|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
The workload is made more problematic by the tense relationship Milwaukee County has with the state of Wisconsin. Mostly, this stems from funding disputes. The county’s property-tax rates are frozen, based on a statute that was enacted by the legislature eight years ago. State money for the courts is frozen as well. Meanwhile, court costs have risen through inflation, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court continues to make demands on county government to increase the level of court services. And while the state reimburses the county on a formula basis for child care associated with juvenile delinquents, the formula has not kept pace with the costs of housing the juveniles in state facilities.
Last year, relations turned even worse when the state decided to take over components of the county’s child welfare system, forcing county officials to downsize and to relocate displaced employees. The county had dealt with a similar problem after closing its public hospital. The fiscal and psychological burdens of downsizing forced postponement of a number of planned initiatives in human resources.
The county has attempted to deal with its financial woes by carefully analyzing results-oriented data about its various programs and then realigning them in the interest of efficiency. Senior citizens centers, for instance, used to report to the Parks Department — where they shared resources with teen sports and tree preservation. Now, the centers have been shifted to the Department of Aging, where they logically belong.
Similarly, hundreds of clients in the county’s mental health system have been interviewed about their satisfaction with services received and — perhaps more important — their lives after treatment. One result already in: The county’s mental health and substance-abuse programs are being combined, a sensible approach, since clients for the two programs are often the same.
Positives: Strong investment and debt policies and management; cash-flow analysis allows longer term investments and better returns; new financial management and budgeting IT systems working well; purchasing-card program has cut processing time for small purchases; price agreements used extensively; changes in Wisconsin law will allow rainy day fund for first time.
Negatives: Excessively lucrative pension deal and sick leave changes slipped through, creating scandal when discovered and casting doubt on fiscal-impact analysis; child welfare expenditures over budget in 2000; meager reserves; reduced pension contribution and bond refunding to help balance budget; limited budgeting flexibility for managers; long-term financial projections closely held by budget officials, with little public access.
Positives: Strong emphasis on maintenance; facility inventories and major condition assessments are being conducted; new 10-year plan to deal with aging roads; recent capital projects have been on time and on budget; comprehensive five-year capital plan; good linkage between capital planning and countywide goals; new efforts at making capital planning a realistic program rather than a “wish list.”
Negatives: Fragmentation caused by divided responsibility for highways and county parkway roads; 40 percent of roads in poor to fair condition; facility inventories and condition assessments still incomplete; no formal criteria for prioritizing capital projects.
Positives: Reasonable flexibility in hiring; efforts at reducing number of clerical titles; innovative recruitment tools; improved training programs with links to workforce plan and career progression; successful use of probation period.
Negatives: Many employees at pay-range ceiling; hiring sometimes slow; labor agreements can inhibit management flexibility in promotions; some departments give performance appraisal short shrift or don’t do it; connections between performance and rewards weak for many employees; time-consuming termination process; tense relationship with deputy sheriffs’ union — no contract since January 2000.
Positives: Strategic planning includes many stakeholders; emphasis on training; attention to consistency between departmental missions and county goals; groups aligned by function set up to focus on outcomes; performance measurements tied to budget for first time in 2001; first performance report published for calendar year 2001, with plans to audit for accuracy; organizational changes to focus on core missions.
Negatives: Data-gathering efforts vary by department; departmental strategic planning weak; target-setting a work in progress; limited measures in contracts; more organizational change needed to better align services.
Positives: New IT council provides much-improved overview of technology from entity-wide perspective; career ladders for technology staff have helped to cut high turnover rate; solid regionally based GIS; new methods in development for life-cycle analysis on projects; improved procurement; redesigned Web site with many more transactions in works.
Negatives: Despite effort to standardize, confusion remains due to county/state differences and federal grants allowing agencies to set their own course; data sharing needs improvement; departments need more internal IT planning; evaluation lacking on implemented systems.
|
 |
ith no unincorporated territory to administer, and with 64 percent of its population taken care of by the city of Milwaukee, this would seem to be one of the easier jobs in big-county management. But Milwaukee County not only provides the standard array of services — the jail, the courts, transportation, a system of health clinics — it runs an airport and is responsible for a long list of amenities that range from parks and museums to the local zoo. “Even employees don’t realize the scope of services that we provide,” says one official.