2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Department of Correction/facilities and Fleet

Conclusions 16

• CL1 Page 6
  1a. FAF is invited but rarely attends the monthly meetings held by the Elmwood Captain at Elmwood, where Operations and Custody issues are discussed. Effective exchange of issues and concerns does not occur among all responsible agencies. 1b. The DOC Support Services Division Commander meets monthly with the FAF Executive Manager of Building Operations at Berger Drive. Problems expressed by staff do not appear to reach these individuals. 1c. Corrective Maintenance meetings are held every Thursday at 1 pm. on Berger Drive. They are attended by FAF Managers and the supervisors who answer to them. One or two high-ranking DOC Operations staff usually attend. Custody attends only when they have a problem. There is no agenda and no minutes are kept. These are informal meetings to air problems and give status reports on major projects. 1d. FAF states they have an appointed Facilities Manager at DOC. However, DOC staff state they do not know of any “Facilities Manager.”
• CL2 Page 7
  The Elmwood Office Specialist’s primary job is to submit service requests to FAF. Other DOC personnel submit them as well, sometimes resulting in the same request being sent in multiple times, and duplicate work orders.
• CL3 Page 7
  DOC is not given advance notice of when jobs will begin, but require such notice if inmates must be moved.
• CL4 Page 8
  5a. There are approximately 100 entries and exits per day by FAF personnel at Elmwood, 30 of which are not electronically recorded, and 70 of which are recorded by card swipe. 5b. With an average of 20 corrective maintenance service requests per day, DOC is unable to reconcile the large number of workers with the number of jobs, and the large numbers of entries and exits. DOC questions the need for so many FAF staff at Elmwood. 5c. DOC does not know which jobs are being done on any particular day. 5d. DOC is not informed of job progress. This is problematic when jobs involve more than one trade. Trades do not communicate and work stops until DOC realizes the first part of a job is done and it is time to schedule the next trade. 5e. DOC is not given notice of job completion and must personally check job areas for job status, which is time-consuming in a 62+ acre facility.
• CL5 Page 8
  DOC has been unable to electronically monitor work status.
• CL6 Page 9
  7a. There is little or no supervision of FAF staff and DOC notices “idle” FAF staff. 7b. DOC Operations staff does not inspect or approve completed jobs done by eitherFAF or outside vendors/contractors. FAF workers sign off on their own jobs. 7c. The DOC Correctional Support Services Manager is not readily available at Elmwood. Custody personnel must liaise with FAF on big jobs, though Operations is not their responsibility. 7d. The DOC Assistant Operations Manager, though stationed at Elmwood, does not frequently leave the shop area to monitor the overall state of the facility, and to oversee and coordinate the efforts of Ops and FAF. This task is left to other Operations and Custody personnel who are then forced to neglect their specified duties.
• CL7 Page 9
  FAF deletes work orders that are not addressed within three months from the system without always first notifying the client.
• CL8 Page 9
  On average, there are four outside vendors/contractors working at Elmwood per day. They must be escorted by CSAs. If they arrive unexpectedly, CSAs may be on other assignments, and the vendors must wait until CSAs are available, wasting time and money. 9
• CL9 Page 10
  FAF work is frequently delayed when inmates are in areas FAF needs to access.
• CL10 Page 10
  DOC receives a non-itemized bill from FAF for accumulated corrective maintenance charges. In FY 2008, this bill totaled $3.364M.
• CL11 Page 10
  Several DOC personnel enter service requests to FAF (through the FAF web site or by e-mail). This at times results in duplicate requests, resulting in duplicate work orders. The duplicates show up on MAXIMO as incomplete jobs, requiring review several months later.
• CL12 Page 11
  FAF supervisors work at Berger Drive. They make brief and infrequent visits to Elmwood. As a result, FAF is unable to verify the hours their workers spend on the job.
• CL13 Page 11
  FAF has not implemented the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication.
• CL14 Page 11
  FAF Building Operations last received a county management audit in 1991 when it was known as GSA.
• CL15 Page 6
  DOC is limited to setting all service requests as “Priority Three” or below, though they phone in emergency Priority One and Two requests for immediate help. Work orders are prioritized by the MAXIMO Building Operations Monitor Systems Operator and responded to according to the urgency of the problem, defined as the “severity of the damage it can do and the disruption to the client’s operations”: 6 Priority 1 – Health and Safety – Immediate Response Priority 2 – Mission Critical – 24-hour Response Priority 3 – Painting, etc – 48-hour Response Priority 4 – Tenant request, non-urgent – ten-day Response Priority 5 – 30-day Response Priority Three response time is typically over one week. DOC states that problems such as a malfunctioning security camera may be assigned the same priority as a painting job.
