national state auditors association · demand for our services is growing quickly as more local...

National State Auditors Association

2014 Excellence in Accountability Awards

ENTRY FORM

Name of project:

State submitting entry:

Office:

State contact person:

Phone number:

Email address:

Please indicate the award type you are submitting for:

Performance (small)

Number audit hours

(must be less than 2,500 hours)

Performance (large)

Number audit hours

(must be 2,500 hours or more)

Forensic Report

Special Project

Each entry must be submitted in unprotected PDF format only to Sherri Rowland at [email protected], and should include the following: Completed entry form. A write-up (maximum of 2 pages) identifying the report/project performed and the result. A copy of the formal report or project. Additional information such as copies of newspaper articles, legislation or policy changes

that resulted from the report or project. If the submitting office has additional materials (e.g., video of a news item) that it would like the judges to consider, six (6) copies of the CD or DVD must be received by Sherri Rowland at NSAA prior to the submission deadline. CDs or DVDs should be mailed to Sherri at 449 Lewis Hargett Circle, Suite, 290, Lexington, KY 40503.

Please note: It is solely the submitter’s responsibility to ensure that all materials are received by Sherri Rowland

prior to the submission deadline. To be considered for an award, all documents must be submitted electronically in PDF format.

Note: Links to documents on a website will not be accepted. PDF documents must not be protected in any manner that would prevent printing or require a

password to access the documents. Protected documents will be disqualified.

The entry must be e-mailed to Sherri Rowland at [email protected] and received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, February 28, 2014. Submissions received after the deadline will not be accepted. You will receive a confirmation e-mail confirming your entry was received. If you have not received confirmation within two business days, please contact Sherri directly at (859) 276-1147.

sawyers

Typewritten Text

The Local Government Performance Center

sawyers

Typewritten Text

sawyers

Typewritten Text

sawyers

Typewritten Text

sawyers

Typewritten Text

Washington

sawyers

Typewritten Text

The State Auditor's Office

sawyers

Typewritten Text

Sheri Sawyer

sawyers

Typewritten Text

(360) 725-9745

sawyers

Typewritten Text

[email protected]

sawyers

Typewritten Text

X

Local Government Performance Center2014 NSAA Awards Program:Outstanding special project application

New program helping local governments

Many local governments struggle to balance the service level their citizens expect with squeezed fi nancial resources. Oft en times, the most common challenges governments face have been resolved using proven tools and techniques, many of which are identifi ed during performance audits. Th e Washington State Auditor’s Offi ce created the Local Government Performance Center (Center) to help local governments reduce costs and improve results by applying the lessons we’ve learned conducting performance audits. Th e Center provides resources, including training and technical assistance, to help elected offi cials and managers fi nd ways to be more effi cient, eff ective and transparent.

Real results in 2013

For 2013, the Center focused on two strategies aimed at increasing the capacity of local government employees to improve the effi ciency, eff ectiveness, and transparency of their organizations:

• Increase the number of local government employees trained in performance management and Lean• Increase awareness of Center resources and purpose

Th ese strategies are paying off . Since its inception in June 2012, the Center has provided assistance to over 2,300 local government staff and governments are reporting real improvements to their processes and customer service. Local governments have already seen benefi ts that include:

• Decreased permit processing times in several counties by 50 percent• Improved rider notifi cation that decrease the number of calls to customer service representatives• Simplifi ed travel policies and county payment process• Used performance measures to distinguish meaningful process trends from normal variation

Demand for our services is growing quickly as more local government offi cials become aware of the value we can provide. We have more than doubled in size in the past year and have expanded our resources on Lean and fi nancial management. News articles and testimonials about the Center can be found in Exhibit 1.

Why the Auditor’s Offi ce

Th rough our performance auditing, we’ve learned proven leading practices, such as how to signifi cantly improve turn-around time on permit decisions and how to reduce the cell phone bill for the state. We knew that this information could be useful to local governments as well. Th at is why we are investing in teaching, training, case studies, tools, templates, and examples of excellence like Douglas County’s eff ort to streamline its building permit process and our cell phone checklist (please see Exhibit 2).

I ndependence • Respec t • I ntegrit y

AU

DITOR OF STATE

W

A S H I N G T O NNOV 11, 1889

Washington State Auditor’s Office

Troy Kelley

Local Government Performance Center – NSAA Award Application | 2

What the Local Government Performance Center off ers

Online resourcesTh e Center’s website includes more than 150 tools to help local governments learn and use performance management techniques. Th e new website includes templates and case studies government leaders can use to evaluate and improve their systems and operations. For example, online tools highlight how to assess fi nancial condition, improvement permit processing, and optimize staffi ng levels (please see Exhibit 3).TrainingIn 2013, about 2,300 local government leaders and staff took part in this training. Based on feedback from these attendees, local governments gave our sessions high marks: 90 percent shared positive evaluations and almost all said the training would help improve effi ciency or reduce costs. Our trainings focus on the following topics:

• Logic models• Performance measures• Financial management• Staffi ng analysis• Process improvement and Lean

AssessmentsTh e Center provides performance measure assessments to evaluate how local governments are tracking their performance. Th ese assessments include an evaluation of how the Cowlitz County Sheriff ’s Offi ce could further develop their performance management system and how the South Correctional Entity is developing measures and displaying the data necessary to operate the jail effi ciently and communicate performance to its member cities (please see Exhibit 4).Lean AcademyTh e Center has developed the Lean Academy to help more local governments learn and use Lean strategies. Th e Lean Academy brings a supportive environment to the trainings off ered to local government employees, so they can learn process improvement techniques. Typical Lean Academy workshops deliver three days of training on Lean techniques followed by a one-week workshop analyzing their processes (please see Exhibit 5).For more on how several local governments have used Lean to streamline their processes, please see the thumb drive with our submitted video or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8N9RG0scBo.

Maintaining our independence

Th e independence of State Auditor’s Offi ce staff is crucial to maintaining the Offi ce’s reputation as a source of credible, objective, and useful information. Maintaining independence is especially important as the Offi ce embarks on a new initiative to provide a clearinghouse of performance tools, techniques, resource guides, training and technical assistance through the Center. Th e State Auditor’s Offi ce provides these services in accordance with the guidance provided by Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). Th ese standards help ensure that the provision of such services does not compromise the independence of the audit agency or its staff . Risk assessments and safeguards are in place to help avoid impairments to independence in every instance where such services are provided. To that end, we created an Independence Assessment Checklist to determine whether a proposed engagement would create actual or perceived threats to organizational or individual independence.

Exhibit 1

News articles and Testimonials

November 30, 2012

Vestal: Making government better – what a concept! Shawn Vestal The Spokesman-Review Tags:auditsgovernmentLocal Government Performance Center

When the state auditor’s office examined cellphone use by state employees, it found $1.7 million in savings from unused phones and cheaper phone plans.

