Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 03012005 - C.78
'TO: BOARDOF SUPERVISORS .; �=-_�.,; ontra FROM: Dorothy Sansoe osta County Administrator's Office ._� - � County DATE: March 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Community Services Department Management Review Report SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTT 1. ACCEPT the attached report from Human Resource Practitioners on the management review of the Community Services Department. 2. DIRECT the Community Services Department to review the report's recommendations and REPORT to the Board of Supervisors with a plan and time schedule for implementation of all or part of the recommendations by April 5, 2005. 3. DIRECT the County Administrator, or his designee,to report to the Family and Human Services Committee regarding the status of the program and any issues that arise. 4. DIRECT the County Administrator, or his designee, to provide a status report to the Board of Supervisors on a monthly basis. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No direct cost impact is anticipated from these recommendations. , 13ACKGROTIND: On December 7, 2004 the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordered an immediate comprehensive and independent review of the management and operational practices of the Community Services Department and its Head Start Program. In addition,the Board of Supervisors directed the consulting firm of Human Resource Practitioners (HRP)to report directly to the Board of Supervisors in order to assure full control of this independent review. They also directed the Department to:notify the Board of Supervisors immediately of any violations in the future, as they occur, without the delay of interdepartmental communications. Pursuant to the Board's direction, HRP has concluded its review of the management of the Community Services Department. The report supports the findings and recommendations of the special on-site monitoring team's investigation into the childcare incidents by the federal Department of Health and Human Services; Administration for Family and Children (ACF) during October 2004. With the Board's approval of the"Quality Improvement Plan"on January 4, 2005, the issues of concern raised by the Federal and State agencies have been addressed and their recommendations are being implemented. These actions should remove the risk factors cited in their reports. .,. �_..., CONTIrSUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES S 4NATURE: vo'RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD OMMITTEE `APPROVE OTHER r SIGNATURES): ACTION OF BO ON � APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED V/O"— O ER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT } 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 j JOHN SWEETEN,CLEfRK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Contact: Dorothy Sansoe,335-1009 '► Scott Tandy,335-1087 cc: County Administrator BY ,DEPUTY Community Services Department a Page 2 Community Services Department Management Review Report HRP has made additional recommendations throughout the report for consideration by the Board to further enhance the chances of preventing similar incidents from reoccurring. HRP has also recommended in their report that the Community Services Department have an opportunity to review the recommendations for consistency with federal and state requirements, applicability, budget constraints, and other impacts prior to taking any action. The County Administrator will conduct monthly meetings with the Community Services Director to receive an update on Head State program issues and to plan and/or authorize any actions that may be needed with respect to the program. To ensure that the full Board of Supervisors remains updated regarding the status of the program and any issues that may arise, a status report will be developed after each meeting and will be 41 transmitted to the Board of Supervisors for review. In addition, it is recommended that the issue of oversight of the management and operations of the Community Services Department be referred to the Family and Human Services Committee. The Board of Supervisors John Sweeten County Administration Building Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Costa and Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Administrator County (925)335-1900 John Gioia,1st District Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District - � Mary N.Piepho 3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th District �• iv� `covr� March 1, 2005 Jan Len, Director Administration for Children and Families 50 United Nations Plaza San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear Ms. Len: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, I certify that all corrections have been made and the Head Start Program is in complete compliance with Core Questions number one, Program Governance, number five, Ongoing Monitoring, and number seventeen Facilities, Material, and Equipment. Attached are materials documenting those corrective actions. On October 26 and October 27, 2004 the Contra Costa County Community Services Department Head Start Program had a special Federal Review. During the review, it was determined that the Department had areas of non-compliance unrelated to a deficiency in Program Review Instrument for Systems Monitoring(PRISM) Core Questions one,Program Governance, Core Question five Ongoing Monitoring, and Core Question seventeen, Facilities, Material, and Equipment. The areas of concern were: communication between the grantee's program management and the governing board, the grantee's written procedure for monitoring failed to prevent child safety incidents, and the physical environment at Fairgrounds infant facility and the Brookside modular facility was not conducive to learning. Program Governance The Community Services Director and the Director of Program Services (Head Start) shall ensure that the Policy Council and the Board of Supervisors are routinely and frequently informed of, and trained on, management procedures and functions, as well as the Federal laws and regulatory compliance issues required to ensure a quality program. Mutual communication and understanding between the governing board, the policy council and program management are fundamental prerequisites for a healthy Head Start Program. The Community Services Department Director and the Director of Program Services (Head Start) will also ensure that the Board of Supervisors has an understanding and appreciation of the Head Start philosophy and role of parents and Policy Council in shared governance. Frequent.and full communication involving shared governance will lead to effective oversight and appropriate actions and interventions as needed to maintain a quality program. To ensure that this communication occurs in a regular and timely way: Jan Len Page 2 March 1, 2005 I i fff I l E I 1) The Community Services Director and the Director of Program Services will meet monthly with the County Administrator and his senior management. 2) Topics for the monthly meetings will include but not be limited to: a. Fiscal/budget issues b. Personnel matters c. Facility issues d. Policies and Procedures 1 e. Program Planning f. Annual Self Assessment Annual Independent endent Audit p h. Grant development and submission i. Correspondence with the ACF j. Program issues i. Enrollment and Average Daily Attendance ii. Regulatory changes iii. Parent Involvement iv. Planning for joint Board of Supervisor/Policy Council training activities 3) A meeting report will be generated by the Community Services Director and the Director of Program Services (HS). 4) The report of the monthly meeting will be agendized by the Board of Supervisors and the Policy Council and shared with the Family and Human Services Committee of the Board of Supervisors. 5) The Community Services Director and Program Director(HS) will also meet with each member of the Board of Supervisors individually to review reports, give updates and advice and train on new regulations and initiatives. Ongoing Monitoring Extraordinary measures have been implemented by the grantee to correct the areas of non- compliance cited in the report. Site Based trainings were provided and monitoring systems were revised and improved. Security staff was hired and deployed at Brookside and Fairgrounds centers. Cameras that allow management staff to view all areas of the centers have been installed in classrooms,playgrounds and parking lots. Security key pad door locks, improved gate latches, alarms and communication systems were installed at the sites. Hourly head count procedures were implemented to eliminate incidents related to transition activities. The grantee is continuing to follow procedures for monitoring facilities and classrooms on a daily and monthly basis for all centers and program requirements, and is documenting compliance. I Jan Len Page 3 March 1, 2005 Facilities,Materials, and Equipment The grantee has provided an optimum physical environment for children at the two facilities cited in the report by doing the following: The Fairgrounds center Building A currently serves 21 children. This program is funded with CA Department of Education funds as well as EHS. The ratios are: Infants: 1:3, Toddlers: 1:4. Group size is six non-mobile infants, seven mobile infants and eight toddlers. The room cited in the report that is of concern had two caregiver groups separated by a half wall. To provide an optimum physical environment only one caregiver group will be served in that room. The building has fifteen children rather than twenty one. The noise level, family traffic and all other activities that take place in the room have been reduced dramatically. The grantee has subcontracted Fairgrounds HS and EHS slots to a community based partner as submitted in mitigation plans to Community Care Licensing. The Brookside modular facility cited in the report has been remodeled. A wall has been constructed between the two classrooms to provide for an optimum physical environment. The noise level, family traffic and all other activities that take place in the room have been reduced dramatically. Sincerely, GAYL B. UILKEMA, Chair Board of Supervisors Attachments cc: Board of Supervisors Policy Council Executive Committee John Sweeten Scott Tandy Dr. Pat Stroh (.4X0J`*N. ,rRA COSTA CO(JMV COMMUNrrY SERVICES DEPARZ�IENT manag�me�t Review Mare. 1, 2005 Tel: (530) 534-3071 Gel: (53Q)518-2477 Fax: (530)534-3071 Practiof'�aTie�'.�i� e-mail: dawidhrpa sn.com TABLE OF CONTENTS DEPARTMENTO VER VIEW.....................................................................................................................................1 ADMINISTRATION AND BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION............................................................................1 PROGRAMSERVICES DIVISION........................................................................................................................1 CHILD CARE/CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES...........................................................................................2 CHILDCARE CENTERS........................................................................................................................................2 FULLDAY PROGRAM..........................................................................................................................................2 PART-DAY PROGRAM.........................................................................................................................................2 HOMEBASED CARE.............................................................................................................................................3 FAMILYCHILD CARE..........................................................................................................................................3 HEALTHCARE SERVICES...................................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUNDAND STUDYAPPROACH..............................................................................................................4 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................................................4 STUDYAPPROACH..............................................................................................................................................4 STUDYFINDINGS/EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS..................................................................................................5 EMPLOYEEMORALE...........................................................................................................................................6 LINESTAFF............................................................................................................................................................7 MANAGEMENTSTAFF........................................................................................................................................8 STAFFINGLEVELS AND SUPERVISION...........................................................................................................8 Is there enough staff to perform the work of the department?............................................................................9 CHILD CARE CENTER&HOME BASED CARE STAFF..................................................................................10 COMMUNICATION—LINE STAFF....................................................................................................................11 COMMUNICATION-MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................................15 THINGSNOT WORKING WELL......................................................................................................................18 ManagementEmployees:..................................................................................................................................18 LineStaff..........................................................................................................................................................19 THINGSWORKING WELL..............................................................................................................................19 ManagementEmployees:..................................................................................................................................19 LineStaff..........................................................................................................................................................20 CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................20 LABORMANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIP.......................................................................................................21 COMMUNITY SERVICES FACILITY ISSUES..................................................................................................24 STAFFINGAND BUDGET REDUCTIONS........................................................................................................25 LACKOF VISIBILITY/TOP MANAGERS........................................................................................................25 COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DEPARTMENT,COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE AND BOARD OFSUPERVISORS...............................................................................................................................................26 COMMUNITY SERVICES PERSONNEL UNIT.................................................................................................27 BENCHMARKING...............................................................................................................................................29 QUALITYIMPROVEMENT PLAN.....................................................................................................................29 SITE SUPERVISORS AND"SPAN OF CONTROL"ISSUES.............................................................................30 ORGANIZATIONALSTRUCTURE....................................................................................................................3 0 EMPLOYEE MORALE AND MASTER TEACHER OMBUDSMAN................................................................31 COMMUNICATION/TELECONFERENCING..................................................................................................31 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE INCIDENTS AT FAIRGROUNDS ANDBROOKSIDE SITES........................................................................................................................................31 WHAT CAUSED THE INCIDENTS AT FAIRGROUNDS AND BROOKSIDE?...............................................32 "AT THE END OF THE DAY"....................................................................................................................................33 CAN WE PREVENT THESE INCIDENTS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN? ..........................................................................34 COMMUNITY SER VICES-SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................34 i of ii CHARTS, GRAPHS AND EXHIBITS List of Figures FIGURE1: EMPLOYEE MORALE..................................................................................................6 FIGURE2: LINE STAFF............................................................................................................................................6 FIGURE3: MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................................................................6 FIGURE 4: ADEQUATE SUPPORT AND►DIRECTION FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR? ........................................................9 FIGURE 5: AUTHORIZED,FILLED AND VACANT POSITIONS...................................................................................10 FIGURE6: STAFF QUESTION-COMMUNICATION,FEEDBACK&RECOGNITION....................................................I I FIGURE 7: STAFF QUESTION-TIMELY COMMUNICATION WITH MEDIA9. ..............................................................13 FIGURE 8: STAFF QUESTION-COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MGMNT&EMPLOYEE.?.............................................13 FIGURE 9: GRIEVANCE AND DISCIPLINE HISTORY..........................................................................23 List of Exhibits EXHIBIT A: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART EXHIBIT B: CSD POSITIONS BY CLASS IFICATIONNACANCY RATE EXHIBIT C: JANUARY 4,2005 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT D: E-MAIL PROHIBITING COMMUNICATION WITH COUNTY STAFF COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Management Review March 2005 DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW The Community Services Department has over 350 employees and an annual budget of approximately $30 million that is derived from federal, state and local sources. There are two (2) major divisions within the Community Services Department: Administration and Business Services; and Family and Children Services (see the attached organization chart— Exhibit A). ADMINISTRATION AND BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION Support and staff functions, such as facilities and fleet management, food services, fiscal services, personnel services, and information technology, are in the Administration and Business Services Division. The administrative staff who are responsible for grant management and special projects/initiatives are also in this Division. PROGRAM SERVICES DIVISION The bulk of the employees in the Department are in the Family and Children Services Division (FACS). This includes staff working at the 20 Child Care Centers, the Home Based Program, and those providing comprehensive services, such as mental health services and referrals to resources for immunizations, medical, and dental examinations. Staff working in family and community partnerships, public policy, and health and child development/research are also located in the Family and Children Services Division (hereinafter Program Services Division or FACS). In addition to providing childcare/child development services to children from birth to five years of age, the Community Services Department (as the County's designated Community Action Agency) provides support for emergency assistance and energy programs to low-income communities. