HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09121995 - C176 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: SUPERVISOR JIM ROGERSi~ Costa
County
DATE: September 8, 1995
r..
sT cUiJN
SUBJECT: SAN PABLO DAM ROAD/EL PORTAL DRIVE SIGNAL MODIFICATION
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. APPROVE the San Pablo Dam Road/EI Portal Drive traffic signal modification
project.
2. AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director to reprogram a maximum of $20,000 from
the San Pablo Avenue/Tara Hills Drive signal upgrade project to fund the County's
one-third share of the proposed project cost.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All costs will be out of the road fund account. The City of Richmond and St. Callistus
Church would each contribute one-third of the total cost.
BACKGROUND:
The St. Callistus Church Organizing Committee approached the County requesting that
their church be included in the signalized intersection at San Pablo Dam Road and El.
Portal Drive. Due to numerous accidents experienced by members of the church and the
increased traffic on San Pablo Dam Road, the Organizing Committee felt a signal
modification to allow direct access into and through the intersection would better serve
their members and those vehicles using this corridor.
J_
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARV COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): Septembe,
ACTION OF BOARD ON ' APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 1995 - OTHER X
IT IS BY TIS BOARD ORDERED that the San Pablo Dam Road/El Portal Drive traffic
signal modification is REFERRED to the 'Transportation Committee for review.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED September 12, 1995
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Administrator ,
Public Works Director
CDD - Steve Goetz BY DEPUTY
r
This project was not funded because of the under reporting of accidents at the driveways.
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors take advantage of the offer by the City
of Richmond to fund 1/3 of the cost and fund this project ahead of the San Pablo
Avenue/Tara Hills Drive project. This project will delay the San Pablo Avenue/Tara Hills
Drive signal upgrade by one year.
Failure to approve this project would result in no signal modifications at San Pablo Dam
Road and EI Portal Drive.
Affirmative Action
No . 9508
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
REPORT NO. 9508
The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury finds that:
FINDING NO. 1:
Contra Costa County has had great success in recruiting and hiring
qualified employees. The County Administrator has taken positive
steps by appointing qualified minorities in management level
positions :
RESPONSE:
The Board of Supervisors appreciates the Grand Jury's recognition
of our affirmative action progress in the recruitment and hiring of
qualified people for County employment and the positive steps the
County has made by appointing qualified minorities and females in
management level positions .
The policy goal of the Board of Supervisors is to have the County
work force be at parity with the 1990 Census Labor Force percentage
for minorities and females. The work force representation for
minorities and females as of December 31, 1994 is :
1990 Census 1994 County Government
Labor Force Work Force
Females 45.4% 61.7%
Minorities : 27 . 6% 31 .0%
African Americans 7 .6% 13 . 8%
American Indians .6% . 8%
Asian/Pacific Islanders 8 . 9% 7 . 8%
Hispanics 10.5% 8.6%
TOTAL 27 .6% 31 .0%
Females, African Americans, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives
exceeded their labor force representation.
The County continues to aggressively hire, appoint and promote,
minority and female employees at the levels of Department Head,
management and supervisory positions.
Hiring opportunities at the top levels of any organization can be
infrequent. Since 1988, there have been only thirteen vacancies in
either Department Head or top level manager positions . As a result
of the policy direction of the Board of Supervisors, and the
commitment of the County Administrator and Department Heads
(elected and appointed) , eleven highly qualified minorities and
-1-
females have been hired for these positions through open
competitive recruitment and testing.
The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that:
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 :
The Contra Costa County government continue its efforts to make the
labor force representative of all the citizens in our diverse
society.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
B. The Board of Supervisors has directed the County Administrator
to:
► Review the hires, promotions, and separations in each
County Department in order to have our workforce reflect
the labor force in Contra Costa County;
► Review semi-annually each department's workforce
composition to identify the group(s) that are under-
represented;
► Continue to identify resources to assist in complying
with the ADA requirements for County building
accessibility;
► Continue to identify the essential functions in a
position or job class(es) within departments;
► Continue to provide training to managers/supervisors and
employees to assist them in understanding the
requirements of our affirmative action program;
► Continue to provide yearly workshops to contractors and
subcontractors to review the requirements of our Minority
Business Enterprise (MBE) and Women Business Enterprise
(WBE) Contract Compliance Program;
► Continue to process requests for certification as an MBE
or WBE;
► Continue to increase the MBE/WBE participation on
purchasing and professional/personal service contracts;
► Continue to immediately investigate allegations of
discrimination in the work place; and
-2-
► Continue to be a resource and liaison to community groups
and organizations.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 :
Cities throughout the County continue to redefine and implement
their affirmative action programs.
RESPONSE:
This does not come under the purview of the Board of Supervisors .