Now – under a new program of the state auditor’s office – any city or county can adopt the same method of review, quickly and easily, to examine their own cellphone use. Following the state model, Pierce County found it was locked into plans for almost 10 times as many minutes as its workers actually used.

It’s right there on the website of the Local Government Performance Center, among the downloadable “toolkits”: How to Reduce Cell Phone Costs. It’s one small piece of a dramatic and evolving effort to take the expertise and knowledge gathered for after-the-fact audits and make them available as tools for improving the performance and cutting the costs of government.

Larisa Benson, director of the performance audit division, said the project grew from questions posed by leaders of local governments: “If you guys are sitting on a pile of best practices and better ways to do things, why don’t you share that with us up front? Why do I have to wait to be audited?”

Benson is spearheading the project, which in recent weeks made the toolkits available online – from how to use Twitter to Fiscal First-Aid Kits to “lean strategies” for dealing with tightening budgets. The performance center is also gathering local leaders from around the state in a series of ongoing discussions about ways to expand and improve how governments gather and use information, how they measure what they do, and how they can communicate more clearly and usefully with citizens.

That final point is crucial. The center places an emphasis on “plain talk” – teaching people who work for government how to drop the complicated language that clouds what they do and communicate clearly with citizens.

“I actually feel it’s a civil right to be able to understand what your government is saying,” Benson said. “We’ve got a long ways to go on that.”

The political rhetoric about government devolves inevitably into ideological dead-ends: Kill it or keep it. Demonize or glorify. There is a particular insistence that government is always ineffective, always lousy, always hurtful rather than helpful – Reagan said that, you know – but the idea lurking behind that criticism never seems to be that we should make it better, or that such a goal is even possible.

What if we honestly, actually tried to make it better, and when we found things that worked, spread them around?

“I think there are plenty of examples where government does a good job,” Benson said. “It’s usually not what makes the paper.”

Spokane’s Patrick Jones is one of the leaders meeting regularly to share ideas. Jones oversees the Spokane Community Indicators Initiative, an innovative and rapidly expanding project that compiles community data and makes it available online. The Spokane County website went up six years ago. In the years since, Jones and his team at Eastern Washington University have worked with six other communities, including Kootenai County and Walla Walla, to set up their own projects.

Now, the Local Government Performance Center offers a toolkit for community indicators projects.

“Behind the whole community indicators network across the country is the idea of democratizing data,” Jones said. “Taking information out of the hands of the few and putting it into the hands of the many.”

The kinds of information Jones collects go beyond measuring government processes and aim toward providing a broader picture of community well-being. One of the things Benson’s project strives to do is provide local government leaders methods for connecting the two – ways of examining whether government services are doing what they’re meant to do, in real-world terms.

The project is very much evolving. The toolkits for local government went online Nov. 5. The leadership group for the project is meeting regularly and trading ideas. The project had a $1 million budget over the last biennium, which amounted to 5 percent of the sales-tax funds dedicated to performance audits from voter-approved Initiative 900.

With a new auditor, Troy Kelley, replacing the retiring Brian Sonntag, and with the Legislature tackling another straitened budget in January, we should hope that this project stays on course in a time of change and strife.

Because it might just be an example of that elusive creature: good government.

Shawn Vestal can be reached at (509) 459-5431 or [email protected]. Follow him on twitter at @vestal13.

County cuts building permit time Probably by summer, process for single-family homes will take 11 days

By Erik Hidle (Vancouver) Columbian staff writer

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Clark County Commissioner David Madore attended a Friday meeting where the results of the work were announced. He said he was thrilled to see what county staff accomplished.

"I inherited this one, so I can't take credit for this … but it is what we want to see," Madore said.

Madore campaigned on a platform of improving the development process and cutting fees. Since his election to the board, he has said he wants to address "silly permits" the county currently requires of developers.

This process, Madore said, takes the "silly" and makes it "smart."

"I'm excited about this," Madore said. "There are two basic things we can do to make Clark County the model nationally. We can reduce time and cut fees. Make it easy, and make it free." Clark County has cut the time it takes to get a permit to build a single family home in half, taking turnaround from 23 days to 11 days.

The reduction in days is the result of a weeklong brainstorming session between multiple county departments and local contractors. The goal was to apply a "lean" process to the county permitting operation that reduces the amount of work while achieving the same results.

The brainstorming session, facilitated by the Washington State Auditor's office, resulted in Clark County identifying where permits typically hit snags in reviews and moving those troublesome items to the start of the application.

"We want to get the review done early so it's complete," said Marty Snell, the county's director of community development. "That way, (other parts of the review) know the work has already been done and they don't have to check on it."

Several review components, such as stormwater and plot planning, will now be conducted when developers initially apply for a permit. Snell said that will also allow for staff to assist in identifying incomplete applications, and improve customer service.

Chief Building Official Jim Muir likened the changes to pulling back a shroud of uncertainty.

"What used to be behind the curtain somewhat is now up front on the table," Muir said.

The changes will be gradually implemented over the coming months. Plans call for the new process to be in place by this summer.

Madore asked during the meeting if there were plans to tackle processes for other developments. Snell said that is exactly where they are headed.

"This is our bread and butter," Snell said of the residential permits, which saw applications climb from 383 in 2011 to 689 in 2012. "But yes … maybe to commercial next. I would love to see what this looks like for land use … which is bare dirt to a subdivision."

http://www.columbian.com/staff/erik-hidle/

Exhibit 2

Douglas County Lean Project

Cell Phone Savings Checklist

State Auditor’s OfficeLocal Government Performance Center

Douglas County Commercial Building PermitsUsing Lean to improve permit processes

Douglas County can issue a new housing permit in one to three days, but its commercial permitting processes takes weeks and require more coordination with builders and other local governments.

The County conducted a week-long process improvement event in April 2013 to streamline the steps to review and approve commercial building permits.

The County’s process improvement team developed a plan to cut the average review time down from 36 days to 20 days to provide faster service for customers.

“When money’s at stake, every day is critical,” said Douglas County Director of Land Services Mark D. Kulaas. “Being able to get things approved faster gives them more time to work on their project and not be travelling around looking for permits.”

The County recently participated in the Local Government Performance Center’s Lean Academy, which has helped four counties streamline permitting processes.

Coordination is critical for Douglas CountyIn Douglas County, separate government organizations responsible for water, sewer, and fi re protection services all evaluate permits. Those governments need two weeks to review and comment on each commercial building proposal.

To meet its new 20 day goal and accommodate the required 14-day review period, the county must complete its work in six days or less.

Ensuring applications arrive completeOne of the barriers to quick turnaround is that builders often do not know everything required for the application and the permit review staff often requests additional information. The process improvement team focused on helping ensure its customers provide complete applications the fi rst time.

To help developers submit complete plans, Douglas County is developing a checklist and a new pre-application meeting to clearly communicate what pieces need to be submitted. The permit offi ce developed a checklist and now uses the pre-application meeting with the builder to review all information needed in the permits.

Douglas County permitting offi cials mapped out their processes with sticky notes, above, to help make improvements. The changes are designed to speed the review and approval process.