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) distributes funds to individuals and families that meet income eligibility requirements. The Department is also responsible for a countywide weatherization program in which the County Building Inspection Department provides minor home repairs, weather stripping, and energy efficient appliances to low-income homes to help reduce energy use. CHILD CARE/CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES The Department provides a wide variety of services with a primary emphasis on quality early childhood education. Since funding for the Department is mainly for early care and education, most employees work in the Program Services Division providing direct services to families. Child care/child development services are provided to over 2,400 low-income families at twenty (20) child care sites directly operated by the County and an additional seven (7) sites that are operated in partnership with other organizations. These sites are located throughout the County and provide several child care options to low income families through the Program Services Division. As a known Community Action leader and early childhood education innovator, the Department focuses on issues and services that improve the quality of life for the community's least advantaged population. The programs offered by the Department are based on the premise that children and families will benefit from afamily-oriented program that identifies and addresses developmental goals for children and provides support and assistance to the parents in fulfilling their child rearing roles. Consequently, education and the participation of parents are essential if developmental goals of the programs are to be met. The following child care/child development programs are provided to the residents of Contra Costa County through the Community Services Department: CHILD CARE CENTERS The Community Services Department has 20 Child Care Centers located throughout the County. These centers offer both full-day (7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) and part-day (8:00 a.m. to Noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.) child development programs. FULL DAY PROGRAM To be eligible to participate in the full-day program, parents must be working or going to school full-time and meet other eligibility requirements. There are some exceptions such as a Child Protective Services (CPS) referral (Children's Protective Services) or a parent who is incapacitated. The full-day Child Care Center Program is designed for families at or below 50% of the Federal median income and serves families with children 0 to 6 years of age. Breakfast, lunch and two snacks are served each day at the Child Care Centers. PART-DAY PROGRAM Parents with children participating in the part-day program may choose between part- day sessions in either the morning between 8 a.m. and 12 p.m. or in the afternoon 2 of 36 between 1 and 4:30 p.m. This program is offered for children 3 to 5, and parents do not have to be employed for their children to be eligible for the program. However, family income must be below the State or Federal poverty line. HOME BASED CARE If families are without transportation and are unable to bring their children to a program site, the may participate in the Home-Based Care Program. This program is available Y Y to families with children 0 to 5 years of age. Home-Based workers visit each family once a week for one hour, thus bringing the Head Start Program to the families' home. Under this arrangement, the home is used as the learning environment and the home- based worker provides support to the parents who become the primary educator of the children. Twice each month, the program provides transportation to a center site where the children and parents in the Home-Based Care Program are provided with a three- hour socialization experience at the site. FAMILY CHILD CARE The Community Services Department partners with 14 family child care homes that are licensed Family Child Care providers to offer full-day Head Start services that include support services to the family. This program is offered to families with children 3 to 5 years of age. HEALTH CARE SERVICES The Community Services Department provides health care services to families in its programs in the medical, dental, nutrition and mental health areas. participating Services include referrals to resources for immunizations, medical and dental examinations, as well as health materials, information and education. In addition, the department has a mental health unit that provides mental health services to families using 16 mental health interns who provide direct services to the families. BACKGROUND AND STUDY APPROACH BACKGROUND Reviews of the Community Services Department have been conducted by both State and Federal agencies as part of their on-going audits of the programs being administered by the Community Services Department. In addition, there have been both State and Federal reviews specifically conducted as a result of "self reported" incidences that have occurred at two of the twenty (20) Child Care Centers that are operated by the Department. One of the Child Care Centers has been put on three (3) Y probation (Brookside) and the other Center (Fairgrounds) will be operated by a thirdparty administrator on behalf of the County. The findings of both the State and Federal reviews have been provided to the County. The study conducted by Human Resources Practitioners (HRP) was initiated by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors after a Department-wide meeting was held that included employees and management in the Community Services Department; representatives of Public Employees Union, Local 1; the County Administrator and Chief Assistant County Administrator; and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. At that time, persons attending the meeting were told by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors that there would be a "top to bottom" review of the management of the Department. The initialpurpose of the HRP study was to interview employees providing child care development services within the Department, and identify any operational problems with management practices and their impact on the operation of the Department, employees, and clients, and to report our findings to the Board of Supervisors. The Board subsequently expanded the HRP study to include a review of the incidences at the Child Care Centers, why they occurred, and what steps have been taken to insure that they do not occur again. STUDY'APPROACH Areas to be covered by the study were identified and questionnaires were developed to elicit information from the staff in the Community Services Department regarding each of the areas being reviewed. In addition, other materials were reviewed such as the state and federal reports, grievance/disciplinary actions, employee leaves, logs, descriptions of the services provided by the department, and other pertinent background information. Fiscal audits conducted by federal and state agencies are not addressed in this report. A %4: 02 92 Two separate questionnaires were developed for the study; one for management employees and one for represented line staff (i.e. teachers, family advocates, home- based staff and site supervisors). While many of the areas covered were the same, such as employee morale, communications, employee feedback and employee recognition, some questions were unique to management employees while others pertained more to the represented line staff. In order to obtain input from all levels of staff within the Department and from staff at the various child care facilities, as well as the administrative offices, employees were selected from the various job classifications (such as division managers, site supervisors, and teachers), and from the different facilities. Five of the persons interviewed were recommended by the union, five were recommended by the Community Services Department and the remaining nineteen (19) persons were selected randomly by job class and work location. In addition, the Community Services Director and Family/Child Services Head Start Division Director were interviewed. Finally, the County Administrator and the Chief Assistant County Administrator were interviewed with regard to communication between Community Services Department and the County Administrator's Office. Several questions were designed to elicit information that could be quantified while also providing staff with the opportunity to comment on the basis for their response. For example, employees were asked if morale within the Department was poor, fair or good. Responses were subsequently tabulated to provide an overview of how morale was viewed by management and line staff. Percentages were then computed showing the percentage of interviewees who believed morale was good, the percentage believing it was poor and the percentage believing it was fair. If an interviewee was unable to provide an answer, he/she was not counted in the total number of interviewees responding to the question for purposes of computing the aforementioned percentages. STUDY FINDINGS/EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS The information obtained in the interviews with Community Services employees working in the administrative offices and child care sites is presented below. The information provided is based on the responses of twenty-nine (29) staff that included employees in 17 represented line classes and 12 managers. HRP conducted on-site tours of the administrative office in Concord, Fairgrounds, Balboa, and Brookside sites. It is important to note that during the interviews, there were many variables identified that may have been contributing factors relative to the incidents at the Fairgrounds and Brookside sites, but the responses and comments made by staff and management with regard to morale and other key areas, such as communication, staffing levels, management policies and procedures and organizational structure, are also pertinent to the organization as a whole. Additionally, the findings of the study with regard to the specific instances that occurred at the Child Care Centers at Fairgrounds and Brookside are provided at the end of this report. Findings are based on a review of documentation on the incidents, site visits, and discussions with staff. gnf01ti EMPLOYER MORALE Employees were asked whether morale in the Community Services Department was good, fair/average or poor. They were then asked for their comments on employee morale. Sixty-five percent (65%) of all the employees interviewed indicated that they felt that morale was poor. Twenty-one percent (21%) indicated that it was good while fourteen percent (14%) believed that it was fair or average. Employee Morale Includes line staff and management ©Poor ■Fair/Average 20 t - t ❑Good T, 6 F 10 employees Figure-1 =- 5 - 0 Line employees (teachers, family advocates and site supervisors) view of employee morale is significantly different from the perception of management employees. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the line employees felt that employee morale was poor while fifty percent (50%) of the management employees felt it was poor. Forty-two percent (42%) of mans ers felt that employee morale was good compared to six p g percent (6%) of the line staff employees. Line Staff Management In your opinion is employee morale: How would you describe employee morale? 14 6- 12 5 t 4 rn$ 3-,; s 6 r. . ,t 2-, 4 w s i 2 0 ■Poor 0- ■Poor 13 6 1 5 3 1 ■Fair ■Average Figure-2 ❑Good Figure-3 p Good 6of36 While fewer line staff feel morale is good (6% versus 42% of managers), a significant number of both line staff and management employees believe that morale in the department is poor (76% and 50% respectively). Comments received from line staff and managers provide a good indication of why most interviewees believe that employee morale is poor. These comments are summarized below. In looking at employee morale, it is important to consider the impact that the recent incidents at the Child Care Centers have had (together with the resulting articles in the media) on the Department. It was clear from the interviews conducted for this study that employees believe that they are providing a valuable service to low income families and that they believe they do a good job, and are very dedicated to the children and families that they serve. Consequently, the recent negative articles in the press have had an impact on morale and this was expressed by some of the interviewees. Several factors were cited by the interviewees as contributing to the poor morale. They are categorized into the following areas: Budget cuts; staffing levels and fear of losing jobs; low pay; incidents that have occurred at two (2) centers and the resulting increased media attention; communication between management and line staff; union issues; lack of training; increased disciplinary actions; and lack of help from site supervisors in the classroom. Some of the comments, observations and feelings of line staff and management staff regarding factors impacting morale are paraphrased below. These comments were received from one or more interviewees. LINE STAFF People are overworked because of a lack of staff • Employees are burned out, frustrated and concerned • There are not enough adequate replacements for teachers at the sites • There has been more work but no recognition partly because of cutbacks in staff • Employees need acknowledgement for their work beyond the "Employee of the Month" • Employees below the level of site supervisor believe they are not treated properly and are disgruntled • Staff is talked down to by site supervisors and mid-managers • Staff is held accountable even when they are not in the classroom • When employees have problems, they go to the union instead of to the site supervisor or his/her supervisor • The union encourages employees to go to the union rather than the site supervisor or his/her supervisor • Media attention • Morale in the Home-Base Programs is good but it is poor for the Department as a whole • Management is out of touch with the employees • Employees need to learn how to bring constructive issues to management • There is a lot of movement of employees between sites 7 of 1A • Employees don't know what is going on and are afraid that they will lose their jobs MANAGEMENT STAFF • There are a number of negative individuals and the underlying perception of staff that they are not treated well • Some staff in the Department are among the lowest paid in the County and they view the "high" salaries of directors and analysts as unfair • Morale is poor due to the Brookside and Fairgrounds site problems • A constant dialogue between employees and top level management is needed • Morale is average except at Brookside and Fairgrounds where it is poor • Morale is good with the exception of those employees who hold office in the union • Over the last 12 months morale was good, however, it is currently average because of recent events and because of the media coverage • Morale ist good. We are a great agency and have to rise above this • My morale is superb but some people are disgruntled • Morale was average for two years but it is poor today because of media coverage • Morale is poor because more training is required and employees don't know what is going on • Communication is fragmented and more communication is needed from above • Morale is poor. Management has been "beaten down". The union has been a constant fight and we are very divided between management and union employees with site supervisors caught in the middle. There needs to be more of a balance between discipline and coaching and mentoring • Morale is poor. Newspaper stories depress employees and they are scared of losing their jobs STAFFING LEVELS AND SUPERVISION Management employees were asked the following three questions regarding staffing levels within the Community Services Department: (1) Do you believe that the number of employees in the department is sufficient to insure that the facilities and programs are properly managed? (2) Is there enough staff to perform the work of the department? (3) Do you believe that the number of managers in relation to Site Supervisors is: too great; about right (about the right amount of managers) or too many managers? In addition, both management and represented employees were asked if there was adequate support and direction from their supervisor. The responses to each of the above questions are provided below: 8 of 36 Do you believe that the number of employees in the department is sufficient to insure that the facilities and programs are properly managed? Most of the twelve (12) managers interviewed (9 out of 12 or 75%), stated that they believe there is a sufficient number of employees to insure that the facilities and programs within the department are properly managed. Is there enough staff to perform the work of the department? Approximately one-half of the managers interviewed indicated that there was enough staff to perform the work of the department. Two managers stated that there was not enough staff and four indicated that they were unsure. DoY ou believe that the number of managers in relation to Site Supervisors is: too great; about right (about the right number of managers); or too many managers? Most of the managers indicated that the felt that there was about the right number of g Y managers in relation to site supervisors (7 out of the 12 interviewed). Three (3) stated that there were not enough managers in relation to site supervisors, while two (2) indicated that there were too many managers. 