complaints against the PAGC. Finding 5 PAGC personnel do not consistently utilize the Panoramic Case Management System. Recommendation 5a The County should require the PAGC to identify the issues that prevent the full use of the Panoramic system. Recommendation 5b The County should require the PAGC to establish a completion date for resolution of the identified issues preventing the full use of the Panoramic system by the PAGC. Recommendation 5c The County should monitor the progress toward the timely resolution of the identified issues preventing the full use of the Panoramic system by the PAGC. Finding 6 The PAGC does not maintain case documents in a standardized fashion. Recommendation 6 The County should require the PAGC to establish procedures and standards for the maintenance of case documents in a standardized fashion. 17 Finding 7 The PAGC does not have clearly delineated personnel responsible for problem solving, maintenance, and training for the Panoramic software system. Recommendation 7 The County should require the PAGC to assign the necessary resources to assess and oversee the operation of the Panoramic software system, and to provide training and assistance to staff. Finding 8 Not all PAGC Deputy Public Guardians, Conservators, or Estate Administrators are CAPAPGPC certified. Recommendation 8 The County should require that all PAGC Deputy Public Guardians, Conservators, and Estate Administrators be CAPAPGPC certified. Finding 9 PAGC Employee performance reviews, as stipulated by the SEIU Local 521 Performance Appraisal Program Agreement, are not being conducted. Recommendation 9 The County should require that the PAGC conduct employee performance reviews as stipulated by the SEIU Local 521 Performance Appraisal Program Agreement. Finding 10 The PAGC does not hold regularly scheduled staff meetings. Recommendation 10 The County should require that the PAGC conduct regularly scheduled, mandatory staff meetings for both supervisorial and line staff. 18 Finding 11 The PAGC does not have a clearly established procedure that governs staff sign-in and sign-out. Recommendation 11 The County should require that the PAGC establish a procedure that governs staff sign- in and sign-out as a means of providing accountability for field activities. Finding 12 The PAGC has not provided training in response to revised job descriptions and responsibilities. Recommendation 12 The County should require that PAGC personnel receive timely training related to their responsibilities. Finding 13 The PAGC does not consistently use training materials or have a training methodology in place for new office personnel. Recommendation 13 The County should require the PAGC to implement a procedure and training module for new office personnel. 19 Appendix A Performance Appraisal Program Agreement 20 Appendix A - continued 21 Appendix A - continued 22 APPENDIX A - continued 23 Appendix B SANTA CLARA COUNTY (SEIU LOCAL 715) APPRAISAL AND DEVELOPMENT FORM 24 APPENDIX B - continued 25 Appendix C PAGC BROCHURE 26 1 27 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 4th day of April, 2013. Steven P. McPherson Foreperson Lyn H. Johnson Foreperson pro tem Chester F. Hayes Foreperson pro tem Francis A. Stephens Secretary 28

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.