Nevada County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
Management Deficiencies in the Nevada County Behavioral Health Department Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 9 findings
F1
Since 2000, the County Drug Court has discontinued referrals to MIR due to inappropriate behavior by the program facilitator that included writing a letter containing false allegations against County Probation staff and signing client names to the letter.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2
The BOS should direct the CEO to work with Drug Court to study and determine the best way to deliver drug recovery programs within the county.
R3
The BOS should direct the CEO to ensure that BH reestablishes good working relationships with all related county and external agencies in order to provide county-led recovery programs accessible to all qualified participants.
F2
The responsible manager at the time characterized MIR as “the shining star of Behavioral Health,” even complimenting the program facilitator for not letting external forces distract or influence conduct of the program, when in fact the program facilitator had been disciplined for inappropriate behavior with an external agency.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The BOS should direct the CEO to ensure that BH reestablishes good working relationships with all related county and external agencies in order to provide county-led recovery programs accessible to all qualified participants.
F3
The Human Resources (HR) department took fourteen months to complete an investigation into a county employee’s complaint filed in 2003 of a hostile working environment caused by the program facilitator of the MIR program. Although HR conducted interviews regarding the complaint, no one from the complainant’s list of nineteen witnesses was interviewed. HR found “no merit” to the allegations of a hostile work environment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The BOS should direct the CEO to review the current policy regarding complaints and/or grievances involving county employees and to ensure timely and thorough completion of investigations by HR.
F4
The Grand Jury was unable to find any established, written protocol for operation of the MIR program. There is evidence that this lack of structure has led to allegations of favoritism and unequal treatment of clients by the facilitator of the program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) should direct the CEO to suspend operation of the MIR program until proper management and treatment protocols can be ensured. Current clients should be re-directed to other programs.
F5
At least one MIR program client has filed a formal complaint with the county alleging that MIR staff compromised therapist-client confidentiality.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) should direct the CEO to suspend operation of the MIR program until proper management and treatment protocols can be ensured. Current clients should be re-directed to other programs.
F6
Evidence shows a history within BH of certain staff filing false accusations shortly before performance reviews are due resulting in changes of supervisors and delay of anticipated poor reviews. For example, there have been four different supervisors for the MIR program facilitator in less than two years, including the Director of BH.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The BOS should direct the CEO to ensure that BH management strictly adheres to personnel code requirements regarding timely and accurate employee evaluations and that all supervisors, managers, and directors are held accountable for maintaining a supportive and cooperative work environment for county employees.
F7
Recently, a few drug recovery program staff members from BH filed a grievance with the county’s HR department against their current supervisor shortly before their performance reviews were due. The grievance was promptly investigated and found to be without merit by HR.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The BOS should direct the CEO to ensure that BH management strictly adheres to personnel code requirements regarding timely and accurate employee evaluations and that all supervisors, managers, and directors are held accountable for maintaining a supportive and cooperative work environment for county employees.
F8
Several BH clients have been made to wait for hours for appointments with drug recovery program staff that are reportedly chronically late or fail to show up.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) should direct the CEO to suspend operation of the MIR program until proper management and treatment protocols can be ensured. Current clients should be re-directed to other programs.
F9
The Director of BH has allowed inappropriate behavior such as repeated false allegations against co-workers and poor attendance by a few drug recovery program staff to continue with little or no disciplinary action taken. CONCLUSIONS
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
The BOS should direct the CEO to take immediate action to determine the root cause of the current hands-off management style within BH and work to cleanse the department of the atmosphere caused by a failure to appropriately discipline staff. Such action should include progressive discipline, letters of reprimand, administrative leave, suspension, and/or termination.
Conclusions 9
-
CL1 Page 2Deficiencies in county management of the MIR program appear to have led to the program being run in an unprofessional manner by the program facilitator.
-
CL2 Page 2Prior management appears to have been more concerned with making the MIR program appear to “look good” than with effectively guiding and counseling the program facilitator to assure that the program is properly conducted. This failure in leadership has resulted in removal of the MIR program from participation with County Drug Court, to the detriment of the taxpayers as well as county residents who could benefit from participation in the program.
-
CL3 Page 3It appears the failure of HR to fully investigate the county employee’s complaint in a timely manner gave tacit approval of the MIR program facilitator’s alleged abusive and inappropriate behavior, which reportedly continued during the fourteen months of investigation.
-
CL4 Page 3BH management has repeatedly failed to take timely and progressive disciplinary action against this and other affected employees despite evidence of alleged abusive behavior, frivolous claims of wrongdoing against co-workers, lackadaisical work habits, and inappropriate behavior towards co-workers and at-risk clients.
-
CL5 Page 3The failure of prior and current BH management to take appropriate disciplinary action with the involved employees has led to growing problems within the department, negatively affecting other employees’ behavior and causing serious morale problems.
-
CL6 Page 3It appears the BH Director’s solution to resolving personnel issues is to continually move personnel from one supervisor to another in an attempt to achieve harmony within the department.
-
CL7 Page 3Evidence suggests that inaccurate and inflated performance evaluations for BH staff serve only to guarantee the continuation of behavior that appears both inappropriate and abusive to co-workers and drug recovery program clients.
-
CL8 Page 3Evidence suggests that if past management failures, lack of discipline and employee accountability problems could be resolved, Drug Court would resume its involvement with the MIR program.
-
CL9 Page 3Everyone loses when mediocrity instead of excellence is accepted in the management, supervision, and delivery of critical county social services such as drug recovery programs.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Nevada County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office