In the past few years, allegations against county departments of social services have formed the basis of lawsuits against some North Carolina counties and drawn attention in the press. In the wake of substantial media coverage on North Carolina’s social services system, some people have wondered who is responsible for evaluating the performance of a county department of social services (DSS) director. This blog post answers that question and offers some recommendations for county boards of social services on the DSS director evaluation process.

Who Hires and Evaluates the County Director of Social Services?

The answer to this question depends upon the structure that a county has adopted to organize and govern its provision of social services.

• In a county with an appointed county board of social services (3 or 5 members), that board has the exclusive authority to appoint the county social services director. See G.S. 108A-9. The county social services board also has the sole authority to discipline or dismiss the DSS director. Based on that authority, the county board of social services has the implied authority and responsibility to evaluate the DSS director’s performance.
• In counties where the board of county commissioners has abolished the appointed county board of social services and assumed its powers and duties (but has not created a consolidated human services agency), the board of county commissioners is responsible for appointing, evaluating, disciplining, and dismissing the DSS director.
• In counties where the board of county commissioners has created a consolidated human services agency, the county manager is directly responsible for appointing and dismissing the consolidated human services (CHS) director, with the advice and consent of the consolidated human services board. See G.S. 153A-77(e). The CHS director has authority to appoint, evaluate, discipline, and dismiss the employees of the consolidated human services agency, subject to the approval of the county manager. In some counties, the CHS director also serves as the DSS director. In other counties, the DSS director reports to the CHS director.  For more information about personnel structures and issues in consolidated human services agencies, please see this School of Government bulletin.

Not sure what organization or governance structure your county has in place for social services? Refer to these interactive maps on the North Carolina Human Services Hub (use the dropdown menu in Map 1 to select “Agency Structure” or “Social Services Governance Structure”).

The remainder of this post will discuss the responsibilities of county boards of social services. In counties where the board of county commissioners serves directly as the governing board for a county DSS, the board of county commissioners must carry out the responsibilities of the county board of social services that are described in this post.

Authority to Evaluate the DSS Director

Due to its express authority to appoint and dismiss the DSS director, the county board of social services has the implied authority and responsibility to evaluate the director’s performance. State law, however, does not provide a procedure for evaluating the county social services director. This means that each county social services board may adopt its own policies and procedures for evaluating the director. Accordingly, each board may decide how frequently to evaluate the director, when the evaluation process will occur, what standards and criteria to use in the evaluation, and what process to use for conducting evaluations.

Many of the recommendations for evaluation process and procedures in this post are drawn from Vaughn Mamlin Upshaw, How Are We Doing? Evaluating Manager and Board Performance and Margaret S. Carlson, “‛How Are We Doing?’ Evaluating the Performance of the Chief Administrator,” Popular Government Vol. 59, No. 3. Both publications provide principles and recommendations that may be useful to social services boards in developing their evaluation processes.

Why Do Performance Evaluations Matter?

The board’s duty to appoint, advise, and evaluate the county DSS director is not an insignificant responsibility. The director’s role carries with it many substantial and challenging responsibilities. The director has the legal authority to make a number of life-altering decisions, including the power to ask a court to terminate parents’ rights to the care, custody, and control of their children.

Regular evaluation of the director’s performance—combined with an ongoing open dialogue between the board and director—is important for several reasons.

1. Routine evaluations provide important feedback to the DSS director about whether the director is meeting the board’s expectations. They allow the board to review the director in a proactive way as opposed to merely reacting to a crisis or problem.
2. Routine evaluations help to detect and solve problems within DSS before they escalate into more serious situations.
3. Routine evaluations give the DSS director and the board an opportunity to clarify areas of misunderstanding about the director’s role, the board’s role, or issues happening within DSS.
4. Routine evaluations give the board an opportunity to better understand the external and internal challenges impacting the director’s performance.
5. Routine evaluations allow the board to identify, acknowledge, and reward good performance.
6. Routine evaluations allow the board to document performance concerns and how those concerns are addressed over time. If the board ultimately has to discipline or dismiss a director for performance reasons, the board should have documentation of its concerns that led to the discipline or dismissal.

The county social services board also has a statutory duty to “consult with” the director about “problems” relating to the director’s office or the county social services department. See G.S. 108A-9(3). Although the board does not have legal authority to overrule or interfere with the director’s management decisions, it does have a responsibility to offer guidance and support regarding problems facing the director or the county DSS as a whole. Understanding and advising the director on emerging problems may help to improve service delivery, staff morale, and legal compliance within the county DSS.