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3:
The example of leadership and guidance in the establishment and
implementation of affirmative action programs in the cities of
Pittsburg and Richmond should be commended.
RESPONSE:
This does not come under the purview of the Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 :
The City of Antioch's Police Department be observed as an example
of the importance of agencies and their administrators being
committed to the principles of affirmative action.
RESPONSE:
This does not come under the purview of the Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 :
Within ninety (90) days the Board of Directors of each of Contra
Costa County's autonomous special districts (especially Antioch
Unified School District and Delta Diablo Sanitation District)
examine the status of their affirmative action policies and
procedures with district staff. Upon complete examination, the
special district's Board of Directors move forward to create or
update and implement an affirmative action program. A Board of
Directors which is committed 'to the principles of affirmative
action will provide firm guidance to their special district for
hiring and promotional practices, resulting in a labor force more
realistically representing the ethnicity within the community they
serve.
RESPONSE:
This does not come under the purview of the Board of Supervisors.
-3-
Contra Costa County
Social Services
Department
No . 9 -50- 9
"CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT"
REPORT NO. 9509
The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that:
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 :
Within ninety (90) days, a team building approach for
Foster/Adoptive and Relative Care Parents be implemented by the
Children's Services Bureau.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is not accepted.
B. The Social Service Department has already begun implementation
of a team-building approach for foster/adoptive care parents
and Children's Services staff. A curriculum developed by the
Child Welfare League of America and approved by the California
Department of Social Services, called Foster Pride/Adopt
Pride, a collaborative team approach between social workers
and care givers, was implemented by the Department. The
training plan for social workers will include expanding this
across the Department. However, because of current training,
this plan will not be accomplished within 90 days as
recommended.
The current plan for implementing the Child Welfare Research
Center' s (CWRC) recommendation outlines the goal of improving
Foster Parent/Social Worker relationships . Linda Canan is
responsible for selecting key staff to form a committee with
caregivers to decide what process they want to take to work on
issues defined by this group. Planning is to begin September
15, 1995, and be completed by April, 1996 .
The development of a continuing education plan is to begin
November 1, 1995, with the plan in place by November 15, 1995 .
Mary Jensen, Training Supervisor, is responsible for this
task.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 :
Within sixty (60) days, a program be implemented by the Children's
Services Bureau whereby trained Court Appointed Special
Representatives ( "CASR") be used as enhancement to:
A. Social Worker Training.
B. Foster/Adoptive-Relative Care Parent Training.
-1-
C. Children's Court Report Preparation.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is not accepted.
B. The Social Service Department has established a plan of action
to work on the relationship between social workers and CASRs,
and meetings have already been held to discuss this issue.
The Department is also in the process of developing the
training plan for Children's Services which will incorporate
CASRs into the program.
The CWRC plan- addresses the issue of better use of Court
Appointed Specialist Representatives (CASR) . Meda Read,
Program Analyst, is assigned to review existing guidelines
August, 1995, with a plan to work with the CASK, Executive
Director, to update guidelines, with CASR and Social Worker
involvement and with Mary Jensen, Training Supervisor, to
develop training by October, 1995.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 :
Social workers be required to complete their child's court case
report, when due, to avoid unnecessary court continuances .
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4:
The following attachments to the child's court case report be added
to the social worker's preparation:
A. The CSAR observations .
B. Educational and behavioral observations conducted by the
child's teacher.
C. The Foster/Adoptive-Relative Care Parent observations .
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted as modified.
B. Social workers currently attach many reports to their court
report. CASR, reports are submitted to the court, however it
is nearly impossible to get written reports from children' s
teachers . The Department is working to obtain more
educational information for case records . The Case Plan
document, which should be in place before January, 1996 , will
-2-
include educational information and will address this issue.
The Department will implement a form for
foster/adoptive/relative care givers to submit with the
completed court report.
Meda Read has lead on the Child Welfare compliance review.
The Case Plan will be fully implemented by January, 1996, and
include education information.
The Foster/Relative Care Parent observation will be included
in the plan (see #1) to work with a committee of
Caregivers/Social Workers under Linda Canan.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 :
Within thirty (30) days, team building exercises such as reverse
role playing should be implemented by the Children's Services
Bureau in joint training sessions to improve relationships between
Foster/Adoptive-Relative Care parents and social workers.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
B. There is in place a curriculum to promote team building among
Children's Services that is an appropriate vehicle to
accomplish this . Additionally, the CWRC report and the
planning meeting held earlier developed strategies to deal
with this issue,. The Department intends to proceed with that
plan of action.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6 :
Within ninety (90) days, a child in Foster/Adoptive-Relative Care
be assigned one social worker to remain with that child throughout
the time that child is in the system, thus allowing for continuity
in the child's otherwise fragmented life.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is not accepted.