41 Is there adequate support and direction from your supervisor? All twelve (12) management staff interviewed stated that they received adequate support and direction from their supervisor. Fifteen 15 out of seventeen (17) line staff stated that there was adequate support and direction available to them from their supervisor. A breakdown by fob category is shown in the below chart. Is there adequate support & direction available to you from your Supervisor? 16 14 ■Administrative Services 12 ■Teachers and Home 10Educators ■Site Supervisors 8 Family Advocates 6- 4- 2- 42 ' ;dL 011 Yes I No Figure-4 0 of '49 It is clear from the above chart that most of the line staff interviewed, eighty-eight percent (88%), believed that the received adequate support and direction from their p Y supervisor. All of the managers indicted that they had adequate support and direction from their supervisor. In addition, managers were asked if the number of employees in the department is sufficient to insure that the facilities and programs are properly managed. p Nine (9) of the twelve (12) managers indicated that there was a sufficient number of employees. However, it was pointed out that there have been cutbacks in staff and that any further reductions will present a problem. Some managers also indicated that while there are a sufficient number of positions, some are not filled. Finally, it was noted that there are student/teacher ratios set by the state and federal government that must be met and that the program in the County meets or exceeds those ratios. One manager, who responded that there were not an adequate number of employees, stated that there should be two (2) site supervisors at the largest child care sites. A review of the chart below on authorized, filled and vacant positions at the Child Care Sites shows that most of the positions are filled. However, the vacancies are primarily in the teacher positions where there are student/teacher ratios that must be maintained on a daily basis. In addition, teacher vacancies, vacations, employees on workers' compensation and medical leave have had a significant impact on the ability of the department to maintain the required child/teacher ratios. CHILD CARE CENTER & HOME BASED CARE STAFF Authorized, Filled and Vacant Positions December 17, 2004 - O THORIZED i\'U�`JBER OF OF CLASS ," TITLE AU FILLF Children's Services Manager 2 2 0 Site Supervisor III 10 10 0 Site Supervisor 1 13 13 0 Master Teacher 10 10 0 Infant Toddler Master Teacher 1 0 1 Teacher 67 61 6 Associate Teacher 106 100 6 Infant Toddler Teacher 10 9 1 Infant Toddler Associate Teacher 23 19 4 Teacher Substitute 7 7 0 Associate Teacher Substitute 15 15 0 Teacher Assistant Trainee 46 46 0 Early Childhood Horne Educator 9 9 0 Family Advocate 39 34 5 Temporary Family Advocate 3 3 0 ' ' and vacant positions is shown in Exhibit B. Figure-5 Additional data on filled a 10 of 36 COMMUNICATION— LINE STAFF The questionnaire used for line staff included the following questions pertaining to communication: Are systems in place to provide effective communication, employee feedback and recognition? • Are there timely communications from department management to employees when there are major stories in the news media about the department programs? How would you describe communication between top-level management and employees? Between site supervisors and employees? Mid-level managers and employees? • How would you describe overall communication within the Community Services Department? Seventy-one percent (71%) of line staff interviewees stated that there are systems in place to provide communication, employee feedback and recognition. Staff Question Are there systems in place to provide communication, employee feedback&recognition? .4s � r°�M.xF rY:e• 4r Fri.. 12 WE u IM � 10 ®Ye ■No 4 � 2 .�F 4t 0 12 5 Figure-6 However, staff described some concerns they have with three specific communication methods. • E-mail — several comments were made about the use of e-mail and how it is both effective and ineffective. For example, many line staff employees don't have access to e-mail so they may not always get the information that those with access to e-mail get. Also, e-mail in some instances appears to have replaced face-to-face contact. Interviewees talked about the use of e-mail being "impersonal". It was also mentioned that e-mail is used to notify employees when corrective action has been taken or when changes are needed. Although management doesn't use specific names of individuals, our interviews indicated that everyone knows who is being corrected or disciplined, and this has a negative impact on employee morale. However, when used properly, e-mail can be effective in getting information to staff in an expedient manner. Unfortunately, 11 of 19 some of the employees we interviewed state that they are bombarded with e- mails regarding constant policy and procedural changes and that this method has become ineffective. • Chain of Command — Community Services requires strict adherence to the "chain of command" for communication and problem resolution. There are up to five (5) layers of management in the chain of command that employees must proceed through in order to reach top management if a situation is not resolved at the Site Supervisor level. Line staff and some management interviewees expressed concern with this structure, indicating that it hinders open and honest communication (some feel that they can only bring "good" things to the attention of management); problem solving at the lowest level is inhibited; and it is not very timely. Comments also indicate that the strict chain of command procedure engenders more union involvement in minor issues and, if the Site Supervisors had more authority, autonomy, training and support, many issues could be resolved earlier and at lower levels. • Department Retreats — Community Services had annual retreats to celebrate employee accomplishments and to plan future goals. Interviewees for the most part felt the retreats were effective and a good way to build team spirit. However, due to budget constraints, Community Services is no longer sponsoring this type of event for employees. Interviewees stated that they would like to see the retreats reinstated. Other communication, feedback and recognition systems identified include: • Cluster meetings (Small group meetings of Site Supervisors and management based on geographical proximity to each other) • Parent policy meetings • Employee of the month Eighty percent (80%) of employees stated that they do not receive timely communication from department management regarding major stories that appear in the news media about the department's programs. According to some interviewees, employees obtain much of their information from gossip, the media, the Union, or not at all. The lack of communication or untimely communication contributes to employee frustration and low morale. Staff Question Are there timely communication from dept mgmt to employee when there are major stories in the news media about the dept's programs? n '''`-s 12 0605+Zc's t _ ur {r is fie # Y i- a4 N ®Yes t Yc tit a 0 No YwY:cih. ,A Unsure 2_ ;.,. a 3 12 2 Figure-7 When asked how they would describe communication between top-level management and employees, most line staff interviewees stated it was poor (53%) or adequate (25%). Employees cite the lack of top management visibility at the sites and management inaccessibility due to involvement in professional associations, conferences, various consulting activities, extended vacations or other leave, and the chain of command as reasons for the poor communication. Employees commented that when they do receive communication from management, it is often under negative circumstances or when there is a problem. Because of the chain of command, communication from top management is passed down through multiple layers of management, including Site Supervisors. Once the communication reaches line staff, some interviewees fear that the original intent and interpretation of the top management message may have been changed. There is also a concern that the Site Supervisors fail to share information from top management with line staff. Staff Question How would you describe,communication between top-level management&employees? 10MAM- j V (V� .Y. '. i `rr ■Poor Ff �' ■Adequate " ❑Good � Q Unsure t 0-- 10 4 2 1 Figure-8 13 of 36 Communication between Site Supervisors and employees varies depending upon the particular supervisors and employees. For example, several line employees stated that their individual communication with their supervisor is good but they have heard that at other sites, the staff are unhappy with their supervisor and the level of communication received. Forty-four percent (44%) rate the communication between the Site Supervisors and themselves as good, thirty-seven percent (37%) as adequate, and nineteen percent (19%) as poor. Because the Site Supervisors are on-site with their employees, some interviewees feel that the close proximity to their supervisor aids in good communication. They also feel that communication with the Site Supervisor is best when the Supervisor helps out in the classrooms. Conversely, some interviewees felt the site supervisors don't share information with them and that they spend all of their time at the computer doing paperwork and reports. Communication between middle managers and employees is rated at fifty-three percent (53%) adequate, twenty-seven percent (27%) poor and twenty percent (20%) good. Line staff interviewees reported that for the most part middle managers would talk to them and return their phone calls. However, some state that the chain of command makes it difficult to communicate with a middle manager. Most line staff interviewed rated overall communication within Community Services as forty-one percent (41%) fair to thirty-five percent (35%) poor. Twenty-four percent (24%) rated overall communications as good. Reasons for these ratings are attributed to the difficulty in getting information from Community Services Department (CSD) Personnel Unit staff; information from Site Supervisors and management not being shared; a reactive and "urgency" driven environment and a speedy "grapevine9p system. When employees were asked to name things in the Community Services Department that they believe are not working well, communications (poor communication or lack of communication) was a common response. Comments such as the following are illustrative of the communication issues within the Department: • Communication doesn't trickle down — when there is a big change, it is made at the top and others are not consulted to determine the impact or consequences of the change • Communication is bad between staff and management. Requests for staff and resources do not happen • There is no rationale or explanation for frequent policy and procedural changes • Supervisors will always put something negative on the performance appraisal even when you've done a great job • Communication with administration is restricted due to the chain of command • Communication is poor when trying to resolve issues 14 of 36 • Top management doesn't have set hours which minimizes communication COMMUNI CA TION - MANAGEMENT The Management Questionnaire had the following questions pertaining to communication: • What systems are in place to provide effective communication, employee feedback and recognition? • Is communication between top-level management and employees good, adequate, poor? Between Assistant Directors and Site Supervisors? Between Site Supervisors and line staff? • How would you improve communication within the Community Services Department? Management interviewees identified many of the same forms of communication, employee feedback and recognition systems used within the Community Services Department as the line staff interviewees. Systems such as e-mail, cluster meetings, telephone, and the employee of the month program are the most widely used. However, management interviewees identified additional forms of communication not mentioned by line staff during the interviews. Management interviewees identified forms of training such as the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and Facilitative Leadership. This training provides education, awareness and a format for managing and communicating with staff. A feedback assessment tool known as the "orchid or onion" and the chronological supervision memorandum forms are other systems in place for managers to provide feedback regarding employee performance. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of management employees believe that communication between top-level management and employees is good. Comments such as top-level management has an open door policy, genuine effort is made to communicate using a variety of tools, and staff can go to the "top" without going through their supervisor are reasons cited for the good rating. Conversely, sixty-three percent (63%) of line staff interviewees stated that communication with top-level management is poor. Other comments made by managers indicate that there is room for improvement in this area. "We need to do a better job at bringing employees together, and top managers could circulate more," are examples of such comments. An overwhelming majority of managers, eighty-three percent (83%), stated that communication between the Assistant Directors and Site Supervisors is good. This rating is partially attributed to regular cluster meetings and to the loss of Children Services Managers (CSIVI's — a management level position between the Assistant Director and Site Supervisor) due to layoffs and organizational restructuring. This structure was intended to allow for more direct and frequent communication between the Assistant Directors and Site Supervisors, but events show that the loss of CSM's may have contributed to the deficiencies cited in the Federal Head Start Review Report �� relative to span of control issues." 1Snf1A Sixty percent (60%) of the managers interviewed stated that communications between Site Supervisors and line staff is adequate and thirty percent (30%) stated that communications is good. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of line staff indicated it was adequate and forty-four percent (44%) thought it was good. Both manager and line staff ratings and comments indicate that the interviewee's perception of communication varies significantly depending upon their work site and their Site Supervisor. For example, managers and line staff agreed that some supervisors are very good at communicating. They conduct lead teacher meetings each week and they are available and on-site every day. Others state that Site Supervisors are busy and don't make time for staff and that some supervisors are not as good as they should be. When managers were asked to name three (3) things in the Community Services Department that they believe are not working well, their comments were similar to comments made by the line staff; communication (poor communication or lack of communication)was a significant area cited by managers. Interviewees were also asked how they would improve communication within the Community Services Department. Some suggestions include: • Conduct brown bag lunches with employees and management • Build a more supportive relationship with the union • Remove the chain of command and create a "real" open door policy • Start from the top — leaders need to be on the same page • Training on communicating with difficult people, understanding learning styles, ways to reward and recognize employees, etc. • Reinstate the department newsletter Areas such as the perception and accessibility of management have a direct impact on effective communication, feedback and recognition. Questions on perception and accessibility were included in the questionnaire. The findings are provided below. Overall, fifty-eight percent (58%) of management interviewees stated that access to top- level management is good. Ironically, during our interviews, it was discovered that although many said access was good, many also indicated that top-level management is frequently away from the office and that created problems for the Department. Interviewees said that the Community Services Director and the Family/Child Services Head Start Division Director (FACS HS Division Director) are frequently away from the office for such reasons as: program consulting with other Head Start agencies, leadership activities in professional associations, vendor conferences, vacation, etc. Interviewees stated that top management is frequently away, but in many cases they were unaware where they went. It was also stated by management that, if necessary, they could reach the Director and FACS HS Division Director via cell phone or e-mail. However, when the Director went out of the Country, there was no contact at all. When middle management interviewees were asked how they and Site Supervisors perceive top-level management, sixty-five percent (65%) stated that they felt that middle managers would perceive them favorably and forty .percent (40%) stated that Site Supervisors would perceive them favorably. However, management interviewees were 16 of 36 less sure as to how line staff perceives top-level management. Thirty-three percent (33%) stated that they believe line staff would perceive top-level management favorably. Reasons for the lower rating were top-level management is generally unreachable, appear aloof and they don't seem to care about the problems of line staff. They felt top- level management is not as hands on as they should be due to other commitments, such as leadership roles in professional association and program consulting. When line staff interviewees were asked how top-level management would be perceived by the Site Supervisors, thirty-eight percent (38%) stated they believed they would have a favorable perception. When asked about the perception of middle management toward top-management, thirty-five percent (35%) of the line staff interviewees indicated that they believed the perception would be favorable. When line staff was asked how they perceive top-level management, fifty-three percent (53%) said the perception is poor. Staff elaborated by saying that: • They don't feel they have the support of management. • They don't see managers very often, and when they do, they know that there is a problem. • Management doesn't provide the basic supplies needed for the children, (i.e., paper, crayons, etc.), instead the focus and resources are used for "Reggio Amelio" supplies such as baskets, glass vases, etc. Reggio Amelio is model or style of teaching (from Italy) that incorporates learning into every day routine activities such as eating lunch. During lunch for example, proper eating, sitting, serving and general dining social skills are modeled by the teachers and imitated by the children. Real place settings and utensils are used. • Management doesn't appreciate or value our work and our opinions. • They never see the top three people in the department. The findings pertaining to communication, employee feedback and recognition, perception of management and management accessibility, although significant, are only part of the problem. As stated earlier, there are multiple