|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
A solution seemed to beckon in the form of “home rule” — permission from the Arizona legislature to write a new charter, freeing the county from the iron rule of the state and allowing it to dispense with the awkward organizational structure that was making management difficult. But voters rejected the idea in 1996, and it looked as if Maricopa County would remain structured to fail.
Surprise! Over the past six years, the county has undergone a startling reformation. Under Administrative Officer David Smith and a supportive board, there has emerged a focus on team-building, a results orientation and a system of incentives and disincentives to keep spending in line. The county now awards its departments enormous freedom to make spending decisions, retain savings and offer personal rewards to employees. But if a department goes over budget, as Animal Control did last year, it’s immediately placed on tight restrictions.
Employee morale has been boosted through improved training programs, tuition reimbursement, a “management school” and intense efforts to get employees and managers to “drop the loser attitude.” Most of the elected officials now pride themselves on working together. The assessor, recorder and treasurer, for example, have joined forces for a one-stop “call center” to meet citizen-service requests.
There’s still room for improvement in Maricopa. The county’s infrastructure suffers from years of neglect, with huge property leasing costs and more than $100 million in unmet facility-maintenance needs. And a weakening economy threatens. But the systems now in place should help Maricopa stay focused on its long-term strategic goals. “What I’m telling everyone is that we’ll come out of this stronger than ever,” says Smith. “We’re looking at this from an aggressive posture of how we can end up being financially and programmatically a 100 percent accountable government.”
Positives: Superior financial and budgetary policies; long-term outlook; econometric models aid forecasting; revenue and expenditure estimates good, with quick adjustments when needed; monthly variance report and system of budgetary accountability keep department spending in line; incentives offered departments for responsible financial management; ample reserves; good watch on debt affordability; innovative reporting of financial data to citizens; good use of cooperative purchasing agreements; purchase card in use.
Negatives: County lacks cash-flow information for school and special districts for which it invests; Arizona procurement law has inhibited some innovation; formal bidding limits flexible, may be too high.
Positives: Innovative multi-use approach to flood control, with flood channels doubling as linear parks; recent focus on long-term facilities planning and preventive maintenance; active citizen participation; good project prioritization; transportation in better shape than facilities, with long-term outlook in place; regular assessment process for both facilities and roads; good coordination among departments; innovative contracting approaches; careful monthly review of project costs.
Negatives: Dependence on expensive leased space due to growth and years without adequate planning; some delay in planned capital projects due to budget contraints; county still faces $100 million in unmet facility-maintenance needs.
Positives: Impressive use of broadbanding in almost all departments; flexibility in pay rates; turnover rate down for departments covered by county compensation system; innovative vacation and sick leave plan; strong training program; new “share the savings” program permits year-end bonuses; vastly improved employee morale; excellent recruiting; exit interviews elicit candid information about management; move to more consistent performance evaluations.
Negatives: Departments poach on one another for employees; little entity-wide workforce planning, although departmental planning good; relatively high turnover in departments not covered by county compensation system.
Positives: Strategic planning and measurement taken seriously at all levels of county government; top leadership aligns departmental plans with countywide strategic plan; extensive training in strategic planning and performance measurement; individual evaluations linked with broader objectives; budgeting and management decisions tied to results information; good use of Intranet to collect data and Internet to report performance; good use of surveys.
Negatives: County still looking for better ways to report results-oriented data to citizens; parts of MFR system still emerging, including data collection on employee time usage, quarterly reports and restructuring of accounting and budgeting system to focus on programs and services.
Positives: Well-designed governance structure with strong CIO allows sensible mixture of control and freedom for departments; fully funded refresh cycle for personal computers; detailed three-year IT strategic plan; outstanding GIS; emphasis on training; backbone facilitates computer training, video capabilities; robust security and virus management; solid project management; methods in place for evaluating and prioritizing projects; performance measures evaluate IT across departments; Web site allows numerous citizen transactions.
Negatives: County still holding out on e-procurement.
|
 |
ack in the mid-1990s, fast-growing Maricopa was a poster child for badly run county government — comparisons with the much-praised city of Phoenix, its metropolis, were inevitable. Many government functions were run by independent and quarrelsome elected officials. Political tension was high. Maricopa’s bond ratings were falling. The health system was ailing and information technology was terrible, with incompatible systems abounding.