B. The Social Service Department is proceeding with the
development of a "Fost/Adopt Program" which will streamline
and provide continuity for children who have adoptive plans .
The fost/adopt program is in process and is already subject to
time frames .
-3-
The Fost/Adopt Program is the responsibility of Danna Fabella
and Linda Canan. A concurrent planning forum is scheduled for
October 30, 1995, to include a multi-disciplinary audience:
caregivers, social workers, attorneys, and the "bench. " The
development of Contra Costa' s program began in June, 1995,
with visits to counties with Fost/Adopt Programs, reviewing
material sent to us from Washington. We have begun a search
of the literature, and have begun securing technical
assistance from the Administration on Children and Family,
Region IV. Time frames include developing a Fost/Adopt
Planning Group to meet September, October, November, and
December, 1995, to design Contra Costa's Fost/Adopt Program
with implementation to begin January, 1996, with completion by
May 30, 1996 .
RECOMMENDATION NO. 7 :
The Children's Services Bureau establish annual evaluations of all
social workers in their department.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
B. The Social Service Department has a policy of regular
evaluations . As part of our Department' s commitment to
"service excellence, " all supervisors and management staff
have been participating in training on the development of
working teams and providing an environment that promotes
performance that lends itself to service excellence. The
curriculum includes how to successfully manage performance and
how performance evaluations contribute to this goal . When
training is completed this summer, the Department will
reinforce compliance with current policy requiring annual
evaluations, subject to meet and confer as necessary. The
Department will be current with evaluations by February, 1996 .
Danna Febella is responsible for the Services Bureau.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 8:
Within thirty (30) days, the Children's Services Bureau establish
stress reduction workshops and intervention to reduce burn out and
lack of compassion by social workers.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
B. The Department' s fiscal year 95/96 training plans include
workshops for social workers on "Managing the Stress of
Change" to be given by Lorraine Fox. Ms . Fox provided this
training for supervisors in the Department, and Adult and
-4- '
Children Services ' supervisors highly recommended the training
be extended to all social workers.
Mary Jensen, Training Supervisor, along with Lynne Hofmann in
Staff Development, are requesting that UC Davis schedule the
"Managing Stress of Change" training for all social workers to
be completed by March, 1996 .
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10: (There was no No. 9 . )
Within ninety (90) days, the Children's Services Bureau's manual be
reviewed for out of date materials, updated and kept current.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is not accepted.
B. The Department will update the manual and keep it current but
it will not be possible to have it updated within 90 days .
With the loss of program support staff, the Department has
been unable to keep pace with some of the program updates . A
work plan in relation to the manual update is part of the CWRC
report which will address this issue.
The training manual is the responsibility of the Training
Supervisor, Mary Jensen. The process is to begin August,
1995, and be completed by July, 1996 .
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11 :
Within six (6) months, a computer system be developed to provide:
A. The reduction of paperwork.
B. Access for necessary information at the local level from any
social worker's desk monitor.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is not accepted.
B. The State has plans for a statewide child welfare system and
will not approve any other system with State or Federal
dollars . An agreement has been reached between the State and
IBM/ISSC and the system is back on track. The tentative State
plan is to begin roll-out to counties in 1996 . Given the
costs of implementing our own system, estimated at $400,000,
plus maintenance and operating costs, we believe it is
fiscally prudent to wait for the State system.
-5-
The State' s Child Welfare Services/Case Management System is
to begin rollout of office automation January 15, 1996 .
Contra Costa County's rollout date is approximately six months
later (June or July, 1996) . The application rollout,
including functionality defined in the Application Design
Report, is to begin January, 1997, to October 17, 1997 .
RECOMMENDATION NO. 12 :
The Children's Services Bureau develop a five (5) year action plan
to be presented to the Board of Supervisors sub-committee, "The
Family and Human Services Committee" no later than November 13,
1995 .
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is not accepted.
B. The Department has been given a solid plan of action as part
of the Child Welfare Research Center' s report. We propose
that the Department have the opportunity to implement the
current goals set forth in the CWRC report and that we delay
the five-year action plan until the recommendations outlined
in their report and scheduled for completion have been
accomplished.
The Social Service Department will complete the major portion
of CWRC' s recommendation by June, 1996 . At that time we are
suggesting that the Department work with a planning body to
develop a 5-year action plan.
The Department will present a Vision Statement to the Family
& Human Services Committee at its October 11, 1995, meeting.