variables that may be involved in the recent incidents at Brookside and Fairgrounds including employee morale, staffing levels and the organizational structure. However, the communication problems seem to be a common thread impacting all of these variables. The interviews indicate that poor communication or lack thereof adversely impacted employee morale. Many of the interviewees feel that they are not heard by management and their needs, concerns and opinions are of little value. They also feel that management leaves them out of the communication loop while making critical changes to policy, procedures and practices that have a direct impact on how they do their work. Because they feel their opinion is not valued, they believe that they are not consulted about the changes or informed about the changes in a timely manner. The chain of command structure, although reasonable in theory, may not always be the most effective communication system. Management claims that there is an open door policy, but line staff interviewees have a different view. They believe their issues, problems, and concerns cannot be resolved expeditiously due to the four or five layers of management one must navigate through. Site Supervisors appear to have a lot of 17 of 36 responsibility with little to no authority, autonomy and- training to carry out their "supervisory" duties. Paperwork and other administrative activities take a significant amount of their time, leaving little if any time to build effective working relationships with teachers and other line staff; provide appropriate oversight and supervision; share information in a timely and accurate manner; or create a reciprocal communication system that includes mutual listening and receiving of information, and effective problem resolution. One way that employees respond to the chain of command process is to circumvent it by directing their issues and concerns to the union. This created an "us against them" mentality, a sense of hostility, and management frustration. Compounding the lack of communication and the chain of command issue is the amount of absences by top management. This alone has an adverse impact on the amount and consistency of communication that is disseminated. It is clear that employees want and expect more access, and better communication with and from top management. However, when top management is frequently not present due to external business needs, it is unlikely that employee expectations will be met. Unfortunately, such frequent absences also contribute to a loss of focus on the mission and the availability of clear and consistent management direction. Even the best trained individuals, when left unattended without proper interaction and communication, may tend to lose sight of their mission or purpose. A hierarchical organization requires sustained communication, feedback, oversight and direction. Without it, the organization does not function properly. As noted in line staff and management responses, perception toward top management varies depending on the employee(s) and/or worksite. Many management employees felt it is good, while line staff stated that it is poor. This is an example of one of the many contradictions or differences of opinion that were found during the review. While several employees said their perception of top management was good, they also indicated that they did not have contact with top management. The lack of interaction with management is an issue that has created a concern for employees. THINGS NOT WORKING WELL Both line staff and managers were asked to name three (3) things in the Community Services Department that they believe are not working well. Many of the things that the interviewees believe are not working well, such as communications and the work relationship with the Union, are addressed throughout this report. Examples of comments received from one or more of the interviewees are paraphrased below: Management Employees: • Communication • Labor relations relative to the union • Staff d evelopment Negativity within employees in the department need to be resolved • Underutilization of management • Need more flexibility with problem employees 18 of 36 a More cohesiveness from senior management 0 Lack of empowerment a Training and technical improvement U Money for the budget a Better monitoring is needed a It is hard to hire competent staff because of salaries 0 Improving human resources systems -- enhanced employee orientation Line Staffi a Breakdown in communication with line staff a Programs changes and conflicting messages a Site Supervisors are not viewed as managers — not allowed to make decisions a Hiring staff that are not qualified - some should be gone. a Staff are not properly trained on policies and procedures a Morale a The Director spends too much time out of the County 0 Too many centers and not enough staff 0 Hourly and half day notice of what needs to be done — short notice of deadlines N Teachers are overwhelmed and that is why there is such a high turnover among teachers a The relationship with the union is not good a No follow through E Need more qualified teachers with more experience 0 Too much paperwork to accomplish in little time —shortage of staff a A lot of staff do not know how to accept changes a There is never enough substitute teachers a Not enough time for paperwork THINGS WORKING WELL In addition to identifying operational problems and areas where improvement can be attained to better meet the needs of the families and children served by the Department, interviewees were asked to identify the top three (3) things within the department that are working well. While there are a number of problems that have been identified within the Department, there is one thing that was mentioned by both management and line staff that came through loud and clear; employees are proud of the program and its commitment to the children and to the families that it serves. Examples of comments received from interviewees with regard to the top three (3) things that are working well are paraphrased below: Management Employees: The services we provide to the community Curriculum development— Reggio Amelio Ability to provide quality services to participants 19 of 36 • Dedicated people N Intelligent managers and early childhood teachers • Good facilities • Good work ethic • Provides good services to families • Service to almost 3,000 children daily • Providing quality child development services county wide a Health and mental health comprehensive services and collaboration with other agencies is good • Quality services are being provided to families • Team approach — multi disciplinary team works well together • Facilities have improved • Early head start positions are filled and improved quality master teachers Line Staff: • There is a team effort— a lot of sites work together • Programs are good a I love the Head Start Program, it really works • Family and children services —we service the community well a Clients see where we make a difference • Dedicated staff • The Department makes a real effort to provide services to families • Training efforts are good 0 Outreach to our community through collaborative services a Facilities are very good a We have good teachers a Family and children first 0 The program is a good program • Great staff— I had great supervisors a Communication between teachers and Site Supervisors Many of the managers and line staff believe that the services provided to the families and children are important, worthwhile programs that have a positive impact and make a real difference for the members of low-income families within the community. While acknowledging that there are definite problems within the Department, several interviewees indicated that there are only a few employees who are responsible for a majority of the problems, and that they believe that most of the employees are very dedicated, hard working persons who strongly support the programs and the work being done by the Community Services Department. I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The quantitative and qualitative information provided by the above survey questions and interview process of line staff and management was an important contribution for our 20 of 36 analysis and assessment of the critical issues involving management of the Department. It is important to note regardless of the problems identified by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) audit and our review, there is full agreement between employees and management regarding their commitment to provide quality services for families and children in the community. Employees and management are proud of Contra Costa County's innovative approach of extending the hours of available childcare by blending Head Start programs with the State Child Care Center programs, and the resulting benefits for parents and children who depend so heavily on such child care services. LABOR MANAGEMENT RELA TIONSHP At the time of this study, the Community Services Personnel Services Unit consisted of one Personnel Services Assistant III and one Personnel Services Assistant 11 with a direct reporting relationship to the Department Head. In most departments of this size, the Personnel function is under the Administrative Services Officer (ASO). In this instance the ASO has been primarily engaged in facility management issues and reports directly to the Department Head. The Personnel Unit also reports directly to the Department Head. There has been some turnover of experienced human resources staff, and current staff would like to play a greater role in labor relation issues that were frequently handled by the Department Head, FACS, Head Start Division Director, or the Associate Director of Program Services. Investigation reports involving childcare rights violations and other personnel issues that may lead to significant disciplinary action are limited to fact finding with no staff recommendations. This was allegedly done to limit inconsistency in recommendations at the request of the Department Head who did not have confidence in the knowledge of staff in the Personnel Services Unit regarding the handling of disciplinary issues. We interviewed key management, Site Supervisors and labor union representatives to obtain information on the level of communication and support between the various groups as well as the proper operation of the disciplinary/grievance process. Some Site Supervisors felt that they were caught between management and the Union on some critical issues. Any discipline recommended by the Site Supervisor usually went up the "chain of command" and frequently was decided at the director level with little if any feedback back down the "chain of command." As a result, there was uncertainty about the outcome of their recommendations and little incentive to take a more active role at their level. In addition, some interviewees felt they exposed themselves to possible conflicts with their own union representatives. The Union describes the relationship with management as "strained and frustrating." The Union expected the Department to take significant disciplinary action whenever child rights were violated after a November 10, 2003 meeting in Richmond regarding the Department's new "zero tolerance policy." The Department Head alleges that County 21 of 36 Counsel, the County's Labor Relations Division and the Department were not always in sync on disciplinary actions. Though the Department Head alleges he was not involved in disciplinary actions, this is inconsistent with the comments of other managers we interviewed. The problem according to the Union is with the degree of discipline and its uniform application when similar situations occur.) and they will work with the Department on this. Management contends that having Site Supervisors represented by the same Union that represents employees who directly report to Site Supervisors is a conflict of interest, and has contributed to discipline/grievance issues "passed up the chain of command" instead of being resolved at the Site Supervisor level. The Union understands that in the private sector there may be a conflict of interest, but stated it is common in the public sector to represent both the supervisor and subordinate. The Union argues that "If a Site Supervisor is a witness in a disciplinary action, we will advocate on the part of the employee who is being disciplined." The Union does recognize that the Supervisor may also need separate representation by a different "uninvolved" Business Agent of the Union since they represent both parties. Management in the Community Services Department would like to strengthen the Site Supervisor to include more authority for disciplinary/grievance and other management issues, and strongly believe that Site Supervisors belong in the unrepresented management group. Management argues that there are compelling reasons for the inclusion of the Site Supervisors in the unrepresented management group. These reasons include: the preparation of critical management reports; enforcement of Department policies and procedures; management of the physical facilities; the enforcement of the overall curriculum; and ensuring the safety of the children. The Union indicates that "They (Site Supervisors) may be managers if they are strengthened, but we won't give up our representation of the Site Supervisors." The Union indicates that the monthly management/union meetings have been moved to quarterly meetings which does not help matters, and that management appears to take the position that they don't have to talk to the Union unless there is a grievance. Management denies that was the intent, but stated that there was a concern that the monthly meetings were not productive and quarterly meetings may be more appropriate. In the management interviews, there was a perception that relationships between management and Public Employees Union, Local No. 1 deteriorated after Henry Clark, Executive Director of the Union, left and the new labor team came on board. Management felt that the Union became more aggressive in using the grievance procedure, and was not cooperative in working with management on resolving problems. They maintain . that grievances and disciplinary actions increased dramatically beginning in 2002 through 2004. (See chart below of history.) 22 of 36 Management also stated that Henry Clark, Executive Director of Public Employees Union, Local No. 1, "worked more closely" on dealing with employee issues; particularly on issues involving the violation of children rights. However, the Union feels that there is a lack of labor relation's expertise in the Community Services Personnel Unit, and that overall communications with management is poor. Grievance and Discipline History 60 ---------- 59 50 .�}s � A'y'r''--.rt�p� v xc , -,IZ F 777 l,� AI;V.fiu 'I:Iel---,�, 40 f6;,.t�C?+..y .t -8 - ^� _ s'a.kp?#�i"'t�`:lFcart}'��'ti r ss �TT+�4�k'"i •.'..�L+Y��i�""`y.f{t{+=.# �� k 7 30 � 4��.' :� . �t��xr�r4 z.ydP[g�'+fi��nk S�* /"{,� f{x•.±{' 0 Grievances 20 i r 0 Discipline ...... ---- 10 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Figure-9 The Union argues that with regard to the significant increase in the number of discipline/grievances since 2002, "our view was that we may have become remiss in pursuing employee grievances." The Union further stated that it is a combination of both: 'We will file grievances when we need to. Whether it was conscious or unconscious, some of this was due to "don't talk to us unless there is a grievance." The Department Head stated that the "Relationship with the Union is the same as I found it, and will be the same when I leave. When I got here, there was a stack of grievances. The Union understands my perspective but wants to blame management. The new labor representative is being taken advantage of by employees." Both management and the Union believe that a higher level of labor relations expertise is necessary in the Department, and agree that a Division Head level personnel manager is needed. The emphasis of the position should focus on communication at all levels, the employee development program, the disciplinary grievance process, and human resources investigations. Training and recruitment are also crucial for the success of the programs. Both management and the Union agree on the need to develop better communications to resolve employee issues and have begun meeting frequently during the conduct of this study. The Union has indicated a willingness to work with management to improve communication and to-work with some of the more immediate management issues and concerns identified in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) audit. Department management also appears eager to "rebuild the labor relationship." 