• CL16 Page 4
  While certain procedural changes can and should be made, FAF and DOC can take better advantage of existing avenues to facilitate a cohesive working relationship. A major problem is lack of communication between the two parties. Regularly scheduled meetings among top administration would provide a consistent and efficient mechanism to share concerns and complaints between DOC and FAF. Staff in both agencies must know their concerns and problems are heard and acted upon. The lack of notification of when maintenance will occur is an ongoing issue. If notice is not given, inmates are likely to be in work areas. When questioned as to why they do not give notice of scheduled work, FAF’s Preventive Maintenance Manager replied with reference to county buildings in general. He did not feel the need to contact clients if he believed his work would not interfere with the clients’ operations. This may be appropriate for most county agencies, but DOC is a special needs agency and should be treated as such. Additional notification of scheduled work is indicated. DOC has used the FAF website to check work status. Their limited knowledge of the site has prevented them from accessing the most accurate, updated information. FAF could have been far more forthcoming in informing DOC Operations that it actually has had far more access to updates, if only they had the proper training. 4 FAF reports customer satisfaction “at 99%.” The agency that represents 66% of FAF business is clearly not satisfied, per this investigation. Formal feedback avenues cited by FAF following last year’s Grand Jury Report (County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication, June 5, 2008), as yet do not exist, and are clearly needed. At the same time, DOC has not been consistent or organized in tracking recurring problems and demanding answers from top FAF administration. “Too expensive,” “too many,” and “too slow” need to be replaced with documented, quantifiable complaints that can be addressed. Photographing a damaged bathroom was one staff member’s last resort. Complaints would be more credible if documented by all staff, whenever noticed, and conveyed to the DOC Assistant Operations Manager and Facilities Manager who can consolidate the issues and present them at scheduled meetings. This is not meant to diminish in any way the problems with maintenance and repair experienced by DOC. The Main Jail and Elmwood house a volatile and destructive population. Damage, whether intentional or from wear and tear, constitutes a threat to secure and safe operation that, by law, must be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. Many Elmwood buildings are over thirty years old, and are placed across 62+ acres. At present, the entire facility is monitored for damage by a lone Safety Officer. Onsite work supervision, whether provided by FAF or DOC, by regular patrol or spot check, is needed. Enhanced communication of procedure and regulations between FAF and DOC, both at the top level and among line staff, and awareness of job progress and oversight of job quality by DOC and FAF, are the minimum that must occur if the relationship is to transform from adversarial to collaborative. 5 Findings and Recommendations Finding 1 1a. FAF is invited but rarely attends the monthly meetings held by the Elmwood Captain at Elmwood, where Operations and Custody issues are discussed. Effective exchange of issues and concerns does not occur among all responsible agencies. 1b. The DOC Support Services Division Commander meets monthly with the FAF Executive Manager of Building Operations at Berger Drive. Problems expressed by staff do not appear to reach these individuals. 1c. Corrective Maintenance meetings are held every Thursday at 1 pm. on Berger Drive. They are attended by FAF Managers and the supervisors who answer to them. One or two high-ranking DOC Operations staff usually attend. Custody attends only when they have a problem. There is no agenda and no minutes are kept. These are informal meetings to air problems and give status reports on major projects. 1d. FAF states they have an appointed Facilities Manager at DOC. However, DOC staff state they do not know of any “Facilities Manager.” Recommendation 1 DOC and FAF should schedule weekly meetings with mandatory attendance by DOC Operations Managers and FAF Maintenance Managers to discuss common problems and concerns, and to share project plans and updates. There should be a formal agenda and published minutes available to all staff of both facilities, including Custody administration. The DOC Facilities Manager should be formally identified and his responsibilities as liaison made explicit to all staff by the Support Services Division Commander. FAF should implement the formal customer feedback mechanism cited in its reply to the 2008 County Building Maintenance Report. Finding 2 DOC is limited to setting all service requests as “Priority Three” or below, though they phone in emergency Priority One and Two requests for immediate help. Work orders are prioritized by the MAXIMO Building Operations Monitor Systems Operator and responded to according to the urgency of the problem, defined as the “severity of the damage it can do and the disruption to the client’s operations”: 6 Priority 1 – Health and Safety – Immediate Response Priority 2 – Mission Critical – 24-hour Response Priority 3 – Painting, etc – 48-hour Response Priority 4 – Tenant request, non-urgent – ten-day Response Priority 5 – 30-day Response Priority Three response time is typically over one week. DOC states that problems such as a malfunctioning security camera may be assigned the same priority as a painting job. Recommendation 2 The ability of DOC to set priority should be revisited during the mandatory meetings between FAF and DOC. Finding 3 The Elmwood Office Specialist’s primary job is to submit service requests to FAF. Other DOC personnel submit them as well, sometimes resulting in the same request being sent in multiple times, and duplicate work orders. Recommendation 3 DOC should assign one Office Specialist and one designated back-up to enter all service requests to avoid duplicates. It should be noted DOC is already working on this problem. Finding 4 DOC is not given advance notice of when jobs will begin, but require such notice if inmates must be moved. Recommendation 4 DOC service requests should indicate if inmates will need to be moved to allow FAF access. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF in accessing areas. 7 Finding 5 5a. There are approximately 100 entries and exits per day by FAF personnel at Elmwood, 30 of which are not electronically recorded, and 70 of which are recorded by card swipe. 5b. With an average of 20 corrective maintenance service requests per day, DOC is unable to reconcile the large number of workers with the number of jobs, and the large numbers of entries and exits. DOC questions the need for so many FAF staff at Elmwood. 5c. DOC does not know which jobs are being done on any particular day. 5d. DOC is not informed of job progress. This is problematic when jobs involve more than one trade. Trades do not communicate and work stops until DOC realizes the first part of a job is done and it is time to schedule the next trade. 5e. DOC is not given notice of job completion and must personally check job areas for job status, which is time-consuming in a 62+ acre facility. Recommendation 5 5a. FAF should track entries by work order number. This will identify any superfluous personnel at Elmwood, 5b. FAF should add an additional card reader at the West entrance off Thompson St. 5c. FAF should simultaneously fax duplicates of daily work orders to the OS desk. DOC would be able to spot-check work in progress, precluding the need to contact FAF. 5d. See Finding 5d and 5e. 5e. See Finding 5d and 5e. Finding 6 DOC has been unable to electronically monitor work status. Recommendation 6 FAF should provide DOC with training on how to access and utilize MAXIMO capabilities as they relate to DOC concerns. 8 Finding 7 7a. There is little or no supervision of FAF staff and DOC notices “idle” FAF staff. 7b. DOC Operations staff does not inspect or approve completed jobs done by eitherFAF or outside vendors/contractors. FAF workers sign off on their own jobs. 7c. The DOC Correctional Support Services Manager is not readily available at Elmwood. Custody personnel must liaise with FAF on big jobs, though Operations is not their responsibility. 7d. The DOC Assistant Operations Manager, though stationed at Elmwood, does not frequently leave the shop area to monitor the overall state of the facility, and to oversee and coordinate the efforts of Ops and FAF. This task is left to other Operations and Custody personnel who are then forced to neglect their specified duties. Recommendation 7 DOC should direct the DOC Correctional Support Services Manager to spend sufficient time at Elmwood to effectively supervise and monitor ongoing work. He should be accessible to his Ops staff so issues can be conveyed to FAF during meetings. DOC should ensure that the appropriate DOC personnel conduct spot visits to work areas and regular patrols of Elmwood with the Safety Officer, and be available to liaise with FAF on major projects. Finding 8 FAF deletes work orders that are not addressed within three months from the system without always first notifying the client. Recommendation 8 FAF needs to check with DOC before deleting or closing inactive work orders, even though the deletions may seem to be “common sense” decisions. Finding 9 On average, there are four outside vendors/contractors working at Elmwood per day. They must be escorted by CSAs. If they arrive unexpectedly, CSAs may be on other assignments, and the vendors must wait until CSAs are available, wasting time and money. 9 Recommendation 9 FAF should inform DOC as far in advance as possible to arrange for escorts when multiple vendors are scheduled. FAF should advise DOC of where vendors are to work, and be prepared to escort the vendors if necessary. Finding 10 FAF work is frequently delayed when inmates are in areas FAF needs to access. Recommendation 10 FAF should make every effort to let DOC know when FAF needs access to inmate occupied areas. It should be noted that Custody administration has put itself on-call to be available any time for inmate moving to assist FAF in accessing areas, and that FAF plans to assign one of its long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor for the entire facility. Finding 11 DOC receives a non-itemized bill from FAF for accumulated corrective maintenance charges. In FY 2008, this bill totaled $3.364M. Recommendation 11 FAF should provide to DOC an itemized quarterly statement so that the charges can be reconciled with the services provided to ensure accurate accounting. Finding 12 Several DOC personnel enter service requests to FAF (through the FAF web site or by e-mail). This at times results in duplicate requests, resulting in duplicate work orders. The duplicates show up on MAXIMO as incomplete jobs, requiring review several months later. Recommendation 12 It should be noted DOC is already working on designating only one individual to enter all requests. 10 Finding 13 FAF supervisors work at Berger Drive. They make brief and infrequent visits to Elmwood. As a result, FAF is unable to verify the hours their workers spend on the job. Recommendation 13 FAF should designate a supervisor for Elmwood. It should be noted that FAF plans to assign one of their long-time Elmwood workers as onsite supervisor for the facility. Finding 14 FAF has not implemented the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication. Recommendation 14 FAF should implement the formal customer feedback process cited in its response to the 2007-2008 Civil Grand Jury Report County Building Maintenance: High Cost, Poor Customer Communication. Finding 15 FAF Building Operations last received a county management audit in 1991 when it was known as GSA. Recommendation 15 The County Board of Supervisors should order a management audit on FAF. 11 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 21st day of May, 2009. Don Kawashima Foreperson June Nishimoto Foreperson pro tem 12