📋
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.

Mendocino County Grand Jury • 1999-2000

Mendocino County Department of Social Services

14 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 16 findings

F4 Page 69
The Audit found “the Department did not systematically collect or track the key human resource measures such as vacancy and turnover rates or measures of changes in employee morale.” The MCDSS response was that they had collected vacancy and turnover data, through employee surveys in 1992, 1995, and 1998. Response (Social Services): Agree, with clarification. The Department’s actual response to the Audit finding was: “The Department has collected vacancy and turnover data on a periodic basis. The Department has conducted employee surveys in 1992, 1995, and 1998.” The Department has been collecting vacancy and turnover data on an ongoing basis for the past two years. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department agree with clarification. Employee surveys were conducted as a method to measure employee morale in the three years listed. The Department has been collecting vacancy and turnover data on an ongoing basis for the last two years.
F5 Page 69
Case load assignments were not fairly distributed in the past, but have improved in the last year after new procedures were instituted. Counter to MCDSS Case Load Assignment Guidelines, testimony revealed that complexity is still not always considered. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Department has not been informed by staff about any concerns with the policy or the implementation of the Case Load Assignment Guidelines. Follow-up has not identified any concerns among the staff presently working here. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board can not agree or disagree since it did not receive information about the specific testimony. The Department reports that it has not received any concerns from employees regarding the Case Load Assignment guidelines.
F6 Page 70
The existing Merit System used for hiring and promotion is based on test scores which allows management the choice of selecting one of the top five qualified applicants, which creates the opportunity for favoritism. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Merit System testing and selection process is identical to that used in every department in Mendocino County, as well as in most counties in California. The testing is focused on experience, skills, and knowledge. The purpose of testing and ranking applicants is to ensure that selection is made from among the most qualified, as determined by an independent panel. It is standard government hiring practice to conduct a testing process, either oral or written or both, which yields a ranked list of qualified candidates, from which the hiring authority may select from the top five. The selection process always involves making a choice of one person instead of others. That choice cannot be made based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, age, or disability, but it is made based on job skills, work experience, temperament and demeanor, past work performance, people and relationship skills, program knowledge, and fit with the program and people needs of the particular job. Favoritism is the selection of an individual based on a personal relationship with the decision-maker, rather than on job- related factors. While favoritism is not illegal in the way that discrimination is, the Department’s policy is that it is never advisable to select a person for any reason other than the expectation that s/he could do the best job. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department do not agree with this finding. Reference is made to Department response. 70 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report
F7 Page 71
Response to many problems by management is frequently ineffective and many employees feel management pays “lip service” only. Employees think many problems are not dealt with by management, or too much time passes before being addressed. Management views this differently, asserting that changes must be made slowly and carefully to avoid making mistakes. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. Opinions and perceptions are being stated here as fact. It is not clear what responses to which problems are considered ineffective. Some problems are beyond the authority of Department management. Many solutions are effective, and forgotten. Some problems are lower priority due to resource limitations and are not dealt with. Some solutions take longer than anyone would like because of the complexity of the programs we administer and competing demands. Not all changes must be made slowly, but most must be done carefully as they have an impact on a lot of clients and people in crisis. Maintaining operations serving thousands of people countywide each month is challenging for all. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board can neither agree nor disagree with this finding, as there is not enough information. It appears that this finding may be based on the opinion and perception of some employee(s).
F8 Page 71
On at least one occasion, an employee’s evaluation forwarded to MCDSS Human Resources was not the same evaluation shown to the employee. It 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 71 was later changed to a third version after the employee complained to various levels of management. A study of the evaluation indicated the performance criteria marked as sub-standard by the supervisor, and approved by the next level of management, seemed to contradict the other areas which were marked “Standard” (average). Indications were there was some form of “reprisal” involved. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. In the situation referred to, the employee’s supervisor forwarded an earlier unsigned draft of the evaluation to the Department’s Staff Resources Division, instead of the final copy which had been discussed with and signed by the staff person. When the mistake was discovered, the wrong version was discarded and the correct copy was filed. The situation was explained to the employee, with an apology for the mix-up. The Department does not agree that any form of reprisal was involved. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board disagrees with this finding. Reference is made to Department response.
F9 Page 72
MCDSS policies and procedures are not consistently followed by management and supervisors. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department is striving for consistency and is working on mechanisms for monitoring compliance with external and internal policies and procedures at all levels. There are occasions when staff, supervisors, and managers make mistakes. These do not occur on a regular basis, and every attempt is made to remedy errors and discrepancies as they are found and to prevent their reoccurrence. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department agree in part as referenced in the Department’s response.
F10 Page 73
Managers and supervisors are not trained to deal with many employee problems. As a result of the Audit, the MCDSS developed a Multi-Faceted Action Plan, to have managers and supervisors receive training in staff support, communication, involvement with staff and leadership to try and solve these serious problems. Results are not available as to the effectiveness of this initiative, which began in the fall of 1999. Response (Social Services): Do not agree in part/agree in part. This finding implies that all managers and supervisors are not trained and are ineffective at dealing with employee problems. The County and the Department provide training to managers and supervisors every year. Even in Fort Bragg, there have been times when employee problems were handled well. The Multi-Faceted Action Plan, or MAP, addresses a total of eight elements, of which manager and supervisor training is a key, but not sole, objective. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department both agree and disagree with this finding. The Department provides training to managers and supervisors and the Board is following this as part of the Department’s Multi-Faceted Action Plan. The Grand Jury does not appear to have analyzed the many employee problems which were handled well.
F11 Page 73
