Enforcement Performance Measure Baseline Report – Overview

Background

To ensure that DCA and its stakeholders can review DCA's progress in meeting its enforcement goals and targets, DCA has developed an easy- to-understand, transparent system of accountability – performance measures. The performance measures are critical, particularly during the current climate of budget constraint and economic downturn, for demonstrating that DCA is making and will continue to make the most efficient and effective use possible of its resources. Performance measures are linked directly to an agency's mission and vision, strategic objectives, and strategic initiatives.

DCA's measures for enforcement are based on the macro enforcement process. This will allow DCA to report on its progress with a consistent set of definitions. Figure 1 below displays the Macro Process for DCA Enforcement.

Figure 1. Proposed Macro Process for DCA Enforcement

CPEI Process

Definitions of the above steps are:

  • Intake: This step begins on the actual day the complaint is received by the program, as opposed to when the complaint is date-stamped. Intake also includes acknowledgement of a complaint. It does NOT include jurisdictional review.
  • Assignment: The point at which the investigation process begins. This includes assignment to any individual, regardless of job classification.
  • Investigation:After assignment, collection and verification of facts to determine jurisdiction and potential violations of law, regardless of who performs it.
  • Formal Discipline: Any administrative action that could affect the issuance or status of the professional's license.

The Measures

The areas that DCA has chosen to measure are the following.

  • Cycle Time: The amount of time (e.g., hours, days, or months) required to complete a business process.
  • Efficiency: An assessment of the cost to produce and deliver a product or service.
  • Volume: A simple tally of units of work (e.g., number of phone calls received; number of complaints received; number of letters written, etc.).
  • Customer Service: Consumer satisfaction with service received.

The specific enforcement measures are as follows:

Volume

  • Number of complaints received

Intake Cycle Time

  • Average number of days to complete complaint intake

Cycle Time of Closed Cases Not Resulting in Formal Discipline

  • Average number of days to complete the intake and investigation steps of the enforcement process, for closed cases not resulting in formal discipline

Cycle time of Closed Cases Resulting in Formal Discipline

  • Average number of days to complete the enforcement process (intake, investigation, and formal discipline steps) for those cases closed at the discipline stage

Intake & Investigation Efficiency

  • Average cost of Intake and Investigation of complaints

Customer Satisfaction

  • Consumer satisfaction with the service received during the enforcement process

Violation Cycle Time (Probation Monitoring)

  • Average number of days from the date a probation monitor is assigned to a probationer to the date the monitor makes first contact

Initial Contact Cycle Time (Probation Monitoring)

  • Average number of days from the time a violation is reported to a program, to the time the assigned probation monitor responds.

It is important to note that this is the Department's first attempt in more than 15 years to demonstrate performance using consistent measures and definitions of business processes. Therefore, it is likely that the numbers reported contain some irregularities. However, we believe overall that the numbers displayed are a faithful representation of current performance.

First Quarter Baseline Report

The performance measure reports on this website represent each board, bureau, and program's baseline report. A baseline report is a report on a program's initial level of performance, upon which future performance will be measured. This baseline report and subsequent reports represent a snapshot of each program's performance for a designated time period. Judgments or business decisions about actual performance cannot be made until the programs have undergone several reporting cycles (i.e., at least a year).

The reporting period for this baseline report is the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2010/11 (July 2010 – September 2010). Each board, bureau, and program was asked to set initial performance targets, or specific levels of performance against which actual achievement is compared. As an example, a target of an average of 540 days for the cycle time of formal discipline cases has been set by the Director.

Please also note that:

  • This first baseline report does not include data on the efficiency (cost) or customer service measures. These measures will not be reported on until each program has gathered sufficient data and received enough responses from consumers on customer satisfaction surveys to be sufficient statistically.
  • While the numbers reported in the volume measure represent only complaints received during the first quarter, those reported in the investigative cycle times reflect investigations closed in the quarter, many of which were received prior to July 2010. This explains, in part, why some of the investigative cycle times shown are lengthy.

A Team Effort

DCA is deeply indebted to the numerous line, managerial, and executive staff from throughout the department who assisted in developing the measures and the uniform definitions. Without their insight and enthusiasm, this project would not have been possible.

  • Alex Glaros, Associate Programmer Analyst, Office of Information Services
  • Alicia St. Louis, Consumer Services Representative, Consumer and Community Empowerment Division
  • Bev Augustine, Deputy Director, Program and Consumer Services Division
  • Carolyn Ballou, Information Officer II, Program and Consumer Services Division
  • Cathleen Sahlman, Chief Auditor, Internal Audit Office
  • Connie Kono, Senior Information Systems Analyst Supervisor/CAS System Manager, Office of Information Services
  • Connie Trujillo, Assistant Chief, Bureau of Security and Investigative Services
  • Daryl Walker, Chief, Division of Investigative Services
  • Evin VanOutryve, Associate Governmental Program Analyst, Strategic Planning and Development Unit
  • Kathy Klumpe, Associate Governmental Program Analyst, Respiratory Care Board
  • Kim Kirchmeyer, Deputy Director, Board/Bureau Relations
  • Kim Madsen, Executive Officer, Board of Behavioral Sciences
  • Lynne Stiles, Associate Information Systems Analyst & Co-Chair, Enforcement Users Group, Board of Behavioral Sciences
  • Mary Ann Aguayo, Former Executive Officer, Landscape Architects Technical Committee
  • Nancy Smith, Staff Information Systems Analyst & Co-Chair, Enforcement Users Group, Medical Board of California
  • Pam Wortman, Chief, Office of Administrative Services
  • Patti Bowers, Executive Officer, Accountancy Board
  • Paul Riches, Deputy Director, Enforcement and Compliance
  • Pierre Lessard, Program Representative I, Bureau of Automotive Repair
  • Sarah Wilson, Administrative Assistant II, Strategic Planning and Development Unit
  • Sean O'Connor, Associate Government Program Analyst, Board of Behavioral Sciences
  • Sonja Merold, Chief, Office of Professional Examination Services
  • Teresa Moraga, Associate Governmental Program Analyst, Office of Professional Examination Resources
  • Teresa Schaeffer, Associate Governmental Program Analyst, Medical Board of California