Local Government Performance Center - an initiative of the State Auditor’s Offi ce(360) 725-9745 | www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter | Email: performance @sao.wa.gov

Issuing permits in less time

Processing Time

Before - 36 days New goal - 20 days

Local Government Performance Center

Douglas County and other counties that have conducted lean reviews have noticed that trying to track down missing information can compound delays in its process.

“What had been happening is that applications were submitted, then evaluated for completeness, and (applicants) would be told, you need this information, and you’re adding time to the process.””

The most complex elements of the permits were most likely to require more work by the developer. By reviewing the plot plans and stormwater requirements early, the County could identify the applications that needed the most help and advance the others into the approval stage faster.

Wanting to improve, not fi x, permitting processes

Permitting departments don’t need to have problems to improve their processes, Kulaas said.

“We believe we do a good job of processing our permits, although that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement,” he said. “One of the things that happens in any organization is we get used to the paths that we’re taking and then we have a workload that doesn’t let us step back and take a look.”

Douglas County focused on commercial permits because it wanted to review a process that other counties in the Lean Academy had not yet examined.

The new process reduced work by just one hour but cut out many of steps by eliminating duplicate reviews of applications.

Resources for more informationDouglas County Department of Land Services:

www.douglascountywa.net/departments/tls/land/default.asp

State Auditor’s Offi ce Local Government Performance Center: Find tools for creating a lean process improvement team and read more case studies: www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter

Kitsap County’s Lean Process: Learn more about Kitsap County’s experiences from videos on the Department of Community Development’s website: www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/permit_process_kaizen.htm

King County’s Lean Toolkit: www.kingcounty.gov/employees/Lean/Toolkit.aspx

Washington’s Government Management and Accountability Performance Lean page: www.accountability.wa.gov/leadership/lean/default.asp


“When money is at stake, every day is critical,”

Mark D. Kulaas, Director of Land Services for Douglas County

Douglas County

Local Government Performance Center An initiative of the Washington State Auditor’s Office

Local governments can save on cell phone costs

Many counties and cities are taking a close look at how much they spend on cell phones.

Last year, the State Auditor’s Office conducted a review of the state’s nearly 22,000 mobile phones. The report identified steps state government can take to monitor costs and select better spending plans.

The state cut cell phone costs significantly in response to the report. State agencies turned in 3,400 rarely used phones and moved 3,000 phones to lower-cost service plans. The Governor’s Office estimates that the changes are helping the state save $1.7 million annually. Read more about the audit on page three.

Across the state, local governments can also use these techniques to evaluate their spending and reduce costs. Can your jurisdiction save money on cell phones? Start by asking these questions:

How many phones are we paying for? How much are we paying for these phones?

Why do we need the phones? Do the phones justify the cost? Do employees need a land line and a cell?

How many different phones or plans can our employees choose from? What are the key differences between the available plans? Do we need them all?

How many minutes are we actually using? Would other plans better fit our current use patterns?

Are there any phones we aren’t using very much? Why? Should these phones be turned in?

Are there any suspiciously high use patterns?

Can our employees use their personal phones for their work? Are stipends an option?

Is our demand changing? Has the number or type of devices or their use increased or decreased over time? How can we explain the change? Do we need a new plan to better fit our needs?

July 2012

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

“Every dollar saved now is a dollar that can be used for more important priorities.” The November 2011 State Auditor’s Office report.



| State Auditor’s Office | P.O. Box 40022 | Olympia, WA 98504-0022 || www.sao.wa.gov | Email: performance @sao.wa.gov

Tips to save money on cell phones

Make it simple. If your employees are choosing from an array of plans that is too complex, consider streamlining the options to a few plans that best fit the needs of the majority of cell phone users.

Consider prepaid phones. If a phone is only used occasionally, consider using a prepaid plan instead of one with a regular allowance of monthly minutes that may be more than needed.

Offer stipends. Several local governments are paying employees a stipend to use their personal cell phone instead of offering a government-provided phone. Developing a stipend policy presents challenges to protect employee privacy while honoring public records requirements. Page three provides some solutions.

Monitor use. Periodically check to see if the plans you signed up for are still meeting your needs and are being used the way they were intended. Turn in phones that are not being used and check for high use.

Negotiate the best deal. Check if you can get a better deal from another provider, or by combining your purchasing power with other departments or government entities. The state provides information on the seven plans open to local government at www.des.wa.gov/services/cell-phones-and-service-plans.

Provide guidance. Make expectations clear to telecommunications managers and to employees who use cell phones for government business. Such expectations can include guidance on when to use a cell phone. For instance, sometimes it costs less to make a long distance call on a cell phone than using a landline.

Pierce County is already improving cell phone management and monitoring

Inspired by the state’s review, Pierce County looked for ways to reduce cell phone costs. Analysts gathered information on which employees had phones, how much the phones were used, and how much the county paid for each one. Because cell phone purchasing duties were spread across several departments, collecting data on the almost 2,000 devices was challenging. For example, the county used 87 price plans serviced by four companies.

The county surveyed its employees and found more than 90 percent did not want to carry their county cell phone in addition to their personal cell phone. Most of the county’s phones were used infrequently, but the county was paying for plans geared for high use levels. The average phone was covered for about 600 minutes and used 67 minutes.

Pierce County is taking steps to save money:

Consolidate: The county plans to consolidate service with only one or two companies, and is using a competitive RFP process to get better service at a better price that will match phone use levels.

Explore employee stipends: The county is exploring using employee stipends to pay for phone costs.

Mobile security: The county identified an application to separate public and private use at www.good.com.

Set targets: The county has set goals to turn in 300 cell phones within 12 months.



| State Auditor’s Office | P.O. Box 40022 | Olympia, WA 98504-0022 || www.sao.wa.gov | Email: performance @sao.wa.gov

A short summary of the State Auditor’s report on cell phone use

Little-used phones presented an opportunity to save money Nearly one in three phones was used infrequently or not at all. Little-used phones had fewer than 30 minutes of calling, 1MB of internet or 50 texts a month. We recommended agencies review the 6,700 little-used or unused phones to determine if they were needed. Four months after the audit, the state had turned in 3,400 phones.

Matching phone use to service plans can reduce costs In many cases, the state could save money by moving low-use phones to lower-cost service plans. Since the audit, the state added lower-cost options to the master contracts and moved 3,000 phones to more efficient price plans. Local governments can use some plans under the state master contracts, so the new plans may offer savings.

Consider prepaid plans and employee stipends Our report recommended expanding employee stipends and adding prepaid plans to the state master contract. Prepaid cell phones can offer lower costs when phones are needed for occasional use. Employee stipends can reimburse employees for using their personal phones for official work. More stipend information is below.

The state is cutting cell phone spending and improving guidance In February 2012, the Governor’s Office reported that the state is saving almost $1.7 million annually as a result of efforts to turn in phones and use lower-cost service plans. The state is developing a cell phone policy and strategies for more oversight, including advice on when to assign cell phones and how to select and monitor plans.