23 of 36 The Union also proposed joint management/labor training on discipline and handling grievances, which may prove useful in educating staff on the necessary documentation and procedural stepsthat need to be taken in the discipline/grievanceprocess. This type of training may also contribute to a better understanding between the parties on what are very difficult employee issues. The Union recommends exploration of an expedited arbitration process when disciplinary action is taken, and we believe it has some beneficial aspects that should be considered. It has the advantage of dealing more timely with disciplinary issues instead of letting them linger over a long period of time. A significant disciplinary action may take up to one year to resolve causing frustration among the affected employees, management and the Union in the process. Responding more timely when disciplinary action is warranted conveys the message that when someone "crosses the line19 on childcare rights, discipline will be swift. It also protects an employee when the discipline is unwarranted and quickly removes any stigma associated with the original disciplinary action. We recommend that the Site Supervisor class be studied to determine if there is more of a "community of interest)$ with the unrepresented management group, or if they should be retained in the current Supervisory Unit. This is an important issue for management and the Union and such a study would help resolve this matter. We recommend that the County consider a "side-letter" with the Union that addresses the need for unilateral employee site transfers to address serious childcare incidents relative to performance issues, and for disciplinary reasons, to prevent potential child rights and safety issues. Involuntary transfers may assist the Department in moving an employee, who needs closer supervision or can benefit from training and supervision at a different site, under another Site Supervisor. We recommend consultations with the Union to support a policy of zero tolerance on child rights violations by communicating to its members that the County will take significant disciplinary action, up to and including discharge for violations of children's rights or safety. We also urge the Union to encourage its members to report any such violations immediately to management for the safety and well being of the children, and to meet their obligation under current legal requirements for reporting such incidents. COMMUNITY SERVICES FACILITY ISSUES There were facility issues that created potential risk factors, i.e., doors that were not alarmed to prevent children from leaving the facility without warning, the need for better security fencing, and other facility related problems at the Fairgrounds and Brookside sites. The ACF also found that the Fairgrounds site did not provide a physical environment that was conducive to learning for children 6 weeks to 18 months due to high noise levels, andlack of proper room dividers to accommodate non-mobile infants on one side and mobile infants on the other side. At Brookside, they found a modular facility with one large classroom divided by a low room divider to accommodate 20 children on each side which also produced noise levels that "were exceedingly high" 24 of 36 and may have resulted in child behavioral management issues. These situations have been corrected. There are still facility management challenges that will require ongoing monitoring. There are ongoing inspections by Community Services facility staff and Site Supervisors, but they are not trained building professionals, and may not always be cognizant of the nuances associated with proper building construction, maintenance and safety requirements/issues. It may be useful to have a comprehensive inspection of all facilities by trained building inspectors to establish a "baseline" of the current status of the facilities and required maintenance as well as child safety issues. This "baseline" may also be useful in budgeting for repairs. The schools use professional services for these functions and they may be a resource for these services. We recommend that facilities management and safety be part of the internal compliance/audit function that is discussed below to ensure compliance with facility and child safety regulations and practices. STAFFING AND BUDGET REDUCTIONS The year 2002 brought $2 million of budget cuts and layoffs, and 2003 brought an additional $2 million in budget cuts and layoffs due primarily to escalating County benefit costs, which began having a significant impact on the Department's budget and staffing. Children Services Manager (CSM) positions were created to supervise Site Supervisors, provide back-up support, training, and to ensure compliance with state and federal regulatory issues. These positions were designed to provide technical support and to assist Site Supervisors in the overall direction and operation of the various programs including compliance issues, monthly reports, and work with the Assistant Directors in the hiring, training, and evaluation of site based staff. However, due to budget reductions only four (4) out of eight (8) budgeted positions remain. The focus of these four (4) positions has now been changed to supervision of Home-Based workers, partnership interface, and curriculum development, thus providing little of the intended support to Site Supervisors. LACK OF VISIBILITY1 TOP MANAGERS Management staff and the former Director have noted that "external" responsibilities associated with raising program funds, sharing the innovations associated with Contra Costa's program, and personal leave took a heavy toll on the availability of the Department Head. The FACS, HS Program Division Director was impacted by having to absorb the responsibilities of the Director while he was gone, causing a "ripple of work" to flow to other managers. The FACS, HS Program Division Director compounded this in 2002 - 2003 by serving as President of the California Head Start Association. This required the Family/Children Services Associate Director to become responsible for the work of the top two (2) positions as well as her own position. As a result, there was a lack of oversight by top management at a time when incidents at Fairgrounds and Brookside 25 of 36 began in early 2003. The Director recognized the problem with the absences and took the step of requesting the FACS HS Program Division Director not to serve as President again. The FACS HS Program Division Director concurred, but noted that she was encouraged previously to become President of the California Head Start Association by the Department Head. During the interviews, several employees cited the absence of the "directors" as a problem. Staff in the Personnel Unit reported to the Community Services Director. When he was gone, they reported to the FACS, HS Program Division Director and when she was gone, they reported to the Family/Children Services Associate Director. This frequently led to conflicting policies and direction being provided to the Personnel Unit. Interviewees felt such absences created conflicting work priorities, and constant changing of work direction. Personnel Unit staff also complained that department employees were encouraged not to take problems to their Personnel Unit, but to follow the chain-of-command. Personnel staff felt that left them out of the "loop" with regard to critical information regarding personnel problems. Site Supervisors and line staff noted in the interviews: • They never see the Department Head, and feel that top management doesn't seem to have a sense of what's going on 0 Employees don't feel heard • Don't hear from them unless there is something wrong • Change of Command prevents access to top management • Don't feel employees have the support of top management and don't see them very often COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DEPARTMENT, COUNTY ADMINISTRA TOR'S OFFICE AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Department Head (Tony Colon) indicated that he communicated with the County Administrator and Board of Supervisors in the following manner: Budget Matters — Dorothy Sansoe, Senior Deputy County Administrator Maior Issues— Scott Tandy, Chief Assistant County Administrator Urgent Issues— John Sweeten, County Administrator Political Issues — "Talked to Board Members one-on-one" The Community Services Director wanted to clarify that when the California Community Care Licensing Office put Fairgrounds on probation during August 28, 2003, he did not 26 of 36 Y share that fact with the Count Administrator or the Chief Assistant County Administrator, though he made a point that "it was not intentional." His reasons were that the County was involved in major budget issues at the time and he did not want to bother them with an issue that "was his job to fix." Therefore he did not share it with the County Administrator's Office or the Board. He did state that he believed County Counsel may have given notice to the administrative offices since they were working on thep robation order for Fairgrounds, but "apparently that was not their responsibility." Interviews with Scott Tandy, Chief Assistant County Administrator, and the County Administrator (CAO) confirmed that they were not informed by the Community Services Director of the probation order at the Fairgrounds Site. The Chief Assistant County Administrator discovered the probation order in a conversation with the Community Services Department's Administrative Services Officer (ASO) and immediately placed the County Administrator and Board of Supervisors on notice of the problem. An e-mail sent on March 21, 2003 (before the August 28, 2003 Fairgrounds probation order) to all management staff stated in part..."The Department Director and the Director of Admin & Business Services are responsible for the interface with the CAD's Office, County Counsel, County Department Heads, the Board of Supervisors, and all public officials." "Program managers and staff must be authorized by either the Department Director or the Director of Admin & Business Services before initiating any contact with the above mentioned entities..." The e-mail purports to remind employees that the... "Responsibility of admin & staff of Program Services is to manage and coordinate and deliver direct services..." "The Department Director and the Director of Admin & Business Services are responsible for the interface with the CAO's Office and other departments ..." (See attached Exhibit D for details.) This is one more piece to the puzzle that impaired vital communications that may have prevented additional incidents from occurring with timely and proper notice to the CAO and Board of Supervisors. COMMUNITY SERVICES PERSONNEL UNIT The Personnel Services Unit became dysfunctional due to a breakdown in communication and trust between the FACS HS Program Division Director and the Department Head resulting in the discipline/grievance process losing focus and direction. Personnel investigation policies and process, disciplinary procedures, overall communications and training were not adequate, and therefore the Personnel Services Unit could not serve as a needed "trip wire" for exposing serious issues with regard to the operation of child care services and the repeated incidents. The lack of a comprehensive employee training and a performance review process to improve professional competencies lacked vigor and direction since the focus of the Personnel Unit shifted to investigation of incidents, discipline and grievance handling. One responsibility of personnel staff is to investigate allegations of childcare rights violations. The investigations are conducted with interviews to "record testimony" from 27 of 36 witnesses, and the resulting "report" is submitted to top management for a determination on discipline and other actions necessary to correct the problem. Top management did not have confidence in the Personnel Unit's handling of disciplinary actions and therefore, recommendations by investigators were not made. In reviewing the incident investigation reports, we did not find a "holistic" approach to the investigation, nor did we note a thorough analysis of all the pertinent factors that may have caused or contributed to the incident. There were frequent delays of two or three weeks between the incident and the report to top management. Allegations involving child rights violations should be handled expeditiously to ensure that the factors that caused the incident are dealt with promptly to prevent further occurrences. We recommend the use of trained investigators to investigate serious "child care" incidents within 48 hours. The investigator's written report should include a holistic analysis of the causes associated with the incident and specific recommendations to prevent their reoccurrence. Recommendations can be reviewed by the Personnel Administrator for consistency with disciplinary standards prior to being entered into the final report. After appropriate action is taken by the department, pertinent information to prevent reoccurrence of the incident should be shared with key managers and Site Supervisors and to prevent similar incidents at other sites. On major incidents, a critique by management should be done to communicate the problem and the proposed solution on a department-wide basis. Another area cited by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) audit was the employee performance appraisal system, which was found deficient relative to addressing employee development and training opportunities. It was focused primarily on employees with performance problems. It was noted in our interviews with personnel staff that the focus on disciplinary/grievance issues and the increased number of investigations in the past two years, led to important personnel issues being neglected. Staff did note that there are employees that could significantly benefit from a focused employee development program. We concur with the ACF audit recommendation that... "At a minimum, perform annual performance reviews of each Early Head Start and Head Start staff member and use the results of these reviews to identify staff training and professional development needs, modify staff performance agreements as necessary, and assist each staff member in improving his or her skills and professional expertise..." INTERNAL AUDIT/COMPLIANCE FUNCTION: Many businesses in the private sector have an internal audit/compliance program. With nineteen (19) sites (Fairgrounds is scheduled to be transferred to a third party) over a wide geographical area providing child care services, it is necessary to ensure that all nineteen (19) sites are following federal, state, and departmental policies and procedures, and are applying new regulations and policies as they develop. The incidents that occurred at the Fairgrounds and Brookside sites may have benefited from an internal audit/compliance program which would normally focus on safety concerns, facility problems, compliance with standing policies and procedures, and other critical operational issues. 28 of 36 We also recommend the initiation of an internal compliance/audit program to ensure compliance with federal and state regulatory requirements, and to spot child care issues before they become a problem. A specified number of annual audits should cover the following areas: facility safety, personnel training and evaluation procedures, student teachers/ratios, employee morale, staffing, and other related issues. We recommend that this function be put under the Community Services Personnel Administrator, with a support team consisting of a professional employee from the Finance Unit, and an Administrative Services Assistant. We concur with the recommendation for the establishment of a senior personnel administrator with experience in areas such as; recruitment, examinations, classification, compensation and labor relations to improve the Personnel Unit's ability to meet the needs of the department in these and other areas. BENCHMARKING Benchmarking is usually part of a Quality Improvement Initiative. It is used widely in the private sector and is the process of determining and setting the standard. Benchmarking systematically studies the absolute best firms then uses their best practices as the standard of comparison, a standard to meet or even surpass. Benchmarking recognizes that no company is exceptional at everything. That is why it is an ongoing process; it is not a one-shot event. There is no room for complacency. Benchmarking requires that you constantly search for better solutions. There are possibilities for internal and external benchmarking for the Community Services programs. External comparisons with other Head Start programs may identify "best practices" that could improve operations and services. Benchmarking may also show the first sign of program successes or failures. Internal benchmarking may be more valuable since the Department has nineteen (19) work sites where "baselines" can be established, and performance criteria more easily measured. With such information, it is possible to "rank order" the sites, thereby, focusing more resources on sites doing poorly, including use of the internal compliance/audit function, and also using "best practices" from the successful sites to improve overall service, economy and operations. We recommend the Department consider external "benchmarking" with other comparable programs to determine overall progress. We also recommend the Department consider internal benchmarking of all sites to determine which sites are having problems and/or which ones can be models for other sites to follow. QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN The Board of Supervisors approved submission of a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) to the Federal Administration for Children and Families on January 4, 2005. We have reviewed the QIP and concur with its findings and recommendations. We also found it 29 of 36 to be consistent with recommendations included in this report. (See attached Exhibit C for details.) SITE SUPERVISORS AND "SPAN OF CONTROL"ISSUES The Brookside and Fairgrounds Site Supervisors were responsible for supervising twenty-five (25) and twenty-three (23) employees respectively. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) performed a special on-site monitoring review during October 26-28, 2004. The review noted that "...the lack of effective and appropriate supervision practices resulted in a number of incidents where child safety was compromised..." One of the concerns raised by ACF and during our interviews was that Site Supervisors at large sites have a myriad of responsibilities that become increasingly difficult to manage as staff/site supervisor ratios increase. Site Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that daily staffing requirements and child/staff ratios are met at all times. Sick leave, workers' compensation, vacation, and difficulty recruiting for teaching staff make itproblematic for supervisors to ensure that child/staff ratios are adhered to. Site Supervisors also have to focus on required monitoring/administrative reports of various kinds, enforcement of department policies, review of instructional materials, monitoring parent involvement, maintaining program files, performing annual performance evaluations, training, and other management duties. With more than twenty (20) employees to monitor and supervise, combined with their other responsibilities, it is exceedingly difficult to provide the close supervision necessary to prevent and/or mitigate situations like those that occurred in 2003-2004. The Department is now in the process of reducing Site Supervisor/staffing ratios to a new standard of no more than ten (10) to twelve (12) employees. This will have a positive affect on Site Supervisor workload at large sites, and will provide more time for staff supervision and support. We concur with the Department's approach to reduce the span of control for Site Supervisors by adding a Site Supervisor I to assist a Site Supervisor III at each of the three (3) large sites. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Once a new Community Services Director is hired, we recommend an organizational review of the management structure and classification system in light of the issues raised in this report. The focus of the review should be on the role of Site Supervisors, the functions of the Human Resources Unit, the proper use of the Administrative Services Officer and mid-management classifications, and the restructuring of the Community Services Manager class after the last layoffs. The question of whether the Business Services Division should be maintained as a separate Division or whether it should be integrated with the Program Services Division should also be addressed. As previously stated, we concur with the recommendation of ACF and the Department of Community Services that a Personnel Administrator level position be created to 30 of 36 ------------ improve labor relations programs, employee development, recruitment, and other related personnel actions. We also concur that the Personnel Administrator should place greater focus on employee performance reviews, particularly employee goals, professional development, recognition, and mentoring to improve employee training and skill sets. EMPLOYEE MORALE AND MASTER TEACHER OMBUDSMAN We recommend that the Department consider establishing an "Ombudsman" position to help improve morale by using existing "Master Teachers" on a rotating basis to be a "sounding board" for non-management employees. The Master Teacher Ombudsman may also be used to provide insight into childcare incidents by making appropriate recommendations to prevent reoccurrence issues, but would not be involved in the employee discipline process. For management employees, we recommend the Department consider establishing an "Ombudsman" position using an Assistant Director or other suitable management level positions on a rotating basis to be a "sounding board" for management employees; to identify communication and policy compliance issues, and to help improve overall morale. COMMUNICATION/ TELECONFERENCING We recommend exploring available grants or other resources for the use of video conferencing with Site Supervisors and management meetings to overcome the geographical and staffing impediments inherent in communicating with nineteen (19) plus work-sites that are located throughout the County. This will improve communication and help morale since poor communications contributes to poor morale. In addition, the Department should consider reinstating the Department newsletter to aide in communicating with employees, keeping them abreast of developments and to recognize employees who perform their work in an exemplary manner. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE INCIDENTS AT FAIRGROUNDS AND BROOKS/DE SITES One of the major issues the Board of Supervisors is concerned about is how the incidents at the Fairgrounds and Brookside sites happened, was there a systemic problem, and how can we prevent such incidents from happening again? There is a significant amount of information and many variables to consider in this report to address those questions properly. Therefore, we have attempted to summarize below the critical issues that in the aggregate may have been the most significant factors leading to the incidents at Fairgrounds and Brookside. 31 of 36 ------------ At the time we completed this review; the primary risk factors that may have led to the incidents have either been corrected, or are in the implementation process with the County's adoption of the QIP on January 4, 2005. WHAT CAUSED THE INCIDENTS AT FAIRGROUNDS AND BROOKSIDE? The Fairgrounds and Brookside sites are two (2) of three (3) large sites operated by the Community Services Department. At Fairgrounds and Brookside, the ACF report concluded that "the lack of effective and appropriate supervision practices resulted in a number of incidents where child safety was compromised." The supervisors at these two sites were responsible for the supervision of over twenty (20) employees in various classifications with a myriad of administrative functions raising the issue of an appropriate span of control. During our interviews with employees, we noted the same concerns as identified in the ACF Report. The "span of control" was an issue given the scope of duties and responsibilities handled by the Site Supervisors at these larger facilities. This problem was anticipated by the Department, and eight (8) positions were created for a new Community Services Manager (CSM) class that was established in 1999. These positions were designed to provide support activities and supervise Site Supervisors in the overall direction and operation of the various site programs. This included assisting with compliance issues, administrative reports, and working with the Assistant Directors in the hiring, training, and evaluation of site based staff. They were also to provide guidance and support to teaching and support staff when necessary. The CSM was also tasked to work with the Site Supervisors to ensure staffing requirements and child/staff ratios were met at all times, and to ensure appropriate career development of staff was taking place. However, due to budget reductions and uncertainty as to whether this management level was effective and necessary, two (2) CSIVI's were laid off and two (2) were reallocated to Family Advocate Managers. Only four (4) out of eight (8) budgeted positions survived. The focus of these four (4) positions was changed to supervision of Home Based workers, partnership interface, and curriculum development, thus leaving little of the intended support that was needed by the Site Supervisors. If these positions were fully staffed and effectively performing their duties, they may have mitigated some of the deficiendes noted in the State and Federal reviews. With the Board of Supervisors submission of a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) to the Federal Administration for Children and Families on January 4, 2005, additional supervisors will be assigned to the larger sites. The combination of two supervisors at the larger sites will provide the additional support that was missing, and should remove a significant risk factor associated with the span of control concerns raised by ACF. Another area of concern was the Personnel Unit. Investigation policies and processes, disciplinary procedures, and overall training were inconsistent, and not sufficient to serve as a "trip wire" for catching serious flaws in the operations of childcare services to avoid repetitive events. The Personnel Services Unit became dysfunctional due to a 32 of 36 breakdown in communication and trust between.the Unit, the Department Head, and the Director of Program Services, resulting in the discipline/grievance process losing focus and direction. This has been rectified with the Board's recent approval of a higher-level personnel administrator position with the necessary skill sets in labor relations and human resources, and the overall changes in administration. The previous employee training and performance review process tasked to improve professional competencies lacked vigor and direction, because the focus of the Personnel Unit shifted to investigation of incidents, discipline and grievance handling. The ACF report correctly pointed out that the Department was deficient in not using the results of the staff appraisals to identify staff training and professional development needs and opportunities. Management concurred with the ACF finding that employees could benefit from a more focused and comprehensive employee professional development program. We believe that if the employee performance appraisal system was properly linked to a professional employee development program, the child care sites would have teachers with improved skill sets, and the possibility of new incidents occurring would diminish. The QIP approved by the Board includes development of an enhanced employee professional development program to remedy this deficiency. The QIP also addresses the ACF concerns regarding "Standards of Conduct" for employees at the sites by ensuring that these standards are posted in the classroom and signed off annually by each employee. We reviewed the available reports on the incidents and performed correlation analysis to detect any patterns that may have caused the incidents to occur. We looked at staffing patterns, sick leave, workers' compensation, general incident reports, days of the week and other factors, but did not find any particular patterns of behavior or events that we could identify as a single cause or major contributing factor. However, an e-mail sent by the Department Head on March 21, 2003 (before the August 28, 2003 Fairgrounds probation order) to all management staff, constrained them from communicating with . the CAO, Board of Supervisors, County Counsel, department heads, and other public officials. This impaired vital communications that may have prevented additional incidents from occurring with timely and proper notice to the CAO and Board of Supervisors. In our assessment of these issues and other available information regarding the incidents, we believe there was a convergence of events beginning in 2002 with the frequent absences of the Department Head, combined with Site Supervisor issues, facility deficiencies, policy enforcement problems, poor management communications and interactions, and other issues, created a "tipping point" which was more concentrated at these two facilities, and made it more likely for the child care incidents to repeat. "At The End of the Day" At the end of the day, one needs to ask the "if questions" to determine whether the incidents could have been prevented. If top management staff was more available to 33 of 36 - - ____ __. perform their oversight role, could these' incidents have been prevented? If there were better communications at all levels of the Department and with County officials, could these incidents have been prevented? If the Site Supervisors at Fairgrounds and Brookside had additional supervisors to assist them, could these incidents have been prevented? If an employee development program was aggressively pursued, could these incidents with the children have been prevented? If Fairgrounds and Brookside had better facilities to monitor and retain children on the facility grounds, could these incidents have been prevented? If there were better relations between the labor Union and management, could these 'Incidents have been prevented? We believe at worst, an incident may occur under the best of circumstances, but would not have been repeated if management was resolving these type of "if questions." At the end of the day, management has to be held accountable since they controlled so many of the variables involved, particularly communications which may be the most essential factor in identifying and correcting a problem before it develops or repeats itself. Can We Prevent These Incidents From Happening Again? It is important to note that ACF did review the "Unusual Incident Report Log" tracking system which listed all incidents for the other eighteen (18) sites from April 2002 - September 2004 and "...found no incidents of child safety issues due to either inadequate staff supervision or use of physical force by staff. This is one good indicator that a systemic problem does not exist. With the Board's approval of the "Quality Improvement Plan" on January 4, 2005, the issues of concern raised by the Federal and State agencies have been addressed and should remove the risk factors cited in their reports. We have made some additional recommendations for consideration throughout this report (enumerated below for quick reference) that may be adopted in whole or part to further enhance the chances of preventing similar incidents from reoccurring. COMMUNITY SERVICES - SUMMARY CSF RECOMMENDATIONS 1) We recommend that Site Supervisor positions be studied to determine if there is more of a "community of interest" with the unrepresented management group, or whether they should be retained in the current Supervisory Unit. These positions appear to function as managers over people and resources at their assigned sites with responsibility for discipline and other related functions that may have management connotations. Placement of the Site Supervisors in the unrepresented management group may also mitigate potential conflict with labor representation issues. We also concur with the ACF that additional site supervisors be assigned to larger facilities to mitigate the "span of control" issues raised in their investigation. 2) We recommend that the County consider developing a "side-letter" with the Union- to address the handling of serious child care incidents, and to explore unilateral site 34 of 35 transfer options as part of the disciplinary process to minimize potential child rights and safety issues. Involuntary transfers may assist the Department in moving an employee who needs closer supervision or can benefit from training and supervision under another Site Supervisor. 3) We recommend consultations with the Union to support a policy of zero tolerance on child rights violations, by encouraging communications to its members of the need for significant disciplinary action (up to and including discharge) for violations of children's' rights. We also urge the Union to encourage its members to report any such violations immediately to management for the safety and well being of the children, and to meet their current legal obligation for such reporting. 4) We recommend the use of trained investigators to investigate serious "child care" incidents within forty-eight (48) hours. The investigator's written report should include a "holistic analysis" of the causes associated with the incident, and develop specific recommendations to prevent their reoccurrence. Recommendations can be reviewed by the new Community Services Personnel Administrator for consistency with appropriate personnel policies prior to being entered into the final report. 5) After appropriate action is taken by the department, pertinent information regarding the incident should be shared with key managers and Site Supervisors to prevent occurrence of similar incidents at other sites. On major incidents, a critique by management should be made to communicate the problem and the solutions to all employees on a department-wide basis. 6) We concur with the ACF audit recommendation that "at a minimum, perform annual. performance reviews of each Early Head Start and Head Start staff member and use the results of these reviews to identify staff training and professional development needs, modify staff performance agreements as necessary, and assist each staff member in improving his or her skills and professional expertise." 7 We recommend an internal compliance/audit function to ensure compliance with federal and state regulatory requirements, and to spot childcare issues before they become a problem. A specified number of annual audits may include issues with facility safety and containment, personnel training and evaluation procedures, student teachers/ratios, employee morale, staffing, interviews with the site ombudsmen, and related issues. We recommend that this function be put under the Community Services Personnel Administrator with a support team consisting of a professional employees "on loan" from the Administrative Services Assistant ranks to assist in the compliance audit. 8) We recommend that facilities management and safety be included in the internal compliance/audit function to ensure compliance with facility and child safety regulations and practices, and to give added emphasis to the current policy of monthly safety inspections in this area. 9) It may be useful to have a comprehensive inspection of all facilities by trained building inspectors instead of staff to establish a "baseline" of the current status of 35 of 36 the facilities, the required maintenance needs, as well as child safety issues. This "baseline" may also be useful in budgeting for repairs. Many schools use professional services for these functions and they may be a resource for these services or the County may consider using its own building inspectors. 10) We recommend an organizational review of the management structure and classification system in light of the issues raised in this report, with a focus on the role of Site Supervisors, the Human Resources Unit, the proper use of the Administrative Services Officer and mid-management classifications, and the restructuring of the Community Services Manager class after the last layoffs. Attention should also be given to whether the class of Director of Business Services should be retained, and whether the Business Services Division should be integrated with the Program Division. 11) We also concur with the recommendation of ACF and the Department of Community Services that a Personnel Administrator level position be created to improve labor relations programs, employee development, recruitment, and other related personnel actions. We also concur that the Personnel Administrator place greater focus on employee performance reviews, particularly employee goals, professional development, recognition, and mentoring to improve employee training and skill sets. 12) We recommend the Department consider "benchmarking" with other comparable programs to determine overall progress. We also recommend internal benchmarking of the nineteen (19) sites to determine which sites are having problems and/or which ones can be models for other sites to follow. 13) We recommend the Department consider establishing an "Ombudsman" position using existing "Master Teachers" on a rotating basis to be a "sounding board" for non-management employees to help improve morale. The Master Teacher Ombudsman may also be used to provide insight into childcare incidents by making appropriate recommendations to prevent reoccurrence issues, but would not be involved in the employee discipline process. 14) We recommend the Department also consider establishing an "Ombudsman" position using a management level position on a rotating basis to be a "sounding board" for management employees, to identify communication and policy compliance issues, and to improve overall morale. 15) We recommend exploring available grants or other resources for the use of video conferencing for Site Supervisors and management meetings, to overcome the geographical and staffing impediments inherent in communicating with nineteen (19) work-sites that are located throughout the County. END OF REPORT 36 of 36 EXHIBIT A Board of Cominunity Serivices Department Organizational Chart Policy Council Supervisors Executive Director Executive Secretary Director of Director of Program Administration& Services —+———————— EOC business Services ASA III Admin Services Gra Mg , Secretary Officer Wntoring, Planning ASA III ASA li ASA III Facilities&Fleet Specialroles Associate ami y , ommunrn y Heath an c r eme Ona Food Services Initiatives Director of Partnerships Pubic Development/ g Program Services Policy Research PSA III Assistant =Services Assistant Director Personnel Services Directors(2)of of Program Program Services Services Unit PSA II Personnel ChiWes's Family 8 Health Disabilities Services Unit Services Community Menthal Heath Managers Partnerships Chid Nutrition Network ...•-•...r••+...r....