-6-
ATTACHMENT A
•SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RECEIVED
TO Phil Batchelor, County Administrator DA E Jtfy395
ATTN Scott Tandy, Chief Assistant County Administrator f
f .i 1 219%
FROM Robert Hofmann, Actin County Welfare Director �'
g OFFICE OF
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
S U BJ RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 9509--"HOW LONG MUST THE
CHILDREN WAITT'
REF, Your memo on this subject dated June 13, 1995
Before addressing the specific findings of.the Report, I would like to provide the
content for our responses. The Social Service Department has been working on
implementing the numerous recommendations that came from the Child Welfare
Research Center's (CWRC) report that came about as a result of the 1993-1994
Grand Jury Report which was highly critical of the Department's adoption program.
The CWRC report and recommendations were given to the Department in
November of 1994 and was assigned to Danna Fabella, Assistant County Welfare
Director, for review and implementation. Ms. Fabella, who came to the
Department that same month, went forward with a planning meeting on January
18, 1995. The meeting included staff and "stakeholders" such as foster parents,
adoptive parents, relative caregivers, attorneys, grand jury members, and others to
obtain consensus on the recommendations that would be implemented.
The Department provided a report of the results of the planning meeting at a
public meeting on January 30, 1995. However, other issues raised by foster and
adoptive parents and Grand Jury members (computer system, use of minors' Social
Security Income, request for review of all children in long-term foster care, concern
-about the time frames developed by the Department, concern that not all foster
and adoptive parents received notification of the meeting) led to the Family and
Human Services Committee holding a televised (CCTV) public meeting on April
119 1995 to provide the public the opportunity to give input into the Department's
plans.
The Department was also asked by the Grand Jury to hire a project scheduling firm
to look at our time frames and see if more realistic ones could be developed. They
were concerned that we had stated we would accomplish goals in unrealistic time
frames we could not keep, yet were critical that it looked like we would take too
long to accomplish the tasks.
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
July 11, 1995
Page 2
The Department did hire Breck and Associates to assist us in developing realistic
time frames. In order to do so, they needed input from staff to develop the tasks
needed to accomplish each recommendation and the specific (as best that could be
estimated) time for each task. The project scheduling meeting, which included
numerous staff that would either be working on or supervising the work to be done,
met with Mike Chernok of Breck and Associates on May 17, 1995. Mr. Chernok
took staffs estimates, developed a timetable and installed a project scheduling
program into the adoption program analyst's computer for tracking purposes.
We, too, have felt the frustration that things have-not moved-as quickly. as we
would have liked. We have felt thwarted by the many demands upon the
Department often requiring our attention to be directed in those areas;:thus
limiting our ability to accomplish our goals. Despite the reality that time and
resources are limited, we believe we have made significant progress in the past six
months and are committed to the goal from the January 18th planning meeting,
shaping our child welfare programs so that we can have BETTER OUTCOMES
FOR CHILDREN.
Grand jury's Findings
In response to the Grand Jury's report, we would like to address the following:
Findings #1 - #4: We agree with these findings.
Finding #5: We disagree that there is little positive interaction between
foster/adoptive/relative-care parents and social workers. We do agree there are
problems between some of foster/adoptive/relative caregivers and the Department.
We have attempted to resolve differences and have met on several occasions on
case-specific issues. However, the Department has many examples of foster parents.
and other caregivers who feel positively about social workers. Thus we object to
the sweeping statement, but we do agree that we need to develop and nurture our
relationship between caregivers and the Department.
Finding #6: We disagree, as a general statement, that social workers are not
taking advantage of information by Court-Appointed Special Representatives
(CASRs). We do agree that there is room for improvement in these relationships
and, in fact, the CWRC implementation plan addresses these concerns.
Finding #7: We disagree that many foster/adoptive children are kept from
permanent placement because of court continuances due to social workers not
having completed their assigned court case reports prior to court dates. Court
continuances occur for a variety of reasons; often because the matter is being
contested by an attorney for one of the parties, most often the parent's attorney.
Data given to us by the County Counsel's office indicates that dependency contests
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
July 11, 1995
Page 3
have increased in the past six years quite dramatically, from 213 in 1988 to 686 in
1994. This represents over a 300% increase. Our Department finds that
continuances are more often related to issues outside our control. We have
directed supervisors to review cases and admonish staff when appropriate when
there is a request for a continuance because of no report.
Finding #8: We believe that it is a generality to state that case reports to the court
do not present a full picture of the child's situation. A review by the Assistant
County Welfare Director of a select number of cases the Grand Jury had concerns
about revealed th& depending on the service phase (family reunification,
permanency planning), the reports varied in detail. It appears that workers
providing family reunification services gave far more information in their reports
than did workers providing permanency.planning services. It is likely due to the
fact that the 'burden of proof' for continuing foster care is placed on the
Department and, therefore, these reports tend to be more detailed.