Best Practices for Evaluations

When developing procedures for evaluating the director, county boards of social services may want to consider the following best practices derived from public administration literature:

• Time. The board needs to devote sufficient time to planning the evaluation process, conducting each evaluation, and discussing the evaluation results with the director.
• Criteria. Prior to the beginning of the evaluation process, the board should agree upon standardized evaluation criteria for the director, so that the director’s performance can be measured in a consistent way from one evaluation to the next.
• Frequency. The board should decide how frequently to engage in the evaluation process. If a newly appointed director is serving a probationary period of employment, the board should evaluate the director before the end of that period to decide whether the director should be retained. After a DSS director has completed the probationary period, the board should evaluate the director on an annual basis (or more frequently, if desired).
• Form. The board should agree on an evaluation form to capture and measure the board’s evaluation criteria and goals for the director’s performance. The questions and categories on the form should be easy for board members to understand and should reflect the board’s agreed-upon evaluation criteria.
• Process. The board should develop a process to collect and discuss feedback regarding the director’s performance. A common process is to ask each board member to evaluate the director using the standards and methods specified by the board, meet to discuss the evaluations completed by each member, synthesize the individual evaluations into a single final evaluation, and discuss the final evaluation with the director.
• Flexibility. The board should periodically discuss, revisit, and update its evaluation process to determine what is working well and what could be improved. For example, the board may discover that certain performance criteria are unrealistic or no longer applicable. The board may find that certain evaluation questions elicit more helpful information than others. The board should be flexible, curious, and open to continuous improvement in how it evaluates the director. This may include seeking input from the DSS director or boards of social services in other counties about current best practices for performance evaluations.
• Director Input. As a best practice, social services boards should consider the DSS director’s input in developing the evaluation process. What are the director’s own goals for the department? What are the director’s goals for professional development? How does the director think progress towards those goals should be measured and evaluated? What would the director like to learn from each evaluation process? The board and the director can discuss these questions together when developing evaluation criteria and expectations.
• Director Self-Assessment. The board may want to invite the DSS director to complete a self-assessment as part of each evaluation process. A self-evaluation allows the board to learn about the director’s accomplishments, challenges, and perceptions of his or her own performance.

In some counties, the county human resources department may want all county employees to be evaluated using a similar evaluation tool or on a similar schedule. Since merit-based salary increases may be tied to the county’s evaluation process, the board should learn what the county’s human resources department expects before developing an evaluation process for the DSS director.

Procedural Considerations

The board’s discussion of the DSS director’s performance must take place at an official meeting of the board, but may be conducted during a closed session called pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(6). All information related to the board’s evaluation of the DSS director is part of the director’s personnel record and is protected by the confidentiality requirements applicable to county employee personnel files. See G.S. 153A-98.

A board could take the following approach to the performance evaluation, based on best practices derived from public administration literature:

• Each board member is given an opportunity to express the board member’s thoughts and conclusions regarding the director’s performance with respect to each performance standard or criteria.
• The DSS director is given an opportunity to provide a self-assessment to the board.
• The board discusses any differences among the members’ evaluations and considers any additional information from the DSS director or other sources that might inform the board, including the director’s self-assessment. If possible, the board then agrees on a single rating or written summary with respect to each of the criteria or standards covered by the evaluation.
• After completing the evaluation, the board provides a copy of its final evaluation to the director and discusses the final evaluation with the director. During that discussion, the board should highlight any areas of the director’s performance that are unsatisfactory or need improvement and also emphasize areas of the director’s performance that show growth or excellence.
• The board and the director agree on any actions the board feels the director should take to improve the director’s performance and discuss the board’s expectations for the director’s performance in the coming year. This may include asking the director to develop performance goals—including goals for the department as a whole—for the coming year.

Evaluations are most effective when they involve interaction. Ideally, the director’s evaluation process should involve a dialogue between the director and the board about what’s working well and what areas need attention.

Is There a Standard Form or Template?

Social services board members sometimes ask if the School of Government can recommend “a form” for evaluating the county DSS director. There is no such form prescribed by state law and there is no “one size fits all” solution that works for every county. Each county social services board (or board of county commissioners that has assumed the powers and duties of the social services board) should work with the county DSS director to determine a set of evaluation criteria that is specifically tailored for the county at issue. This might include criteria related to leadership of employees, fiscal management, staff recruitment and retention, program management and service delivery, relationship-building with state and local officials, creative problem solving, or other relevant categories.

Maintaining an Honest and Open Dialogue

Ideally, the DSS director should not be surprised by the results of an evaluation, regardless of whether that evaluation reflects poor performance or excellent performance. The board should address problems with the director as they arise, rather than waiting for a formal evaluation to express concerns or provide critiques. Likewise, when the director’s work merits praise and encouragement, the board should provide that positive feedback in a timely fashion.

The board should strive to be honest with the director, both in its routine feedback and in any formal evaluation process. It can sometimes be difficult for board members to provide candid feedback, but doing so is crucial to the director’s long-term success in their role.

Final Thoughts

Each social services board member should keep in mind that the DSS director faces a daunting challenge: managing a remarkably complex budget, supervising a large and diverse staff, complying with a multitude of federal and state legal requirements, and carrying out a long list of statutory duties, all while attempting to help families and individuals in crisis situations. Moreover, while evaluating the DSS director, the board needs to be cognizant of the many systemic factors impacting North Carolina’s social services system that are outside of the director’s control (for example, statewide shortages of foster homes and social workers). Maintaining an open, ongoing dialogue between the board and the director regarding the challenges facing the department will help the board to advise and support the director, while also giving context for the board’s evaluation process.

Special thanks to former School of Government faculty member John Saxon for first addressing this topic in his Handbook for County Social Services Boards. This post builds upon Professor Saxon’s recommendations. I am excited to announce that a new, updated book for governing boards of social services agencies—Local Social Services Boards in North Carolina—is forthcoming from the School of Government later this year.

Are you a DSS director, county commissioner, or social services board member who feels that your county has a particularly robust and effective evaluation process for the DSS director? If so, I would love to hear about it.