- Fiscal Officer Ad�i�or Site Supervisors Intake Mental Health Interns Contracts Accountant III Info Specialist III Teaching Staff Accounting Clerks IT Technician Family Advocates Exhibit - Al EXHIBIT B CSD Allocated Positions By Classification & Vacancy Rate Teacher Series—Average Vacancv Rate 14.20% Vacancy Rate as of Vacancy Rate as ofVacancy Rate as of 0 o i a 12/17/04 - 8.96% 12/17/04 - 0.00% 12/17/04- 100-00% Infant Toddler Master Master Teacher � Teacher Teacher Number of positions: 10 Number ofositions: 1 Number of positions: 67 p I Vacant positions: 0 Vacantositions: 1 Vacant positions: 6 � 1 , 1 Salary: Salary: Salary: $2777.95 - $3376.61 $2777.95 $3376.61 $2615.13 - $3178.71 Vacancy Rate as of Vacancy Rate as of Vacancy Rate as of 12/17/04 - 5.66% 12/17/04- 10-00% 12/17/04- 17.39% f nt Toddler Teacher i Infant Toddler Associate Associate Teacher Ina � 1 Number ofpositions: 106 N umber of positions: 10 Number ofpositions: 23 Vacantositions: 6 Vacant positions: 1 Vacant positions: 4 p � I Salary: Salary: i Salary: $1941.16 - $2359.49 $2615.13 - $3178.71 $1941.16 - $2359.49 i Vacancy Rate as of Vacancy Rate as of , , Vacancy Rate as of 12/17/04 - 0.00% 12/17/04 - 0.00% ' 12/17/04 - 0.00% Teacher Substitute Associate Teacher Teacher Assistant Trainee I Substitute (TAT) Number of positions: 7 Number of positions: 15 Number of positions: 46 Vacant positions: 0 Vacant positions: 0Vacant positions: 0 1 Salary: Salary: 1 Salary: $2615.13 - $3178.71 $1922.03-$2336.24 $1329.83- $1466.14 Vacancy Rate as of 12/17/04 - 0.00% Early Childhood Home Educator Number of positions: 9 Vacant positions: 0 Salary: $2615.13- $3178.71 Exhibit - 131 CSD Allocated Positions By Classification &Vacancy Rate Site Supervisor series—Average Vacancy Rate 0.00% Vacancy Rate as of Vacancy Rate as of 12/17/04- 0.00% # 12/17/04- 0.00% Site Supervisor 111 4 Site Supervisor l Number of positions: 10 Number of positions: 13 1i p p F Vacant positions: 0 Vacant positions: 0 1 r ti! 3 j Salary: Salary: $333.08 - $4051.38 $2965.54 - $3604.64 CSD Allocated Positions By Classification &Vacancy Rate Children's Services Manager Series--Average Vacancy Rate 0.00% Vacancy Rate as of 12/17/04 - 0.00% Children's Services Manager Number of positions: 2 Vacant positions: 0 Salary: $3802.22 - $4621.62 CSD Allocated Positions By Classification &Vac_v RaLfIU Family Advocate,Series�Averaae Vacancy Rate 12.8_ 2%0 Vacancy Rate as of 12/17/04 - 12.82% Family Advocate Number of positions: 39 Vacant positions: 5 Salary: $2254.20 - $2739,99 Exhibit - B2 EXHIBIT C Contra Costa County Head Start Quality Improvement Plan Introduction and Background: While this Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) is not required to be provided to the Administration for Families and Children, this plan will serve as a blueprint to ensure corrective action steps are taken to eliminate the deficiency in Human Resources. The Head Start Director has been in contact with the Policy Council to advise them of the Quality Improvement Plan and the steps being taken to correct deficiencies in the program. Pursuant to the special on-site monitoring review conducted by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) from October 26-28, 2004, and receipt of the determination that Contra Costa County Community Services Department, (CSD) Head Start is a grantee with a deficiency. The following Quality Improvement Plan has been drafted in accordance with Sec.641A (d) (2) (A) of the Head Start Act. In this plan, CSD acknowledges the areas of non- compliance related to the deficiency in Human Resources, the root causes of the areas of non- compliance, the overall quality improvement strategies designed to correct areas of non- compliance and deficiency, and the actions to be taken to improve systems in order to prevent a reoccurrence. The narrative plan will also describe the specific key elements to be accomplished to achieve correction; evidence of correction and completion dates are specified. Evidence of completion described in this document will be compiled and available to ACF for review. The grantee understands that there will be a follow up review to be scheduled by ACF in mid-February 2005. 1 The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, in its role as the governing board of the grantee- approved an urgency action to hire an independent consultant on December 7, 20047 to conduct a top to bottom review of CSD management and operational practices. This consultant's report will be presented to the Board of Supervisors and Policy Council for consideration of its findings and recommendations in mid-January 2005. The QIP may be modified and strengthened after the results of the independent review as part of the grantee's overall improvement strategy. In addition to addressing the non-compliance issues leading to a deficiency in the area of Human Resources, there are other areas of non-compliance in Program Governance, Facility, and Ongoing-Monitoring being addressed. These other areas are being addressed in a process separate from this Quality Improvement Plan. The Board of Supervisors, on or before March 7, 2005, will respond to ACF with a certification of compliance letter on these other non- compliance areas. At the same time the non-compliance issues related to the deficiency will also be addressed on or before February 11, 2005. The grantee has been addressing the areas of concern at the Fairgrounds site for many months. The timeline from the first remedial actions to the present is noted below: 0 Beginning in July 2003 many facility changes have occurred, including the installation of cameras that scan both inside and out and the addition of new, alarmed gates inside and triple locks on some gates to the playground. 0 Parents and staff have been trained and alerted to the dangers of leaving children unattended. Training has been done at the Fairgrounds site monthly since September EXHIBIT - C1 2003 due to the probationary status of the site. Some of the training that rotates monthly include: ■ Health & Safety ■ Title XXII Licensing Regulations ■ Principles and Priorities: Supervision, Health & Safety, Adult-Child Interactions • Beginning with the 2005 program year, there will be an annual review of the Head Start Standards of Conduct at pre-service and in-service training for all staff. Head Start managers and site supervisors will be responsible for this review. In addition the grantee will clarify its intent to take appropriate disciplinary action (including dismissal, suspension, temporary reduction in pay and demotion) to enforce the Head Start Standards of Conduct consistent with the authority contained in paragraphs e, h, and j of section 24.1 of the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Head Start employee representatives. Specific responsibilities for enforcement of the Standards of Conduct, coaching and corrective action will be assigned to site supervisors. Other training focusing on different areas of the policies and procedures will be required on a monthly basis. There will be annual behavior management training for all staff and strengthened staff orientation. The actions being implemented are key to a change in the organizational culture and demonstrate the County's commitment to protect the health and safety of children. • The grantee has implemented new monitoring procedures and analyzed reports from the two sites identified. The following corrective actions have been made or are in place: ■ Progress and issues are reflected in monthly management reports to the Head Start Director as of September 2003. The training coordinator keeps track of all training at these sites and sends the reports to the Assistant Directors to track and monitor those who have taken the training as of September 2003. Currently, a training binder is kept at the sites and the Assistant Director is responsible for keeping it current and to ensure that it reflects needs noted during on-going monitoring, and staff evaluation as of September 2003. Site supervisors prepare incident reports and communicate how they will be handled, recommend follow-up actions, and assist in the enforcement of policy including employee discipline. These incident reports are then sent to the appropriate Assistant Director beginning September 2003. ■ The system for responding to incidents has been completely revised and is now much more effective. Now incidents are reported to the immediate supervisor within 8 hours, the department personnel unit is notified, an investigation is done in a timely manner, and shared with the Directors, program managers, and site supervisors for action. The Head Start Director will make timely reports to the County Administrator, Board of Supervisors and Policy Council as incidents are tracked and resolved beginning September 2004. Program staff has started a comprehensive program of training and retraining on Chronological Supervision and rigorously utilize it. Staff knows what to expect if they do not follow the Standards of Conduct at all times effective July 2004. The grantee has been investigating each incident and taking increasingly stronger disciplinary action including letters of reprimand, suspensions, and terminations. The grantee has identified the need for investigative experts who can expedite investigations with clear analysis and specific recommendations for action. EXHIBIT - C2 Due to of the extraordinary measures the grantee has taken, there were no unusual incidents related to health or safety at Fairgrounds and Brookside for the last 6 months, and no incidents in the other 18 child care centers operated by the grantee during the prior two-year period. The QIP team that was formed December 9, 2004 to identify root causes and to lead in the corrective action steps includes: Senior Deputy County Administrator Dorothy Sansoe; Program Director Dr. Pat Stroh; Associate Program Director Mickey Williams; Analyst Ed Lerman; Assistant Program Directors Camilla Rand and Stephanie Seaborg; and Site Supervisor III Pam Arrington. This team will be an integral part in guiding change as the QIP is developed and implemented. These individuals work at various levels within the organization of the grantee. In addition, the QIP has been reviewed by County Administrator John Sweeten. Chief Assistant Scott Tandy is the lead administrator on the QIP team to ensure that corrective actions will be made. Areas of Non-Compliance Related to the Deficiency Human Resources Part 1304 — Program Performance Standards for Operation of Head Start Programs by Grantees and Delegate Agencies 1304.52 Human Resources Management (a) Organizational Structure (1) Grantee and delegate agencies must establish and maintain an organizational structure that supports the accomplishment of program objectives. This structure must address the major functions and responsibilities assigned to each staff position and must provide evidence of adequate mechanisms for staff supervision and support. Part 1304 — Program Performance Standards for Operation of Head Start Programs by Grantees and Delegate Agencies 1304.52 Human Resources Management (h) Standards of Conduct (1) Grantee and delegate agencies must ensure that all staff, consultants, and volunteers abide by the program's standards of conduct. These standards must specify that: (iii) No child will be left alone or unsupervised while under their care; and (iv) They will use positive methods of child guidance and will not engage in corporal punishment, emotional or physical abuse, or humiliation. In addition, they will not employ methods of discipline that involve isolation, the use of food as punishment or reward, or the denial of basic needs. Part 1304 — Program Performance Standards for Operation of Head Start Programs by Grantees and Delegate Agencies 1304.52 Human Resources Management J:i) Staff Performance appraisals. Grantee and delegate agencies must, at a minimum, perform annual performance reviews of each Early Head Start and Head Start staff member and use the results of these reviews to identify staff training and professional development needs, modify staff performance agreements, as necessary, and assist each staff member in improving his or her skills and professional competencies. EXHIBIT - C3 Summary of the ACF Report on Non-Compliance Areas Related To the Deficiency 1. Organizational Structure It was found (on pages 3-4) that the assigned responsibilities for the site supervisor position at the Brookside and Fairgrounds Centers did not support the accomplishment of program goals and did not provide for adequate supervision. The site supervisors at the above mentioned centers were responsible for the direct supervision of 23 and 25 employees respectively. These employees included classroom teaching staff, clerical support staff, and family advocates. 2. Standards of Conduct It is clear that some of the classroom staff have either been unable or unwilling to abide by the Head Start Standards of Conduct, which require that no child be left alone or unsupervised, that promote the use of positive methods of child guidance, and that forbid the use of corporal punishment, emotional or physical abuse, or humiliation. Because some staff did not follow this mandate, it led to incidents where children were left alone, and inappropriate methods of child guidance were used. Department investigations were conducted by inexperienced staff and were not completed in a timely manner. Thirteen events occurred over a period of 18 months at the two centers, nine at Fairgrounds and four at Brookside. 3. Site Supervision Span of Control The site supervisors at the two sites were challenged by the task of fulfilling myriad administrative duties, including staffing, daily monitoring, completion of reports and regulatory compliance requirements. Because of the heavy administrative load, ability to directly supervise their subordinates and offer the necessary support to the classroom staff was affected. In addition, within the context of an environment where the site supervisors are represented by the same organization as line staff, they were limited at times in their ability to effectively manage their sites. 4. Staff Performance Appraisal Although the grantee has a system for staff performance appraisal, it was not used uniformly to identify staff training and professional development needs. Staff development plans were only completed for staff with less than satisfactory performance ratings. Professional development plans were not required for all staff for the purpose of improving their skills and professional competencies. Staff development plans were in place for the 20 personnel cited either for direct or indirect involvement with the child safety incidents. There was no standard practice of linking performance appraisal to staff development planning. Overall Quality Improvement Planning Strategy and Approach to Systematic Improvement to Achieve Quality Root Cause Analysis The Quality Improvement Plan Team met and found that the root causes of the HR deficiency are multifaceted. The elements of the root cause include site supervision and the current duties of the position of Site Supervisor III, the structure of the grantee's departmental personnel unit and its inability to create a collaborative work environment with the employee's organization, and the grantee's approach to performance appraisal and professional development. EXHIBIT - C4 1. Organizational Structure The duties required of a Site Supervisor III are varied, including but not limited to the supervision of subordinate staff. At the Fairgrounds and Brookside Child- Care Centers, the typical tasks of a Site Supervisor III include a variety of administrative duties such as staffing, evaluations, State and Federal mandates and reporting, enrollment oversight, daily monitoring, materials management activities and training. This diversity of work responsibility, from administrative duties to classroom and curriculum compliance, coupled with the.responsibility of direct supervision of large numbers of subordinate staff, contributes to the difficulty in managing the sites effectively. The grantee's personnel unit has experienced dramatic change over the past two and a half years with the retirement of the unit's Personnel Analyst III, and the transfer of the unit's Senior Clerk to another department. The resulting turnover in the unit led to the use of relatively inexperienced personnel staff unable to keep pace with the rapidly changing needs of the grantee. While there is a workingknowledge of the basic regulations affecting labor relations and the steps to take in dealing with grievances and discipline, there has been a lack of understanding of the body of labor law, timely investigations, detailed analysis and appropriate recommendations for discipline. In addition, the unit lacked the ability to assess and develop a collaborative partnership with the labor organization representing front line staff: site supervisors, teachers, clerks, and others. 2. Standards of Conduct The grantee recognizes that compliance with the fundamental and non-negotiable Standards of Conduct for Head Start has been weakened due to a lack of clarity in the relationships between the teaching and administrative staff. As a result of inconsistent personnel management practices and poor communication with program staff, some employees were allowed to continue working with children although they had violated the standards required to ensure child health and safety. 3. Staff Performance Appraisal Staff development plans have been, by CSD tradition, used only to substantiate poor performance. A concerted effort to use the performance appraisal system and staff development plans as part of the ongoing system to improve skills, provide professional growth, and retain staff is not in place. Program management has identified that some staff still lack basic early childhood development knowledge to implement developmentally appropriate practices. In summary, program management has identified the root cause of incidents noted in both the state licensing report and the special federal review. Because of theinternal analysis by the grantee, increased oversight by the Board of Supervisors and the findings of external reviews, theg rantee will take actions and put in place corrective measures that will prevent further incidents. Supervisors and managers have made a concerted effort over the last six months to correct inappropriate behavior and mentor and model in the classroom. These efforts will strengthen professional skills of subordinate staff. Supervisors will use the performance appraisal process for on-going feedback, training and professional development planning to strengthen skills of their staff. Overall Quality y Improvement Planning Strategy and Approach to Systematic p Improvement to Achieve Quality The key corrective action steps, completion dates, responsibility and evidence of completion of these action steps are described below: EXHIBIT - CS Organizational Structure - Changes in Site Supervision 1. Head Start Director and Administrative staff reviewed the current Site Supervisor I job description in November 2004 and found it still current and appropriate. Evidence: Site Supervisor Job Description. 2. CSD, with the assistance of the County Administrator and County Human Resources Department, is implementing a plan to reduce the span of control by placing positions classified as Site Supervisor I's at the three largest sites by February 1, 2005. Evidence: Assignment of acting or permanent staff. 3. CSD has developed and implemented a contract with Interaction Associates to conduct a special training for supervisors and managers called "Managing with Impact" by December 21, 2004. Evidence: Contract document. 4. The "Managing with Impact" training will commence in January 2005 for site supervisors at all sites and will focus on best practices and specific techniques to promote communication and develop working relationships that lead to increased productivity and effective delegation of authority. Evidence: Sign in sheets, assessments and Certificate of Completion. 5. Assistant Directors will monitor and provide ongoing support to implement this training beginning January 2005. Evidence: Training logs, monitoring reports. 