Grand Jury's Conclusions
We agree with the conclusions of the 1994-1995 Contra Costa Grand Jury that:
Conclusion #1: The Department has begun to address the recommendations of the
Child Welfare Research Center's recommendations.
Conclusion #2: The needs of children waiting permanent placement demand
constant attention. We are in the process of administratively reviewing all children
age 12 and under who have goals of long-term foster care to determine whether
other plans would be more appropriate. We will use this review to develop an
ongoing administrative review process. Additionally, we are developing a database
for our adoption program to track children subsequent to the development of an
adoption plan.
Conclusion #3: Foster/adoptive/relative-care children should not have to wait for
the bureaucratic system to change to be placed in permanent homes. In fact, we
have made tremendous progress in the adoption program. In comparison to fiscal
year 93/94, we project doubling the number of children freed for adoption and the
number of adoption placements completed in fiscal year 95/96. For example, the
number of children freed in fiscal year 93/94 was 60; in fiscal year 95/96 we are
projecting 142 children freed for adoption. This is a result of having more staff as
a result of the Board of Supervisors adding adoptions workers as well as a
concerted effort by the administrative review to identify children for adoption. As
we develop and have in place a fost-adopt program, we believe these numbers will
improve even more. We want to reiterate we are not waiting for system change to
place children in permanent homes.
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
July 11, 1995
Page 4
Grand jury's Recommendations
In respect to the recommendations:
Recommendation #1: The Department has already begun implementation of a
team-building approach for foster/adoptive care parents and Children's Services
staff. We implemented a curriculum approved by the California Department of
Social Services and developed by the Child Welfare League of America called
__Foster Pride/Adopt Pride which calls for a collaborative team approach between
social workers and caregivers. This training was well received,and our-trau`nng -
plan for social workers will include expanding this across the Department.
However, because of current training plans in place, we will not be able to
accomplish this within 90 days.
Additionally, there were ideas and recommendations from CWRC on this topic,
which are-part of our tasks to be accomplished over this next year.
Recommendation #2: As part of the CWRC recommendations, we have
established a plan of action to work on the relationship between social workers and
CASRs, and meetings have already been held to discuss this issue. We are also in
the process of developing our training plan for Children's Services. Our training
supervisor started her assignment on July 7, 1995, to begin working on the issues
identified by CWRC and the 1993-1995 Grand Jury. We will instruct our training
supervisor to incorporate CASRs into the training program.
Recommendation #3: Social workers are required to complete their court reports
when due. We have reprimanded social workers who have caused continuances
due to late court reports. We will continue to monitor this issue.
Recommendation #4:. Social workers currently attach many reports to their court
report. In fact, CASRs write their own reports which are submitted to'the court.
Often we find it nearly impossible to get written reports from children's teachers.
We do need to obtain more educational information for our case records. Our
Case Plan document, which should be in place before the end of this calendar year,
will include educational information and will address this issue. We have had plans
but have not implemented a form for foster/adoptive/relative caregivers to submit
when we complete our court report. We will try to fit this task into one of the
other recommendations from CWRC that we are working on.
Recommendation #5: As stated previously in this report, there already is a
curriculum to promote team building between Children's Services that we believe is
an appropriate vehicle to accomplish this. Additionally, the CWRC report and the
planning meeting held earlier this year developed strategies to deal with this issue.
We would like to proceed with that plan of action.
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator .
July 11, 1995
Page 5
Recommendation #6: We are proceeding with the development of a fost-adopt
program which will streamline and provide continuity for children who have
adoptive plans. We have visited San Mateo County to review their system of
assigning one worker for the child when he/she is identified and fost/adopt and
another worker for the parent. This requires having sufficient resources to have
two workers on a case at one time while receiving funding for only one worker.
We are looking at how to incorporate this within our existing resources. The
fost/adopt program is in process and is already subject to time frames.
Recommendation #7: The Social Service--�Departmenvhas a policy of regular
evaluations. As part of our Department's commitment to "service excellence," all
supervisors and management staff have been participating in training on the
development of working teams and providing an environment that promotes
performance that lends itself to service excellence. The curriculum includes how to
successfully manage performance and how performance evaluations contribute to
this goal. As we complete this training this summer, we will reinforce compliance
with the Department's current policy requiring annual evaluations.
Recommendations #8: The Department's fiscal year 95/96 training plans include
workshops for social workers on "Managing the Stress of Change" to be given by
Lorraine Fox. Ms. Fox provided this training for supervisors in the Department,
and Adult and Children Services's supervisors highly recommended the training be
extended to all social workers. We do not agree, however, that social workers lack
compassion but do agree that worker burnout is an important issue to address.
