|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
But while there’s little question that the input of citizens into decisions involving their tax dollars is a good thing, some critics argue that Santa Clara takes the whole effort a bit too far, slowing down the decision-making process and sometimes generating public involvement more for the sake of show than for any other reason.
“We did a survey about five years ago that asked the citizens to compare services — ’Do you think parks are more important than hospitals?’ for example,” recalls a county program analyst. “There was a huge effort to do it. Everyone patted themselves on the back for doing a citizen survey, and I can’t think of a single instance in which we used the survey for new initiatives or to validate anything we’d done.”
One of Santa Clara’s biggest problems in recent years has been a weakness in its entity-wide computer systems. The county is highly dependent on free-standing systems for budgeting, financial management, payroll, human resources and procurement, and it has been difficult to get the computers to spit out the kind of information managers need. This has, in turn, required an extensive management effort to generate useful data.
The county has moved toward solving the problem with a new enterprise-wide information system that was supposed to be ready by 2004. But economic troubles may push that back a while. “It is a little bit up in the air as to whether we’ll be able to fund that project,” says Chief Information Officer Satish Ajmani. “We’re just entering our budget cycle, and we’ll find out.”
Positives: County has avoided unwise long-term financial commitments: fund balances go first to reserves, then to one-time spending for technology and capital; money set aside for unforeseen contingencies; good balance between flexibility and control in departmental use of cash; strong fiscal-notes process; good management and oversight of debt and investments.
Negatives: Old accounting technology provides little data for managers; although county is making efforts to streamline procurement system — for example, using procurement cards — residual problems remain, including excessive approval requirements and too many manual processes; insufficient accountability for contracts.
Positives: Facilities maintenance has guaranteed place in budget, currently 1.7 percent of replacement value; big facilities projects well tracked, although smaller ones can slip due to shortage of project managers; relatively new five-year plan for roads and airports; condition assessments on roads much improved — 100 percent reviewed last year.
Negatives: Long-term plan for facilities doesn’t include bonded work, although supervisors are discussing that; condition assessments for facilities done on ad hoc basis, although some major assessments have been done; scope creep in transportation projects; insufficient information provided to public about transportation projects, but county taking steps to provide better documentation in coming year.
Positives: Solid recruitment efforts, with referrals from current job-holders among strongest tools; performance measures used to judge success; recent employee survey brought in helpful information; fast-track capability for hard-to-fill jobs; good understanding of training needs; array of non-monetary rewards.
Negatives: Too many classifications; many employees at top of pay range; virtually no monetary rewards for high performers; many job descriptions out of date, although county is addressing this problem; no countywide workforce planning, but large departments engaged in process; limit of seven finalists for about 25 percent of jobs; employee evaluation process currently weak but improving.
Positives: Performance measures used in budget, but few trace outcomes and most are limited to new or highly visible programs; county in earliest stages of developing performance-oriented budget; service-quality reports describe agencies’ efforts, some include evaluation.
Negatives: No countywide strategic plan; few departments do strategic planning; although much citizen input is gathered, use is often minimal; almost no use of surveys; minimal use of measurement for ongoing programs; virtually no validation of measures; little use of targets in management process.
Positives: Enterprise data warehouse bringing easier access to information about mental health, juvenile services, probation; excellent systems for automating property-assessment reports, tax collection, parking fines; strategic plan to be done by July.
Negatives: Some entity-wide IT systems poor at providing important information to managers, and new countywide system planned for 2004 less likely to meet schedule with faltering economy; decentralized structure has led to standardization problems, including several incompatible e-mail systems, and duplication of effort; minimal entity-wide capital management technology; although Web site currently weak, new portal-based site planned for next July; CIO position not placed high in county structure; procurement process for IT totally manual.
|
 |
anta Clara’s government prides itself first and foremost on responsiveness — and takes every opportunity to say so. Conversations with officials in the county frequently end up focusing on one subject: the relationship between the officials themselves and the public they are supposed to serve. “I classify the board of supervisors as ’outreach are us,’ ” says Michael Murdter, the county’s roads and airport director. “There seems to be no such thing as too much outreach.” Another manager adds that all the elected officials “hold high the idea that the public has the opportunity to have input. It would be a cardinal sin to make a decision without letting the public have their time at the microphone.”