For more information on state cell phones, see the full report: www.sao.wa.gov/EN/Audits/PerformanceAudit/Pages/PerformanceAudit.aspx.

Stipends: Privacy and public disclosure concerns

Before offering stipends, governments need to consider both employee privacy concerns and public disclosure requirements. Here are a few resources that can help:

Thurston County wanted to protect the privacy of personal texts. As a result, the County’s cell phone stipend policy prohibits employees from texting for work. The policy also addresses other issues regarding privacy. See the policy: www.mrsc.org/policyprocedures/t46pmd.pdf

The City of Sequim offers stipends as well as city phones. The policy prefers using city phones, but allows for stipends at the city manager’s discretion. See the policy: www.mrsc.org/policyprocedures/s46cellallow.pdf

Pierce County found a technology solution that separates government use from personal use: www.good.com

The Municipal Research and Service Center offers other policies: www.mrsc.org/subjects/telecomm/cellph.aspx

Exhibit 3

Website Resource Page and Sample Resources


Website Resource Page: www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter

http://www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter

Local governments may wish to examine several areas as they manage their fi nancial operations and evaluate early warning signs. Th ese questions are based on the primary areas the State Auditor’s Offi ce considers when conducting audits.

Operating Margin: Are governmental activities sustainable?

Do revenues exceed the expenditures for total government funds? Is there revenue in excess of expenditures to contribute towards capital outlays, transfers, increases in fund

balances and/or other uses? Is cash fl ow remaining positive throughout the year, as well as at the end of the year? Is the government reducing costs or cutting programs/services to resolve the fi nancial diffi culties? Is the government approving budget amendments before making expenditures? Is the government allocating central services by a fair and equitable method?

Change in Fund Balance: Did the financial condition of the general fund improve, decline or remain

steady?

Are the fund balances within reasonable levels? How many days will the government be able to cover operations with its fund balance? If fund balances are declining or negative, is there a formal action plan to reverse the trend?

Fund Balance Sufficiency: Is the fund balance enough to cover operating expenditures?

Are there any anticipated changes in funding levels (i.e. due to changing regulation, grant programs or levies) or new/increased costs (i.e. changing regulation or union negotiations)?

What is the government’s ability to deal with emergencies and unanticipated needs? What is the exposure to casualty and legal risks?

Debt Load: Is the debt load sustainable?

Is the government borrowing to cover operating expenses (i.e. use of registered warrants and interfund loans)? If the government has entered into contingent loan agreements, what is the potential impact? How much of the government’s revenue is going toward debt payments? Is current debt being repaid, including loans and bonds? Are loans being made from one fund to another to cover expenses? If so, are the inter-fund loans being repaid on time and with interest? Is there capacity to make any large debt payments that are due in the near future?

Financial Planning: Is management aware of and taking action to address financial difficulties?

Is there a formal plan developed and followed to address these issues? Is there a long term fi nancial plan that looks out beyond the current budget cycle? If so, is the plan being followed and adjusted to correct negative fi nancial trends?


Assessing local government fi nancial condition


Local government fi nancial condition resourcesThe State Auditor’s Office Local Government Performance Center

Local government offi cials can use resources on this site to diagnose and improve their fi nancial situation: www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter.

Washington State Treasurer’s Office

In 2010, the State Treasurer and the Department of Commerce reported on the fi nancial health of Washington’s cities and counties1 for the Legislature: http://www.tre.wa.gov/documents/localGovtFiscalReport.pdf.

Th e State Treasurer used ten fi nancial condition indicators to assess the health of local governments. Some of these indicators are the same as those used by the Auditor’s Offi ce. Th e report also includes a scoring tool to assess how widespread the fi nancial diffi culties are. If governments identify four or more stress points, the report states the entity is fi nancially stressed.

Association of Washington Cities

Another tool for local governments is the “Red Flag Checklist: Communicating About Your City’s Financial Condition” developed by the Association of Washington Cities. It developed this tool to help cities self-assess their fi nancial condition and to serve as a tool to communicate with city leaders, the community and businesses. Th is tool applies to other types of local government.

Th e document lists 15 fi nancial indicators or “red fl ags” that indicate some level of fi nancial concern or distress and a scoring system that can help cities or other local governments gauge their situation.

Th e checklist is available at www.awcnet.org/Portals/0/Documents/publications/RedFlagChecklist.pdf.

Government Finance Officers Association

Th e Government Finance Offi cers Association provides best practices and tools to help governments with fi nancial management. Th e Fiscal First Aid resource provides guidance to help city offi cials diagnose their fi scal condition and treat the problems, as well as longer term tools and practices to help recover and remain fi nancially healthy. Th e Association’s resource is available at: http://www.gfoa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=937&Itemid=416.

GFOA also maintains a broad list of additional best practices. Provided here are links to two primary resource pages:

Government Budgeting and Fiscal Policy: http://www.gfoa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=134

Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting: http://www.gfoa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=119&Itemid=131

State Auditor’s Offi ce Financial Reporting SystemIn addition the State Auditor’s Offi ce is working to expand the fi nancial analysis tools in our Local Government Financial Reporting System to include fi nancial ratios and trend information on fund balances and debt.

1 Washington State Local Government Financial Health Indicators, State of Washington, Offi ce of the State Treasurer, August 2010.



Lessons learned: How counties are improving permitting processesMost housing permits that used to take 26 days to review are now being approved in eight days or less in Kitsap County, after the county permitting staff used Lean techniques to overhaul the entire process.

After hearing about that success, other governments started working with the Local Government Performance Center to analyze their own processes and are achieving promising results. Island County is trying to cut the 90 day processing time for its shoreline exemption permits down to just 45 days, while Clark County is trying to review single family housing permits in 11 days, down from 23 days.

More governments are interested in this approach and Whatcom County and Douglas County started reviewing their permitting processes in March 2013.

When we looked at how the counties are achieving these improvements, we found common questions to ask, solutions that are working, and resources that other governments can use.

Can your jurisdiction streamline its permitting process? Start with these questions:


Issuing permits in half the time

CountyPermit type

Time before

New goal

Kitsap Housing 26 days 6 to 8 daysIsland Shoreline 90 days 45 daysClark Housing 23 days 11 days

? How long does it take to approve a permit from the day it was submitted?

Are there delays in the process while a permit waits in someone’s inbox or waits to be delivered?

How many days is the application idle?

Are some parts of the process repeated? Are some parts of the application reviewed multiple times?

What percent of applicants have to request assistance to complete the forms?

What percent of submitted applications have missing or inaccurate information?

Do reviewers need multiple data systems to fi nd the information they need to review applications?

How many times do customers have to come to the permitting offi ce?

What can customers tell us about the process? What would make it easier?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

“The toughest challenge is overcoming ‘This is how we’ve always done it,’”Chuck Crider, the Clark County Permitting Services Manager.