Recommendation #10: (There was no #9.) The Children's Services Bureau
manual needs to be updated. It will not be possible to have it updated within 90
days. With the loss of program support staff a few years ago, many things have not
been done. In Children's Services we lost one program analyst and have been
unable to keep pace with some of the program updates. Again, we have a work
plan in relation to the manual update as part of the CWRC report which.we
believe will address this issue.
Recommendation #11: The issue of a computer system for Children's Services has
been an item of discussion at and reporting to the Family and Human Services
Committee. An estimate by our systems manager and confirmed by Contra Costa
County's Data Processing Director was given conservatively at approximately
$400,000. This does not include the annual cost for maintaining hardware and
software. These costs would be incurred totally at County expense since the State
has plans for a statewide child welfare system and will not approve any other
system with State or Federal dollars. We have received good news from the State
on the child welfare system which was in litigation between the State and
IBM/ISSC that an agreement has been reached and the statewide child welfare
system is back on track again. The tentative State plan is to begin roll-out to
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
July 11, 1995
Page 6
counties in 1996. Given the costs, we believe it is fiscally prudent to wait for this
system.
Recommendation #12: We believe the Department has been given a solid plan of
action as part of the Child Welfare Research Center's report. We have been
struggling to follow these recommendations but continue to be sidetracked by
additional demands on staffs and management's time. In fact, Ms. Fabella, who
began with the Department approximately seven months ago, would have preferred
starting her tenure with having had the opportunity to develop a one-, two-, three-,
(etc.) year plan.---Instead--she has had to respond to specific recommendations set
forth by others. We propose that the Department have the opportunity to
implement the current goals set forth in the CWRC report and that we delay the
five-year action plan until the recommendations outlined in their report and
scheduled for completion have been accomplished:
RH:ceb
b:rept9509.pb
Wisk 2
Pittsburg Preschool
Coordinating Council ,
Inc .
No . 9510
"PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATING
COUNCIL, INCORPORATED"
REPORT NO. 9510
The 1994-95 Contra Costa County Grand Jury makes the following
recommendations :
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 :
Within 90 days, the Pittsburg Preschool Coordinating Council, Inc.
( "PPCC") Board of Directors comply with California Nonprofit
Corporation Law (Section 5210) requirements and exercise
appropriate direction respecting County contracts .
RESPONSE:
This recommendation is not under the purview of the Board of
Supervisors .
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 :
Within 60 days, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
appoint an independent review board to audit and review the
financial expenditures and activities of the PPCC with regards to
the funding and contracts provided to the PPCC by the County.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is not accepted.
B. The County has had in place an ad hoc group of three
Department Heads and the Auditor-Controller who have been
reviewing County concerns with the agency for the last six
months .
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 :
Within 90 days after establishment of the independent review board,
the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors establish and
implement procedures for future oversight of PPCC contracts
administered by the County.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted as modified.
B. On June 27, 1995, the Board of Supervisors imposed significant
oversight procedures on Pittsburg Pre-School regarding future
contracts and directed the County Administrator and ad hoc
group to continue its review and monitoring. Increased
oversight includes a pre-audit of all payment demands;
-1-
provision of bi-monthly reports involving the weaknesses
identified in the agency's internal audit report; and
monitoring of the new controls which the agency has installed
to strengthen its fiscal and administrative capacities. This
matter is further referred to the Family and Human Services
Committee to provide review and oversight of County contracts
with PPCC.
Specific program and operational reviews by Health Services,
Community Services and FACT includes the following:
► The Health Services Department has and will continue to
conduct program reviews of all contracts entered into
with Pittsburg Pre-School Coordinating Council, just as
with all other contractors.
► Since 1990, the FACT Committee has been closely
monitoring each of their contractors, including PPCC, by
means of periodic site visits coupled with data
collection related to agency management, income and
expenditures, service units provided and goals achieved
by each project.
► Through these mechanisms, the FACT Committee has
routinely evaluated both service provision and outcome
achieved and has found PPCC to consistently be in full
compliance with contract requirements . This conclusion
is in agreement with the results of survey on Aftercare
Services completed by clients of Family Preservation
contractors in which PPCC has the highest client service
satisfaction rating of all agencies surveyed, with 50% of
the families being "very satisfied" and the other 50%
being "very, very satisfied" with the services they
received.
► The Community Services Department' s PATHS and Child
Development Divisions monitor their contacts with
Pittsburg Pre-School Coordinating Council on a regular
basis .
► The Child Development Division is required to monitor the
program performance as a condition of the Department' s
contact with Contra Costa College District and the State
Department of Education.
► The Community Services Department's Fiscal Unit monitors
annually all Child Development Division contractors .
► The Community Services Department' s Fiscal Unit will
conduct the final fiscal review of all PATHS contractors
prior to the termination of the federal project scheduled
for September 30, 1995.
