|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
Past attempts to hold down agency spending costs in Alameda have led to staff shortages in many departments. With caseloads increasing in social services and in the county’s troubled probation department, low morale and high turnover have been an ongoing problem. Cutbacks in administrative staff have contributed to a human resources department that could benefit from a course in stress management.
The county’s personnel managers say they’d like to devote time and resources to building a stronger workforce, with more aggressive recruitment and training, but their energies are often drained by the task of enforcing rules written in the 1930s. The job-classification system hasn’t been subjected to a thorough analysis in decades, which means employees are assaulting the personnel office with individual requests to have their positions reclassified so they can make more money.
Last spring, the county realized it needed to do more formal workforce planning, when the director of social services and a number of division directors working under him all announced their retirements at the same time. “It was really a blow at our largest agency,” says Naomi Burns, director of HR services. “If we had been looking at our demographics, we would have anticipated and been planning for it.”
Although its resource shortage hurts, Alameda has done a relatively good job at dealing efficiently with its transportation infrastructure. Its technology tools are top-notch, and it actively benchmarks against other counties. The public works department prides itself on filling potholes within 24 hours. Still, with demands on rural roads increasing, preventive maintenance has slipped in recent years, and the county has a backlog of $32 million in needs on 500 miles of roads.
Positives: Once budget passes, county stays close to revenue and spending estimates; good investment policies; new financial management computer system; purchasing card used; contracting opportunities posted on Internet.
Negatives: One-time revenues used to balance budget; minimal long-term financial projections; limited analysis of legislation for local fiscal impact; very meager reserves, although efforts under way to increase them; bonding out of unfunded pension liability adds to debt load; limited cost accounting efforts outside of Public Works.
Positives: New five-year capital improvement plan for facilities will meet $450 million of $1.2 billion in unmet needs; countywide facility assessment in progress for first time in 20 years; seven-year capital plan for roads and flood control; good road-condition assessment; county meets goal of filling potholes in 24 hours, despite moderate backlog of ongoing road needs; infrastructure-management computer system offers solid unit-cost data.
Negatives: No long-term facility planning until this year; funding shortages prevented attention to major maintenance in past decade; no automated inventory-management system; $90 million acute-care facility delayed by 10 months and $15 million over budget.
Positives: Clear and informative online job posting; good training facilities, including computer labs; managerial and supervisory training available, although many miss out; new HR management computer system coming.
Negatives: Lack of resources negatively impacts many HR functions; rule-bound system; inflexible hiring; big backlog in requests for reclassification; limited central workforce planning, although initiative starting; high turnover in some areas; inconsistent performance appraisal; many managers don’t deal with discipline or terminate effectively; hiring can be slow; limited means for rewarding performance.
Positives: Some departmental efforts at strategic planning and performance measurement, with public works particularly noteworthy; budget document useful in MFR; move toward performance budgeting for children and family services, although in early stages; moving swiftly on statewide initiatives to establish accountability framework for delivering children’s services.
Negatives: No countywide strategic plan; departmental strategic planning has no common format and varies widely; little effort at measuring results in most departments; many challenges in developing useful shared data; performance measures in contracts with community agencies need work.
Positives: Substantial information easy to find on Web site; CIO high on organizational chart; implementation of new financial management information system has been relatively smooth, although county still working to get some bugs out; good compliance with procurement standards; attention to project tracking and management; customer satisfaction surveys used; emphasis on training for technology specialists.
Negatives: Somewhat short strategic planning horizon, though two-year plan is quite detailed; end-user training shortchanged; data-sharing difficulties for some county services.
|
 |
ften thought of as a poor cousin to the city and county of San Francisco, just across the bay, Alameda actually has the eighth-highest per capita income in the state (San Francisco is second). Still, Alameda has flirted with fiscal hot water in recent years. Spending has repeatedly exceeded revenues, and while the county supervisors decided to set aside 1 percent of discretionary funds each year as a reserve against unforeseen costs, the current reserves are wafer thin. As a result, the budget is sprinkled with one-time revenue gimmicks, the governmental equivalent of an annual search in the couch cushions looking for change. With the current economic uncertainties, next year’s budget in Alameda will be particularly problematic. The needs of the county’s largest city, Oakland, and an influx of immigrant and multi-lingual families have only added to the county’s load.