Resources for more informationThe Local Government Performance Center launched the Lean Academy in October 2012 to help local governments use Lean process improvement techniques to take a closer look at how they perform key services. The Center provides a Lean expert with experience in government projects to train the county staff . The staff invites customers to provide feedback and then uses the training and tools to review their processes and remove bottlenecks. Kitsap County inspired the Academy by the success it achieved after hiring a consultant to help streamline its permitting process in July 2012. Counties expressed high demand for this service, with 14 applying to participate in the fi rst Lean Academy program.


Make requirements clear. Give applicants information in advance so they are better able to complete the applications thoroughly and accurately. Review the information on the permitting website to make sure the application forms, checklists, and information are clear. Provide a sample of a complete application.

Ensure applications are complete before beginning the review process. Staff should review permits to ensure all the required information is included before accepting the application. Island County now requires applicants to schedule an appointment with a planner to review the application for completeness. Clark County will have a team review all newly arrived applications the next day.

Triage applications. Simple applications may not need the same level review as more complicated applications. Clark County decided that intake staff should assess stormwater permit applications and assign them a rating of one to three based on the complexity.

Promptly assign the permit to a planner. Assign the application to the responsible staff person quickly. Island County now assigns the application review upon receipt of the application. Others assign the application within one day.

Track applications. Use permit tracking software or a visual tracking board to monitor the status of every application. Island County trained staff on how to use its tracking software and how the software could be used for other processes. Clark County plans to use a visual control board that marks each step green if it is complete and red f it is not yet fi nished.

Rearrange offi ces and lobbies. The permitting offi ces moved their application processing desks closer to the front door so it was clear where applicants needed to go. They also reorganized their offi ces so that the people who need to coordinate on permitting review decisions are seated together.



Defi nitions key to understanding LeanLean is a tool for improving processes. It is a set of principles and practices which focus on eliminating waste and non-value added activities in all areas of business. Some results of Lean include:

• Lower operating costs

• Reduced cycle time

• Reduced defects

• Improved customer satisfaction

• Improved employee morale and satisfaction

A Kaizen event is a focused event where employees review a process and all of steps with the goal of making improvements. Clark, Island, and Kitsap Counties all participated in fi ve-day Kaizen events.

Waste is any action, task, process or product that adds time and cost, without adding value as perceived by our customer. Some symptoms of waste are excess costs, poor quality, delays, dependency on work-around methods, and daily management by exception.

The time to complete any process has two components. Process Time is the actual amount of time that it takes to work on a task or step without interruption or waiting. Wait Time is the amount of time when the no work is being done on the project. Process Time and Wait Time are added together to calculate Cycle Time, or the time from the moment a product is received through its completion, which includes all delays.

Resources for more informationGreat resources on Kitsap County: Learn more about Kitsap County’s experiences from videos on the Department of Community Development’s website: www.kitsapgov.com/dcd/permit_process_kaizen.htm

Environmental Protection Agency Lean Government webpage:

www.epa.gov/lean/government/index.htm

Minnesota’s LEAN Online website: www.lean.state.mn.us

King County’s Lean Toolkit: www.kingcounty.gov/employees/Lean/Toolkit.aspx

Washington’s Government Management and Accountability Performance Lean page:

www.accountability.wa.gov/leadership/lean/default.asp

State Auditor’s Offi ce Local Government Performance Center: www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter


An initiative of the Washington State Auditor’s Office

Elements of a well-designed staffing model

Questions to ask

Question 1: Does the staffing model have solid information about the work

being done?

Question 2: Does the model provide points of comparison, such as historical

workload, variations by location, and costs per staff (or costs per post*)?

August 2012


Question 3: Is the level of staffing resources clearly related to meeting

workload requirements and service delivery goals?

Question 4: Has the staffing model been validated?

FOR QUESTIONS

mailto:[email protected]


Exhibit 4

Examples of Performance Assesments

State Auditor’s Office Local Government Performance Center

July 29, 2013

Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office Performance Management Review

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3

Performance Management Review ...................................................................... 5

Law Enforcement Performance Management Practices ............................... 7

Results of Review .......................................................................................................10

Recommendations ....................................................................................................17

Appendix A: Recommended Resources for the Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office .............................................................................18

Appendix B: Scope and Methodology ...............................................................19

Local Government Performance Center ...........................................................20

Prepared for the State Auditor’s Office by

2

Introduction

3

Performance measurement helps inform critical decisions

Governments of all sizes are seeking more precise and practical information about their services to make more strategic budgeting, staffing, and priority decisions. Government leaders are turning to performance management techniques to determine how well their programs are working and to find ways to improve. Performance management is more than simply using performance measures. It is a strategic management practice that includes:

• Setting long-term goals.

• Developing performance measures and targets to monitor progress towards these goals.

• Collecting related data about the efficiency and effectiveness of an organization’s operations and services.

• Monitoring and using this information to set priorities, propose changes and manage budgets.

• Using the information to communicate with stakeholders and engage the public.

The State Auditor’s Office created the Local Government Performance Center to help governments use and improve their existing performance management techniques. This performance management review, done at the request of the Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office, is one way the Center provides training, analysis, and tools to Washington cities, counties, and other local governments.

The Sheriff’s Office wants help getting started

Performance management practices are becoming standard requirements as the public demands more accountability for their governments’ use of resources. The Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) is facing the challenges of developing strategic plans and reporting mechanisms that can be used not only to report on activities, but also to strategically direct (or redirect) limited resources and improve their effectiveness.

Like many local law enforcement agencies, the Sheriff’s Office has suffered through layoffs stemming from the recent economic downturn. The need for the department’s services has not changed over the same period. This situation has created pressure to deliver “more with less” as the Sheriff’s Office continues to serve the 100,000 people living in the county (approximately half of which live in the Sheriff’s Office’s jurisdiction. The Sheriff’s Office has been challenged to find the time and resources learn how to develop a performance management system.

The Sheriff and Undersheriff turned to the Local Government Performance Center to help them assess their performance management needs and determine what steps they should take to get started. The Sheriff’s Office would like to improve the quality of its performance management capabilities to ensure the organization is effectively measuring its performance, results, and cost-effectiveness. This performance management review is a result of this request and an agreement between the Center and the Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office.

4

Key Results and Recommendations

The Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office has taken some positive, preliminary steps toward performance management. These steps include reviewing their existing strategic plan, periodically checking select workload and crime information, and obtaining performance management training from the Local Government Performance Center for its key staff. The Sheriff’s Office has also begun holding open public meetings to share information about ongoing initiatives and issues with the public. During our review, the Sheriff, management and staff expressed an interest in developing performance management practices provided they are directly relevant to their work and manageable for a department of their size.