-2-
ATT CF�IENT A
Contra Costa County
The Board of Supervisors HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Jim Rogers,1st DistrictMark Finucane, Director
Jeff Smith,2nd District
Gayle Bishop,3rd District 20 Allen Street
Mark DeSaulnier,4th District „ Martinez, California 94553-3191
Tom Torlakson,5th Districtz (510) 370-5003
a FAX(510)370-5098
County Administrator
Phil Batchelor -tz-'
County Administrator
n—}1 (c j COU�
11A 4l_)STA N e`��.
To: Scott Tandy
Chi9f Assistant my Administrator 1
JUL 2 610 A
From: Mark Finucan �—
Health Services Director OFFICE OF
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Date: July 21, 1995 --- ---N
Subject: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT #9510
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Grand Jury Report.#9510: 'Pittsburg Pre-
School Coordinating Council, Incorporated." I want to make the following comments:
1. The Health Services Department has and will continue to conduct program reviews
of all contracts we enter into with Pittsburg Pre-School Coordinating Council,just as
we do with all of our contractors.
2. We will assist the appointed independent review board in further financial and
program audits in whatever manner desired.
3. We will implement future additional oversight procedures established by the Board
of Supervisors.
The programs which the Health Services Department funds the Pittsburg Pre-School
Coordinating Council to carry out address serious individual and community health
problems. This Department supports all efforts to strengthen the Council's ability to be a
strong and effective community-based organization.
MF:WF/hf a8:respjuty.mem
Merrithew Memorial Hospital&Clinics Public Health • Mental Health • Substance Abuse Environmental Health
Contra Costa Health Plan Emergency Medical Services • Home Health Agency Geriatrics
A-345 (12/94)
ATTACHMENT B
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
TO: Scott Tandy DATE: July 28, 1995
Chief Assft. County Administrator
FROM: Bob Hofmann cc: D. Fabella
Acting Director R. McGee
M.K. Miller
SUBJ: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT #9510: "PITTSBURG PRE-SCHOOL
COORDINATING COUNCIL, INCORPORATED"
Information described in this memo is subsequent and supple-
mental to earlier actions we have taken on this matter as
discussed in our December 6, 1994 and February 24, 1995
memorandums to Phil Batchelor.
Attached for your further information is a description of actions
taken by the Family and Children's Trust Committee {FACT) .in
response to the subject Grand Jury Report. FACT administers and
oversees the largest of the three contracts our Department has
with Pittsburg Preschool.
In addition to its program oversight activity, FACT has initiated
a contract with an outside CPA to provide financial and manage-
ment technical assistance and guidance to Pittsburg Preschool and
other FACT contractors. This arrangement will not only
nly support
and reinforce the financial integrity and accountability of
Pittsburg Preschool, but will enhance and strengthen our
Department's financial oversight capability.
We feel that the Department's actions undertaken during the last
eight months more than adequately address deficiencies and
concerns raised in the Grand Jury Report.
DC/dc
Attachs.
responsexpt/A
MiNMRA COS
"M
44
JUL 2
Gen 9c (Ndw 3/86)
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT # 9510
The Family and Children's Trust Committee(FACT)has contracted with the Pittsburg Preschool
Coordinating Council (PPCC) to partially fund its therapeutic infant program for 24
abused/neglected children and their parents/caretakers for the past 4 years. The following
response to Grand Jury Report #9510 concerns only those contracts monitored by FACT.
FINDINGS
The PPCC has always had a financial system in place and has complied completely with the
financial monitoring and audit requirements of FACT contracts. Those management systems,
like many of the non-profit community agencies in the business of service delivery may not,
however, be as comprehensive as necessary because their priority (and, thus, their major
resource allocation) has always been the effective delivery of quality services, not the
development of sophisticated internal control systems.
Since January, 1995, when an independent audit of PFCC was released noting several reportable
conditions, FACT has been involved in the Countywide efforts to rectify the weaknesses noted
in the audit. To this end,. FACT Committee Members have:
(1) Met three times with the PFCC Director and staff to review the
audit findings and suggest actions to remedy internal control
problems. The latest visit occurred July 6, 1995.
(2) Contracted with an outside, independent CPA, Barbara Hill, to
provide financial'and management technical assistance to all FACT
contractors (not only PPCC). On July 12, 1995, Barbara
conducted a three-hour seminar in areas of budgeting, financial
management, cost allocation and audit requirements. All FACT
contractors, including the Director, Chief Financial Officer and
Bookkeeper at PPCC attended this meeting (see attached seminar
outline).
(3) Individual on-site consultation was provided to PPCC on July 18th
by this same financial consultant to further assist in the refinement
of their FACT contract budget and development of a more
rigorous cost-allocation system. This same TA will be available
to all FACT contractors throughout FY 95-96(including additional
consultation with PPCC, if necessary).