Testimony shows that confidentiality concerning both clients and staff has been treated carelessly by some staff, supervisors, and trainers. Considering that Fort Bragg is a relatively small town, the seriousness of this problem is accentuated. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department does not know the particular testimony received, but is aware of a few incidents involving breaches of confidentiality. These incidents were investigated and appropriate actions were taken. Staff at all levels are aware of and trained on the grave importance of confidentiality. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board is unable to either agree or disagree with this finding since it has not received the testimony. However, the Department acknowledges that the few incidents involving breech of confidentiality have been investigated and appropriate action taken. Training on confidentiality laws is mandatory for all employees.
F12 Page 73
Testimony showed that “inadequate management, favoritism, burnout, and lack of recognition for achievement” were more important than low pay in creating frustration and job dissatisfaction. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 73 Response (Social Services): Agree in part. Perceptions of those factors, as well as the possible existence of those factors, can be elements in frustration and job dissatisfaction. However, low pay has a significant negative impact across the board on the levels of skill and experience that the Department is able to hire and to retain, in addition to contributing to individual job dissatisfaction. The Department has actively advocated for increased pay for staff. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board is unable to either agree or disagree with this finding since it has not received the testimony. The Action Plan approved by the Board and the pay raises going into effect in November 2000 should help address the perceptions listed above.
F13 Page 74
Testimony has shown that there have been problems concerning office politics, favoritism, confidentiality, and unprofessionalism in the Fort Bragg office for many years. Response (Social Services): Do not agree in part. The issues that led to this report occurred over two years ago. Though they remain issues for some individuals who were directly involved, they are not of concern to other staff who were not directly involved, or who have been hired more recently. As a group, the Fort Bragg EFAS staff are very committed to client service, have been successful in meeting and maintaining mandated time frames, and came together to present a well-received open house to the community in October 1999. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board is unable to either agree or disagree with this finding since it has not received the testimony. However, the incidents referred to in this finding are over two years old. The Department reports that the Fort Bragg EFAS staff are very committed to client service and have been successful in meeting and maintaining mandated time frames.
F14 Page 75
Many employees stated that they do not feel free to speak up about issues without suffering reprisals. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The Department does not know the number that constitutes “many employees” and does not 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 75 know if the employees cited evidence on which they based their feelings. It is the Department’s policy to maintain open, honest, direct and respectful communication at all levels of discourse. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board was not provided with enough information by the Grand Jury to either agree or disagree with this. It is unknown how many employees were individually interviewed, how much was based on hearsay or perception, and what constitutes “many”.
F15 Page 76
Training is not always sufficient, due to the ineffectiveness of some trainers and lack of proper supervision. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. The County and the Department provide a great deal of training on a wide variety of topics. 76 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report It is unclear what specific training sessions this statement refers to. Training is evaluated after it is given and ineffective presenters or topics are not repeated. Response (Board of Supervisors): Do not agree. The Department and the County use recognized training professionals and all classes are evaluated by the participants for effectiveness.
F16 Page 77
The FARs are entry level positions for MCDSS. It is apparent that not all new hires come to the job adequately prepared for the workplace. Job expectations often are neither explained to nor understood by new employees. Response (Social Services): Agree in part/do not agree in part. FAR positions do require experience in providing basic public service, clerical or accounting work. They are filled many times by external applicants. Not all new hires are adequately prepared for this workplace by their previous jobs. A job specification is provided to all applicants. A complete job description is given to new employees. FARs are oriented and trained to the job of eligibility determination in groups in a classroom setting for 2-3 months, and then for 6-9 months is a training transition unit. Job expectations are thoroughly explained. It is possible that expectations may not be truly understood by new employees until they are able to experience the workload directly. It is very detail-oriented, regimented, regulated, computer-based, people- interactive work that is challenging to master. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and Department both agree and disagree in part with this finding as referenced in the Department’s response. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 77
F17 Page 78
Managers and supervisors spend too much time at meetings out of the office. Response (Social Services): Do not agree in part. The basis for this statement is unclear. The Department strives to limit the number of meetings for managers and supervisors, while supporting teamwork, group decision-making, and information-sharing. Back-up coverage is arranged when off-site meetings or training sessions are necessary. Response (Board of Supervisors): Do not agree with this finding as the basis is unclear.
F18 Page 79
A review of the Turnover Data from July 1,1995 through March 31,1999 (pre- Audit) provides the number of “Voluntary Resignations” but states no reasons for leaving. Consequently, even if there was a desire to correct this serious problem, management had no idea what specifically was creating the high turnover. Response (Social Services): Do not agree. March 31, 1999 is post- audit. The turnover data provided does include a count of promotions, which are a large part of the turnover, and separately identifies retirements, as well as involuntary terminations. The reasons for voluntary resignations are identified through letters of resignation and exit interviews and, although they were not on the particular chart that was reviewed, they are known to management. Response (Board of Supervisors): The Board and the Department do not agree with this finding. Reference is made to the Department’s response.
F19 Page 79
In January 1999, MCDSS began conducting exit interviews. However, the summary report of these interviews would be improved if the number of respondents were shown after each stated reason for leaving. Furthermore, the MCDSS response to the BOS stated that exit interviews would be handled by a “Human Resources Manager or Training Specialist,” which raises the question as to who would be the most objective interviewer. Response (Social Services): Agree in part. The Department conducts exit interviews. The format is currently being reviewed. It is important to maintain confidentiality. Interviewing is done by staff in the Staff Resources Division, who are not part of any of the other divisions. The questions have been determined in advance. The interviewer simply documents the responses in the person’s own words, so the interviewer’s objectivity is not at issue. Response (Board of Supervisors): Agree in part. Exit interviews consist of pre-determined questions that are asked by human resources staff within the Department. The responses are documented in the employee’s own words so the interviewer’s objectivity is not an issue.

Recommendations 7