Contra Costa County Grand Jury • 2006-2007

Shoring Up County Management with Best Practices

Published: June 14, 2007 10 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings and Recommendations 13 findings

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: • Improved fiscal health • Improved service delivery • Build the organization and team • Foster credibility and public education

Related Recommendations (1)

The County should develop a multi-year strategic plan for: • Setting County direction • Establishing priorities • Communicating to stakeholders This plan should be updated at least annually so all stakeholders are informed about the County’s goals and objectives, progress towards both, and changes in priorities.

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

Within two years of this report, the County should develop a strategic plan that incorporates the following key elements: • Setting the direction: vision, mission and guiding principles -organizational (e.g., personnel, financial performance, operating departments) -programmatic (e.g., public safety, health / welfare, economic develop- ment, transportation) • Assessing the environment and changes in the County -County participants (e.g., Board of Supervisors, County Administrator, department heads, employees, and unions) -Constituent participants (e.g., community leaders, residents and principle users of County services) • Identifying issues, strategic initiatives, and priorities -County management (e.g., Board of Supervisors, County Administrator, and department heads) • Developing and implementing the plan -Special planning group from County management team • Monitoring and evaluating the performance goals, objectives and actions -Special planning group from County management team

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.

Related Recommendations (1)

The County Administrator also should develop a standardized performance appraisal form, including consistent elements to the greatest extent possible, with supportive processes for all remaining County employees.

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 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.

Related Recommendations (1)

The County Administrator should develop a mechanism for reporting by department on the timeliness and completeness of County performance evaluations.

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. 3

Related Recommendations (1)

The County Administrator should direct the Human Resources Department to monitor and evaluate the administration of the employee performance evaluation program and recommend corrective actions where appropriate. 6

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.