CONCLUSIONS
With respect to the Grand Jury conclusion that there is no tracking system for County contracts
with PPCC, the FACT Committee strongly disagrees insofar as FACT contracts are concerned.
Since 1990, the FACT Committee has been closely monitoring each of their contractors by
means of periodic site visits coupled with data collection related to agency management, income
and expenditures, service units provided and goals achieved by each project. (Appendices 1, H
and III outline the site visit process and information collected).
Through these mechanisms, the FACT Committee has routinely evaluated both service provision
and outcome achieved and has found PPCC to consistently be in full compliance with contract
requirements. This conclusion is in agreement with the results of survey on Aftercare Services
completed by clients of Family Preservation contractors in which PPCC had the highest client
service satisfaction rating of all agencies surveyed, with 50% of the families being "very
satisfied" and the other 50% being "very, very satisfied" with the services they received.
RECOMMENDATIONS
With respect to the Grand Jury recommendations, the FACT Committee finds that two of these
have already been implemented. First, PPCC has added a new Director with financial
experience to its Board, and has also hired an attorney/CPA Consultant to the Board to assist
the PPCC Board in improving its financial and programmatic oversight activities.
Secondly, PPCC has a new Chief Financial Officer to oversee the day-to-day fiscal operations
of the agency. An independent Auditor has also been retained to conduct the next audit and
present the findings to the County Auditor/Controller.
Finally, the FACT Committee believes that PPCC and all County Departments contracting with
PPCC have already set in place very rigorous policies and procedures for the future oversight
of contracts, including:
o Pre-audits of all invoices submitted to the County;
o provision of bi-monthly reports on progress toward resolving
issues identified in the previous audit, and
o provision of monthly financial reports and agencywide financial
statements to the County Auditor-Controller and County
Departments contracting with PPCC.
In addition, FACT will continue to monitor service delivery and achievement of goals as in the
past.
Without minimizing the potential seriousness of the problems identified in the Grand Jury's
report, the FACT Committee submits that PPCC, its Director, and its Board of Directors have
acted most responsible to suggestions for improvement made by the County., The Agency has
made very significant progress toward rectifying all the issues identified in the previous report,
has agreed to implement all the suggestions of the County Administrator, and has and will, we
are sure, continue to provide high quality services to this very needy population.
DF:vcp
GJ9510.vcp
7/26/95
ATTACHMENT C
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
MINIMA CoS-jA
July 12, 1995
JUL 11995
To: Scott Tandy, Chief Assistant County Administrato
r
From: Joan Spar SD Director
Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report#9510
As requested in your June 27, 1995 memo,the following is the Community Services
Department's response to Conclusion #3 raised in the Grand Jury Report#9510 regarding
Pittsburg Preschool Coordinating Council:
Conclusion #3 states that "Although the County provides contractual and facilities
support, there is no mechanism for tracking contract performance. such a tracking
system is essential to determine PPCC performance in fulfilling contractual obligations
to the County".
• The Community Services Department's PATHS and Child Development divisions
monitor their contacts with Pittsburg Preschool Coordinating Council on a regular
basis.
• The Child Development Division is required to monitor the program performance as a
condition of the Department's contact with Contra Costa College District and the
State Department of Education.
• The Department's Fiscal Unit monitors annually all Child Development Division
contractors.
• The Department's Fiscal Unit will conduct the final fiscal review of all PATHS
contractors prior to the termination of the federal project scheduled for September 30,
1995.
The Department supports the Grand Jury's Recommendation #1. However,the
Department takes exception to the creation of an independent review board to audit and
review the financial expenditures and activities of the PPCC. In addition to the regular
Department fiscal reviews, it is the position of this department that placing PPCC on pre-
audit will provide the safeguards necessary to insure the necessary fiscal accountability
by the agency.
cc: Wilda Davisson, Child Development Division
Bill Weidinger, PATHS Division
Al Prince, ASO
ATTACHMENT D
Office of
COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
Contra Costa County
Martinez, California
July 17, 1995
TO: Scott Tandy, Chief Assistant County Administrator
i
FROM: Kenneth J. Corcoran, Auditor-Controller
SUBJECT: Response to Grand Jury Report#9510 (Pittsburg Preschool
Coordinating Council)
Your June 27, 1995 memo transmitted the subject report and asked for comments on the Grand Jury's
findings and recommendations that pertain to this department.
Based on my reading of the report, it appears that neither the findings nor the recommendations
involve the Auditor-Controller's Office. Accordingly, I have no comments on the report.
KJC:pm
AC95-48
p�. t
JUL 1 Q 1995
-,M