6. Assigned managers will assist the Head Start Director and Chief Assistant County Administrator in evaluating the progress of the new site supervision structure during the annual Head Start programs self-assessment period no later than February 27, 2005. Evidence: Self-Assessment documents. Between September 2003 and December 2004 the Grantee initiated many personnel changes and other actions based on the unusual incidents identified by state licensing, and areas of non- compliance identified in the special federal review report. Evidence of these completed and pending actions are available for on-site review or will be sent upon request. There have been a number of training courses such as "Dare to Be You", "Children with Difficult Behavior'', "Transitions", and "Teacher/Child Interactions", for staff at all 20 Head Start sites. The grantee recognizes that the span of control for site supervisors throughout the program should be no more than 10 to 12 subordinates. The grantee will revise the organizational structure that will support the accomplishment of program objectives while providing quality supervision by reducing the span of control and assigned duties at the three largest centers (six or more classrooms). Accomplishing this objective will entail the creation of a two-tiered structure for site supervision at each of the three largest sites. At each of these three sites, the Site Supervisor I will report to, and assist, the current Site Supervisor III with administrative responsibility for subordinate teachers, assistant teachers, clerical staff, and family advocates. This will allow the current Site Supervisor III's to provide the necessary support, feedback, coaching and general supervision to the staff that has been lacking. The result will be a strengthened management system. Additional frontline training, entitled "Managing with Impact", presented by Interaction Associates, will be provided to all site supervisors at all sites and will focus on productivity, communication, and delegation of authority. The grantee will strengthen the functioning of the site supervisors by ensuring that they are provided with the resources that will make it easier for them to remain at the sites at all times during the program day and manage with increased efficiency. All sites will be provided with teleconferencing capabilities to eliminate the need for site supervisors to travel to a central EXHIBIT - C6 location for training and meetings. These resources include previously implemented software solutions such as COPA that facilitates monitoring.at the sites and management tools such as computerized timesheets and work order requests that improve efficiency. Standards of Conduct—Training The grantee recognizes that the protection of children's rights is the paramount responsibility and to change the culture of the program new policies and procedures are required. The Head Start Code of Conduct, the National Association for the Education of Young Children "Personal Rights of the Child", and the State guidelines will be signed off by each employee as having been read and understood and placed in the their personnel file on a yearly basis. In addition, these standards will be posted in each classroom. Consequences of violations of children's rights will result in discipline up to and including termination of employment, will be clearly stated, and will be vigorously enforced. The Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator are committed to working with CSD to ensure full understanding of these standards so that both CSD management and employee representatives can work together to support the health and safety of children. Organizational Structure—CSD Personnel Unit Restructure 1. Restructuring has been started by assigning the Associate Director, who holds a Masters Degree in Human Resources and Organizational Development, as interim personnel administrator. She will work closely with the program and administrative staff to develop strong communication between the personnel unit and program staff effective December 17, 2004. Evidence: E-mail directing her to assume the position and stay until the position is filled permanently. 2. The County Administrator has placed on the January 4, 2005 Board of Supervisors meeting agenda for approval the addition of a personnel manager position to the department via a Position Adjustment Resolution. Evidence: Board of Supervisors Agenda and Minutes. 3. County Human Resources will begin the recruitment process for a CSD Personnel Administrator on January 5, 2005 and a selection will be made from a list of candidates by April 30, 2005. Evidence: Recruitment documents, Policy Council approval, and new hire documents. 4. Transition the Interim Department Personnel administrator back to her position of Associate Director of Program Services. April 30, 2005. Evidence: Memo of reassignment. In mid-December 2004, CSD began restructuring the personnel unit to support essential human resources functions with the appointment of the current Associate Director of Program Services. She holds a Masters Degree in Human Resources and Organizational Development, and will act as interim personnel administrator within the department until a permanent Department personnel administrator can be recruited and hired by the central County Human Resources Department. The interim manager will be responsible not only for department functions but will also be the key contact with the County Human Resources Department for all personnel matters and labor relations issues. These interim department functions include effective recruitment, orientation, workplace safety and employee retention plans to reduce absenteeism and position vacancies, as well as developing strategies to reduce the frequency and duration of worker's compensation claims. These essential functions will result in direct improvement at the classroom level by ensuring the presence of permanent, qualified teachers and teaching support staff. This will also reduce the grantee's dependence on substitute teaching staff, resulting in improved continuity and quality of care. EXHIBIT - C7 The Board of Supervisors will consider a recommendation by the County Administrator to recruit a permanent Department personnel administrator on January 4, 2005. This individual will be a human resources professional with advanced training in human resources as well as recent progressively responsible experience as a human resources officer with working knowledge of labor law. The CSD personnel administrator will work closely with the County Human Resources Department and County Counsel to provide the support resources of the county for correcting and improving the services provided to children and families. The Department personnel administrator will implement effective recruitment strategies and work closely with the County Human Resources Department to decrease the length of time required to fill vacant classroom positions. He or she will review and revise as needed the grantee's policies and procedures related to absenteeism and work place safety, and will work closely with employee representatives to ensure that any violations of the grantee's policies regarding children's rights will be strictly enforced. The grantee via the County Administrator, the County Human Resources Director and CSD program management will inform and educate department employees and their representatives regarding the mandatory nature of Head Start Standards of Conduct in relation to child health and safety. Staff Performance Appraisal 1. The Interim CSD personnel administrator will develop a professional development system for all employees. January 31, 2005. Evidence: Written plan including responsibility, procedures and tools for professional development planning. 2. The Community Services Department Personnel Analyst will train, coach, and mentor supervisors on the contents and format of the new professional development plan by February 11, 2005. A request will also be made to Region IX staff to assist in the training. Evidence: Sign in sheets. 3. The Interim CSD personnel administrator and supervisors, assisted by the Personnel Analyst, will work with supervisors on a professional development plan for all staff during the annual performance appraisal process. It will begin with those employees whose annual performance appraisal occurs in the month of March 2005. Evidence: Random sample of evaluations beginning March 1, 2005. 4. Grantee has identified the need for basic classroom management skills and has started implementing training for all staff. The grantee started implementing this within the last two months by contracting with two Early Childhood Education (ECE) experts in November 2004. Evidence: Contracts for two ECE experts and sign in sheets and training records. The grantee will require professional development plans for all staff for the purpose of improving their skills, professional competencies and retention. This will be accomplished by the assignment of an existing Personnel Analyst to develop, implement and track a system.linking the performance appraisal process to professional development planning. This Analyst will work on an individual basis with supervisors and staff to develop a professional development plan that is individualized. Plans for professional development will be directly linked to elements of the performance appraisal. This system will provide the staff the opportunity, as well as the expectation, to set professional goals that are realistically achievable and that address situations that typically occur in the classroom. EXHIBIT - C8 Finally, the grantee has identified the need for basic classroom management training. Beginning in November 2004 ECE experts have been contracted for site-based training of all staff members to provide them with tools and strategies to insure that all staff members have an understanding and commitment to high quality services for children and families. The Role of the QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN Team in Guiding Change in the Culture and Environment for Success: The Quality Improvement Plan team will be a key element in guiding change as the Quality Improvement Plan is implemented. These individuals work at various levels of the organization. They are professional administrators and educators that can communicate these changes to all levels of the grantee's organization. The Associate Director for Program Services has a Masters Degree in Human Resources and Organization Development, and brings the academic background and practical experience that will provide a new level of effectiveness to the interim CSD personnel administrator position. As the Quality Improvement Plan is implemented and a new personnel administrator is selected, the team will work closely with the new manager to monitor the progress made in the restructuring of the grantee's personnel unit. The team will assess progress on the implementation of the Quality Improvement Plan and develop reports for consideration by the Policy Council and the Board of Supervisors on a monthly basis. The Head Start Director and the County Administrator will report on progress and issues in open session once a month to the Board and the Policy Council starting in January 2005. An element in sustaining the Quality Improvement Plan in a comprehensive approach to Continuing Quality Improvement will be to use internal training and technical assistance funds and the Region IX network resources to assist the grantee in reestablishing the environment and culture that will foster the vision and renew the philosophy of Head Start in supporting children and families. Utilization of these resources will be implemented post Quality Improvement Plan and made an integral part of the comprehensive program of service training for existing line staff, supervisors, and managers; new employee orientation, and included in training programs for the Board of Supervisors, Policy Council, community partners and volunteers. Many initiatives have taken place over the past year as the grantee dealt with issues and incidents at the Fairgrounds and Brookside centers. The experience in the last six months provides initial evidence of change in the culture of the organization. Now, with the development and implementation of this Quality Improvement Plan the foundation for sustained change in staffing structures, policies, procedures, and improved communication at all levels of the program will be put in place for the future. EXHIBIT - C9 EXHIBIT D From: Patricia Stroh Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 5:46 PM To: Tony Colon Subject: RE: Policies and Procedures am very disappointed to be told of a change of this magnitude in a e-mail to a group, It is not consistent with the trust relationship I have come to value with you in the past 5 years. -----Original Message----- From:Tony Colon Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:13 PM To: Mickey Williams; Patricia Stroh; Stephan Betz; Eric Pormento Cc: Al Prince; Alberto Orellana; Analyst; Assoc. &Asst. Dir; Children's Services Managers; Christina Reich; Eva Boyd; Personnel; Site Supervisors; Sung Kim; Velma Braggs; Johnny Abshire; Lisa Leach; Mary Jane Robb; Mike Weeks; Rose Aquino; Sam Mendoza; Vickie Kaplan; Vivian Farquhar; Bernie Morris Subject: RE: Policies and Procedures Just a reminder: With the addition of an Community Services Assistant Director, the department had the ability to divide itself into two functioning units - Program Services and Admin & Business Services. The two units allow us to divide county administrative and business function from program services. The bifurcation of admin business services and program services allow us to provide much needed focus on the delivery and operation of those services. The responsibility of admin and staff of Program Services is to manage, coordinate, and deliver direct services. This effort will be of major importance in preparation for the pending federal review of the program and in this era of"outcomes". The responsibility of admin and staff of Admin & Business Services is to provide all of the administrative support for the delivery of program services. The Department Director and the Director of Admin & Business Services are responsible for the interface with the CAO's Office, County Counsel, County Department Heads, BOS, and all public officials. Program managers and staff must be authorized by either the Department Director or the Director of Admin & Business Services before initiating any contact with the above mentioned entities. In situations where the Department Director and the Director of Admin & Business Services are away from the office, the Director of Program Services will be delegated "acting" Department Head status and will thus be empowered to grant such authorization. EXHIBIT D-1 Similarly, the Department Director, as Executive Director of the Department and as Agent of the BOS has final authority and signature responsibility on all department plans, grant applications, budget applications, and budget requisitions, etc. -----Original Message----- From: Mickey Williams Sent: Friday,March 21, 2003 3:02 PM To: Assoc. &Asst. Dir; Children's Services Managers; Al Prince; DisabilitiesAssistants; Alberto Orellana; Christina Reich; Family Advocate Managers; Desiree Forrett; Velma Braggs; Analyst Cc: Eva Boyd; Patricia Stroh; Stephan Betz; Tony Colon Subject: Policies and Procedures Congratulations to all who worked so diligently on the program Policies and Procedures during this past year, they were finally approved by the Policy Council on Wednesday (3/19/03). A victory, I must say! And, as a team we did it. I can recall some of you coming to me on many occasions saying "this is JUST TOO MUCH, I'm too stressed." When a job is done, we must take time to celebrate and acknowledge the accomplishment; and, I think completing this project is definitely worth celebrating. I personally thank you all for your hard work and commitment to the P&P project. There is one last piece to complete, the Appendix. Several of you referenced an "Appendix" in your sections. You need to forward an electronic copy of your Appendix to Eva Boyd by Friday, March 28th. The entire manual will be stored on the Intranet. If you have any concerns, let me know. Mickey J Williams,Associate Director Contra Costa County, Community Services Dept. (925)646-5985 EXHIBIT D-2 From: Tony Colon Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:49 AM To: Patricia Stroh Cc: Stephan Betz Subject: RE: Scott appreciate your efforts to keep Scott in the loop but proper protocol would have you contact me before meeting with Scott or the CAO. -----Original Message----- From: Patricia Stroh Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:28 AM To: Tony Colon Cc: Stephan Betz Subject: Scott After I spoke with Maria Friday, I decided to call and talk with Scott also. He asked me to come on in to the office and we chatted for awhile about the message we are getting out to staff, Funding sources, etc. He gave me some insight to the cuts from other Dept. and strongly supported the path we are taking. He also feels things will get worse before they get better and we need to keep looking for cuts. EXHIBIT D-3 From:Tony Colon Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 9:23 PM To: Patricia Stroh Subject: RE: Policies and Procedures I am surprised by your response. We have been talking about clarifying roles and responsibilities since Stephan came on board. Similarly, we had discussed Stephan taking on the day to day admin responsibilities which would allow you to concentrate on program services. The issue here is not a loss of trust but a clarification of roles and responsibilities within the department. In the past, when we had no functioning ASO or a Director of Admin & Business Services, there was.a need for you to fill the void and play the role of "acting department head" during the times when I was out of the office (which was quite often this past year). Now that we have an Admin & Business Director and a situation where I will not be out.of the office as often as I was last year - we have the luxury of separating job roles and responsibilities and respecting appropriate county protocol which will allow you to focus your well needed efforts on program services. You should understand that the protocol clearly dictates the relationship that I have defined in my e-mail to staff. In addition, the efficiency of the work that needs to be done calls for a clearer definition of roles and responsibilities among the three of us. I believe that the synergy and the success among the three of us is not with the mirroring of what we do but in the complimentary differences we have and our overall commitment to the program. We will talk more about this we you get back to the office. Have a good trip. -------On*ginal Message------- From: Patricia Stroh Date: Saturday, March 22, 2003 5:46:26 PM To: Tony Colon Subject: RE: Policies and Procedures I am very disappointed to be told of a change of this magnitude in a e-mail to a group, It is not consistent with the trust relationship I have come to value with you in the past 5 years. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Colon EXHIBIT D-4