|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
Within the structural limits imposed by the system, the five-member Commissioners Court, the equivalent of a county council, has considerable strength. It not only controls the budget but focuses attention on the activities of county officials through the use of a performance-measurement system, in which targets are set for the major agencies and departments. The commissioners hold quarterly sessions to discuss performance and achievement of goals. The belief in the importance of good data stretches across the county’s government — in the approach to technology, human resources and capital management, as well as in the approach to providing services.
This process is highly visible. Department heads or elected officials whose performance falls below expectations are asked to submit a letter explaining why. If the problem continues, they’re euphemistically “invited” to appear before the Commissioner’s Court. Originally, departments were afraid that this “progressive pressure” would be a negative experience. “But it became positive,” says budget officer Ryan Brown, “because commissioners are saying ’How can we help? Is it a resource issue? Is it organizational? What can we do as a team to get this done?’ “
In the mid-1990s, when the process began to reach into the county’s court system, examining the work of 72 elected judges, there was predictable resistance; the judges were not generally accustomed to being judged themselves. But the commissioners insisted, and the judges yielded. “How can a judge sit there,” Brown asks, and say, ’You shouldn’t look at data on how I operate.’ It’s hard to put forward an argument that doesn’t make them sound really bad.”
The result of all this is that, among other things, Dallas County judges have become demonstrably more efficient in controlling their own expenses. “They don’t necessarily like the process,” Brown reports, “but by golly they pay attention to it.”
Positives: Good budget estimates and long-term planning; stringent reserve policy to maintain 10 percent balance and additional 0.5 percent contingency fund; very good activity-based cost information, particularly in judicial area; departments allowed discretion in spending, with efficiency encouraged by allowing some retention of savings; although limited in terms of long-term investments, county has strong professional investment management and oversight, with particular attention to close monitoring of market.
Negatives: High turnover in purchasing staff has inhibited innovation and technological progress; fiscal analysis of legislation mostly limited to one year.
Positives: Long-term capital plan looks out 10 years for roads and five years for facilities; much improved management of new construction projects for both facilities and roads; excellent upfront communication with municipalities on road projects; good regional cooperation; good maintenance funding.
Negatives: Planning on facility side could use more centralized “big picture” outlook rather than current department-specific approach; future maintenance and utility cost of capital projects not carefully projected; county lacks technology to adequately assess and track needs of buildings and costs that will be required to meet them.
Positives: Good workforce planning; strong recruitment tools; innovative benefits, such as sharing of child-care and commuting expenses; excellent HR strategic plan; flexible hiring; improved training, with emphasis on customer service and managerial skills; training library gives employees access to training CD-ROMs.
Negatives: High turnover rates, with vacancies in jail positions forcing substantial overtime; compensation plan hampered by narrowly defined job grades; new training opportunities need better communication and marketing to reach many independent departments.
Positives: Excellent public reporting of performance data and tracking of actual performance against targets; performance measures frequently used in management and budgeting; elected leaders discuss measures at quarterly performance forums; audits include attention to data accuracy; Public Works and Juvenile Justice departments have good strategic planning.
Negatives: Countywide strategic planning doesn’t exist; most departmental planning is weak.
Positives: Strong CIO administers major outsourcing contract, analyzes needs and solutions with an enterprise perspective; technology fund, established in 1998, helps facilitate countywide systems, in contrast to fragmented past approach; rolling five-year strategic IT plan; good analysis of potential IT benefits and costs; attention to project management.
Negatives: Tight-fisted approach to IT spending in 1990s held county back; many applications developed internally now archaic and require steep learning curve for new employees; GIS slow due to lack of infrastructure to support graphics-intensive programs; departmental IT planning needs work; end-user training needs improvement.
|
 |
ike all Texas counties, Dallas County has virtually no autonomy. It is an extension of the state government and can’t take many actions that the legislature doesn’t specifically authorize. On the other hand, the county doesn’t have many varied activities to deal with. Only about 4,000 of its 2.2 million residents live in unincorporated areas, so the direct governmental duties are minimal. The county acts as tax collector for the city of Dallas and a number of other municipalities, and cooperates regionally on road-building tasks, working with the 22 cities lying inside its borders. It has some responsibility for basic health and human services. But the major duty of county government is to run the courts and jails.