Our review identified some key areas where the Sheriff’s Office should focus its performance management efforts. As noted by the Sheriff, management and supervisors, their strategic plan is from a previous administration and knowledge of it and its contents is not widespread or understood. They rightly believe it should be updated to ensure it reflects the priorities of the current administration and provides direction for management and staff. In addition, core performance and workload data is not readily available for management use, an issue complicated by technology challenges. This gap makes it very difficult for management to use objective information when making management and budgeting decisions. Instead, management and staff primarily rely on their experience, professional judgment, and ability to communicate with others in their department to oversee operations.

Based on this analysis, we recommend the Sheriff’s Office:

• Identify the Sheriff’s Office’s highest priorities and strategic goals and narrow down the broad scope of the current strategic plan.

• Develop a small set of core performance measures that both address these strategic goals and provide basic information about department resource use and efficiency.

• Identify the data needed to support these core measures and streamline the data collection processes.

• Collect the information regularly and meet with chiefs periodically to review progress (quarterly). Use the information to identify ongoing performance, resource use and cost trends, and to inform ongoing budget management.

• Cowlitz County Sheriff ’s Office • Performance Management Review •

5

What is performance management?

The purpose of performance management is to help managers answer the basic questions: “Where do we want to go, and how will we know when we get there?” Effective managers do this by identifying their organization’s highest priority goals, selecting strategies to achieve these goals, and using data and analysis to help the organization improve its results and cost-effectiveness over time.

A solid performance management system informs management and the public about whether an organization is meeting its goals and cost-effectively achieving desired results.

Basic steps and components of a performance management system include:

1. Identify your agency’s strategic priorities and goals.

2. Select a balanced set of performance measures that will provide a “scorecard” of agency operations, results, and costs.

3. Identify and collect the data needed to support these performance measures.

4. Review results on a regular, ongoing basis to monitor progress and adjust course as needed.

What are performance measures?

Performance measures numerically describe an agency’s work and results. They are based on data and are quantifiable indicators of whether an agency is making progress toward achieving its goals. Performance measures help answer the questions, “How are we doing? Are we on track to meeting our goals? Are things getting better, worse, or staying the same?”

Agencies should have a mix of performance measures that are focused on goals, and are balanced, useful, and manageable. Management should have access to performance data so they can monitor what is happening and work to improve performance. Performance measures can be used to manage, follow-up, and budget. For instance, department managers should also be able to report on the changes they are making to improve performance – and whether those changes are having the desired impact.

Performance Management Review

6


What types of performance measures are recommended?

Agencies should have a well-balanced mix of performance measures that capture whether they are meeting their goals and objectives, how effectively they are managing their resources, and what factors influence these results. There are several types of performance measures:

Departmental process measures are measures of the amount of work an organization is doing, the resources that help get the work done, and the external sources of the work. Below are examples of process measures:

Input measures track what the department receives in order to complete its work, such as the staff resources and materials needed, the demand for services, and the incoming workload. Examples include the number of requests for concealed weapons permits, fingerprinting services, the number of 911 calls, weapons permits processed, and the number of cases that need to be investigated.

Output measures track the product or service delivered or produced. Examples of output measures include the number of warrants, protection orders, and writs processed, the number of calls officers respond to, and the number of cases investigated.

Outcomes are measures of results. They show what an organization is accomplishing and whether it is achieving its goals. Examples of common law enforcement outcome measures include crime rates, such as the number of DUIs, burglaries, and major crimes, as well as case clearance rates.

Citizen satisfaction is also an important outcome measure, indicating how satisfied the citizens of a jurisdiction are with the law enforcement services they receive.

Efficiency or costs of delivering services are other important measures for gaining a balanced perspective of the services an organization is providing. Cost measures look at what it costs to do the work an organization does and how many staff it requires. Other cost measures look at staffing costs, such as the number of overtime hours and spending per deputy. Efficiency measures reflect the cost per result, such as the cost per 911 response, cost per case investigation, or cost to process a concealed weapons permit.

What are the benefits of performance management?

Performance management informs management about how its resources are being used, whether they are allocated appropriately to meet objectives, and how workload or operational changes will affect resource needs and performance. It provides management with:

• More information for planning and decision making and greater control over the allocation of patrol resources.

• Added confidence that staff resources are being directed to where they are most needed.

• Improved ability to focus on specific areas for improving effectiveness.

• Ability to understand and substantiate effects of potential operational or budgetary changes.

7

As part of this performance management review, we conducted research into law enforcement best practices around the country, and county performance management examples around Washington. Following is a summary of what we found. The “Recommended Resources” section in Appendix A contains additional information about where to find some of the especially pertinent resources.

What are recommended practices for law enforcement?

Law enforcement agencies typically have unique characteristics and different operational objectives. However, as is common to many fields of work, certain information on workload is required for management to monitor performance, understand its resource needs, allocate staff, and to monitor how performance and resource needs vary as conditions change. In addition, management should have information on how well staff are performing in the context of operational expectations and agency objectives.

There are a number of core performance areas that are consistently monitored by law enforcement departments around the county. Examples of performance questions typically asked in law enforcement include:

• How effective are department efforts to reduce community-specific types of crime?

• Is response time for high priority 911 calls adequate? Is it changing over time?

• How much time does it take and how much does it cost to respond to a 911 call, investigate a case, or conduct a search and rescue mission? Has this changed over time?

• How is workload changing over time for patrol deputies, detectives, and support functions?

• How much is spent on overtime, what are the drivers, and how has this changed over time?

• How satisfied are department employees?

• How safe do citizens of the county feel and how satisfied are they with law enforcement services?

Citizen engagement through community meetings and periodic surveys are recommended tools for capturing public information on citizen satisfaction, and are important elements of building transparency and trust with the public.

Law Enforcement Performance Management Practices

8


Peer county examples

As part of our review, we looked for examples from peer counties in Washington, focusing on counties of similar sizes to Cowlitz County. We also looked to Clark County; while it has a larger population, it is one of Cowlitz County’s neighbors. In general, Washington counties are more likely to report on process measures (inputs and outputs) than outcomes, citizen satisfaction, and efficiency measures. Following are some examples that we found in our review.

Benton County

Benton County’s Budget Award book includes performance measures for each county department. The County Sheriff’s section includes mission, key issues, budget figures, performance measures, action steps, and services of each division. Following are the performance measures for the patrol division:

• Calls for Service

• Mandatory in-service training hours per officer

• Number of SECTOR (online) tickets

• In-Service training hours per officer

• Developmental training hours per officer

• Combined clearance rate of crimes

• Clearance rate on violent crimes

• Clearance rate on property crimes

• Total training hours above State minimum

• Increase in SECTOR (online) tickets

Clallam County Clallam County includes performance measures with its budget summaries for each department. The report for Sheriff – Operations includes the following workload indicators for recent years:

• Incidents (calls for service) handled

• Case reports written and processed

• Traffic stops

• Civil papers processed

• Civil papers served

• Writs processed

• Concealed pistol licenses processed

• Pistol transfers processed

• Harvest permits issued

9


Clark County The Clark County Auditor’s Office prepares Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reports on county activities for the previous five years. The most recent report contains information on the Sheriff’s Office, including the mission and goals of each branch within the Sheriff’s Office. Its performance measures also include the results of a bi-annual citizen survey. In addition to reporting on major crimes per 1,000 unincorporated population, the report includes the following measures:

Clark County performance measures in the 2007-2011 report

Enforcement Branch Civil/Support Branch

911 calls received Civil papers received911 calls dispatched Civil papers servedOfficer-initiated (including traffic) Gun permits issuedReported major crimes, violent Public records requestsReported major crimes, property Warrants received

Total reported major crimes Police reportsAverage response time in minutes by priority level

Evidence - citizen appointments to view or pick up items

Arrests Evidence - number of itemsEvidence - items disposedEvidence - DNA CollectionsEvidence - cases in evidence

Source: Clark County Auditor’s Office Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report 2007-2011

There are two other noteworthy features of the Clark County report. First, it includes results related to one of the Sheriff’s Office’s recent initiatives, Operation Gang Green, a multi-agency initiative to close marijuana grow operations. The report includes the number of search warrants, homes, suspects taken into custody, marijuana plants, amount of cash, and number of involved officers from local, state, and federal agencies. Second, the report includes information from a citizen survey, which asks citizens to rate county services. It included questions about how well citizens think law enforcement is provided and how safe citizens feel. It also asked about how concerned citizens are about various types of crimes.

These are both very good examples of how a county sheriff is effectively tracking the results of a top-priority public safety initiative as well as the citizen satisfaction outcome.

10

Our review found that the Sheriff’s Office is in the early stages of developing its performance management practices. They have a draft strategic plan that they recognize needs to be updated. The Sheriff’s Office also collects some performance information but admittedly does not collect or use it as systematically as it would like, and has begun communicating with the public through community meetings.

A common theme in our interviews with Sheriff’s Office employees is that they are interested in having a performance management system, but are uncertain about where to start. The majority of supervisors, especially in the patrol unit, expressed strong support for having department-wide goals and objectives, and believed that this would have a positive impact on staff productivity, focus, and morale.

Some supervisors are concerned about having “one more thing to do.” While they see the benefit of having easily accessible performance information, they want to be sure that the data will be used and have a benefit for the organization. Given this, the Sheriff’s Office would benefit by first identifying a few strategic goals, and then selecting a small set of performance measures to track activities that provide information on efforts and results made to achieve these goals.

Strategic Planning

Sheriff’s Office is revising its strategic plan

The previous sheriff’s administration developed a strategic plan in 2009, which would have created several new initiatives and efforts. However, as the Sheriff’s Office faced budget cuts and a new Sheriff was elected, follow-through on the plan was limited. Our conversations with supervisory staff indicated limited awareness that the Sheriff’s Office had a strategic plan. The Sheriff’s Office has recently started the process of revising this strategic plan.

Sheriff’s Office should prioritize its goals

The current strategic plan has several strengths, including that it lays out major goals for the Sheriff’s Office and includes action plans. However, the plan is broad and complex with eight major goals:

1. Increase pro-active enforcement efforts.

2. Reduce crime.

3. Develop goal-oriented training.

4. Encourage service excellence in all Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office functions.

5. Control and improve capital assets.

6. Re-establish civilian court security unit.

7. Create crime prevention program.

8. Management oversight.

The selected goals are somewhat broad and the plan would benefit from being more specific. For example, “Reduce Crime” is very general. Are there certain types of crime the Sheriff’s Office would like to target? How much does the Sheriff’s Office want to reduce that type of crime?

Results of Review

11

In addition, several of the goals appear interrelated, or to be strategies rather than goals. For example, “Increasing proactive enforcement efforts” and “Creating a crime prevention program” are actually strategies to achieve the broader goal of reducing crime.

The Sheriff’s Office could improve its ability to manage performance by selecting interim outcome objectives and measures that contribute to a reduction in crime, are directly related to its activities, and are within its control.

One tool that is frequently used to define and illustrate how activities are linked with interim results and ultimately to long term desired outcomes is the logic model. We developed the sample logic model on the next page using one of the top priorities and some of the related strategies from the Sheriff’s Office strategic plan. We added sample goals and objectives to demonstrate how the Sheriff’s Office might link its strategies with its long-term priority. The sample measures are drawn from law enforcement best practices.


Strategies: Increase proactive enforcement and develop crime prevention plan Process measures: • # of proactive enforcement

projects and deputies • # of patrol cars with Sector/Mobile

CAD • Expenditures for proactive

activities (OT, crime analysis)

Objectives: Reduce rates of DUI, traffic accidents, and drug crime Results measures: • # DUI stops • # Injury traffic accidents • # Street level drug arrests

Vision: Safe communities county-wide with fully satisfied citizens Outcome indicators: Countywide crime rates Citizen Satisfaction

Goal: Increase public safety on county roads and in high crime areas Outcome measures: • Percent of citizens who feel

safe in their homes • # DUI-related accidents and

deaths per year • # street level drug cases

prosecuted

…so that…

…so that…

…so that…

Ultimate Outcome (Long-Term)

Future Result (Longer-Term)

Intermediate Result (Mid-Term)

Immediate Result (Short-Term)

Cowlitz County Sheriff Sample Logic Model Complete this template for each main goal from the Strategic Plan

12


Performance Management

Sheriff’s Office has limited performance data

The Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office does not currently have performance measures that it regularly track and monitors, although management does periodically monitor some workload and high-level crime rate information. Management and staff primarily rely on their experience and professional judgment, and ability to communicate with others in their department to oversee operations. The staff does compile some performance data for crime statistics reporting and grant applications and reports. However, management does not regularly review performance data and use this information for management and budgeting.

One challenge is accessing dispatch data. Currently the 911 center, which is not part of the Sheriff’s Office, uses an older information technology system. Management and several staff indicated that it is difficult to get information out of the system. The Chief Criminal Deputy was the only person who said that he could get information out of the system. At times, a clerk can assist with this, but not always. Fortunately, the County is developing a new dispatch system, which will hopefully be more user-friendly.

Examples from other law enforcement agencies provide a starting point

The following table shows examples of performance measures used in other Washington local governments and around the country that Cowlitz County could use as a starting point for developing and using performance measures.

Common Performance Measures

Patrol Investigations Fiscal and Support

Response time by 911 call priority

Percent of crimes cleared (“closed”) by arrest

Overtime as a percent of regular salaries

Percent of traffic collisions with an injury

Caseload backlog Sheriff’s Office costs per resident in the jurisdiction

Activity levels per patrol office (calls and self-initiated)

Cases per detective

Number and results of proactive patrol officer problem-solving projects

Average length of investigative time per case, by type of case

Source: FLT Consulting summary of law enforcement practices, as described in the articles and resources listed in Appendix A. Washington jurisdictions using more than one of these measures include Benton, Clark and King Counties and Bellevue, Bellingham, Richland, and Vancouver.

13

Performance measures are useful for evaluating

specific activities

The Sheriff’s Office tracks and reports several outcome measures related to crime statistics, which is important information. These outcome measures could be strengthened if they provided more information on the results and cost-effectiveness of the Sheriff’s Office’s specific activities. For example, using measures directly related to targeted efforts, such as reducing the number of water drownings, or reducing burglaries or drug crime in particular geographic areas where proactive crime prevention work is under way, would enable the Sheriff’s Office to evaluate how well such efforts are working. These activities measures should be aligned with the strategic goals identified in a department-wide strategic plan so that progress towards these goals can be monitored.

For instance, the Sheriff’s Office maintains equipment and a specially trained marine unit. The Sheriff’s Office does collect and report some data on this unit, including the number of visual and written inspections it does, the number of on-water patrol hours, and the number of boating education courses it offers and the number of students who attend those courses. Other examples of performance data that could be used for the marine program include:

• How many safety citations (such as DUI) does the marine unit issue?

• How many times was the team deployed on a rescue mission?

• What is the cost per rescue and per patrol hour/shift?

• How many people were saved? How many people drowned?

• How do these activities and measures change from year to year and what might contribute to changes in performance?

The Sheriff’s Office could use performance information to

tell its story

As part of this performance management review we wanted to illustrate how performance management could be used by the Cowlitz County Sheriff. Performance measure data is interesting when looked at individually, but can be extremely powerful when combined with other data. It should be used to dig deeper into operational questions and to “tell the story” of what is happening.

In response to our request, the Sheriff’s Office researched and provided data on the number of calls it received during the five years from 2008 through 2012. The chart on the right shows the total number of calls for service (both 911 and officer-initiated) received during each of the last five years. The data shows that there were 1,000 more calls in 2012 (17,259 calls) than in 2008 (16,225). This is an increase of 7 percent; however, it is too soon to know if it is a trend that will continue.


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

16,225 16,690 16,600 16,625 17,259

Total calls for services received

Source: Cowlitz County Sheri�’s O�ce, 2013.

14


Follow-up questions the Sheriff’s Office might want to ask of this data are:

• Which types of calls increased?

• What time of the year, week, or day did the increase occur?

• What was the likely impact on workload of this increase?

In the future, the Sheriff’s Office would benefit from looking at total calls per month, which may reveal patterns that do not show up when looking at totals for a year. For instance, an analysis of calls per month could illustrate whether calls increase during certain times of year, and help explain why there might be corresponding changes in performance (response time) or patrol overtime expenditures.

The next chart shows the next piece of information - how the staffing levels of patrol deputies, the staff responsible for responding to the 911 calls, has decreased by 17 percent over the same time period.

The result of the seven percent increase in 911 calls and the 17 percent decrease in patrol staffing is that the average number of calls per patrol deputy has increased from 676 in 2008 to 863 in 2012. This combined information is illustrated in the following chart.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

24

22 22

24

20

Total number of patrol deputies


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

676759 755

693

863

Average number of calls per patrol deputy


15


The Sheriff’s Office also has data on the types of calls it receives, which is another helpful way of breaking down the information. Since one of the goals in the strategic plan is to increase DUI enforcement education and enforcement, we looked at historical data for DUI calls. The following chart shows the number of driving under the influence (DUI) and driving while license suspended or revoked (DWLSR) calls the Sheriff’s Office made in 2008 through 2012. This chart shows the number of both has declined in recent years.

This data should prompt the Sheriff’s Office to ask the following questions:

• Why are DUI’s going down?

• Have we been doing less enforcement or more?

• Are our current enforcement activities having an effect in the geographic areas they’re occurring?

Case clearance rates: performance outcome measure

In its strategic plan, the Sheriff’s Office has a goal of increasing its case clearance rate. Clearance rate is a common law enforcement outcome measure that shows the rate of crimes that are cleared through arrest or exception (certain defined situations where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute but, for instance, the victim does not cooperate with the prosecution, or the suspect dies before arrest). The following chart shows the Sheriff’s Office clearance rates for 2012 for drug/narcotic offenses, property crimes, and violent crimes.

As a next step, Cowlitz County could track its clearance rates over time to see whether the overall increase in number of cases, staffing changes, or other special initiatives have an impact on clearance rates. The information could also be used to examine why case clearance rates are higher for some crimes than for others.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Driving while license suspended or revoked

Driving under the in�uence

244

305280

249217

95 105 10881 71

Number of DUI and DWLSR calls


Violent Crime

Property Crime

Drug/Narcotic O�enses 92%

17%

65%

Source: Cowlitz County Sheri�’s O�ce, 2013.Note: “Property Crime” includes burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. “Violent Crime” includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Sheri�’s o�ce clearance rates, 2012

16


Citizen Communication

The Sheriff is conducting community meetings

At the time of our interviews, the Sheriff was planning for three upcoming community meetings around the County. The first meeting was held at the end of May. At the community meetings, the Sheriff describes the Sheriff’s Office’s vision and mission statements, organization, and activities. The meetings end with a question and answer session.

Community surveys collect valuable data

A best practice is to measure citizen satisfaction and sense of safety in their communities. This information is typically collected through periodic community surveys. These surveys can have two important purposes: First, they are a tool for law enforcement agencies to get feedback about how well the community thinks the agency is doing its job. Second, the survey can ask about perceptions of safety in the community.

The Sheriff’s Office strategic plan includes the action item of creating a community survey. Taking this step would provide the Sheriff’s Office with valuable information about the perceptions and values of county citizens. The Sheriff’s Office should develop and track performance measures related to customer satisfaction and perceptions of safety based on survey results. This citizen engagement can also be useful for the Sheriff’s Office as it prioritizes its efforts.

17

Based on our review, we have developed a set of recommendations for the Cowlitz County Sheriff that should provide a solid foundation for building its performance management practices. We recommend that the department:

• Identify the Sheriff’s Office’s highest priorities and strategic goals and narrow down the broad scope of the current strategic plan.

• Develop a small set of core performance measures that both address these strategic goals and that also provide basic information on department resource use and efficiency.

• Identify the data needed to support these core measures and streamline the data collection processes as necessary.

• Collect the information regularly and meet with chiefs periodically to review progress (quarterly). Use the information to identify any performance, resource use or cost trends, and to inform the annual budget submittal.

Focus on strategic goals. Identify the department’s highest priority goals and focus its performance management efforts there first. Simplifying and revising the existing strategic plan developed by the former Sheriff would be a good first step. We recommend using a logic model approach to identify the objectives and strategies that will help the department reach these goals. By understanding how the department provides the services that drive those goals, management can collect and analyze data that can help inform decisions about services, programs, and funding.

Develop a small set of measures to report on strategic goals. Develop a small set of measures that provide fundamental information on resource use and efficiency. It is important to keep in mind that performance measures take time and energy to track and report. The Sheriff’s Office should start small and focus on the highest priority goals, especially as it begins this performance management effort.

Determine data needed to support these core measures. Determine data needed, identify data sources, and streamline collection practices. The Sheriff’s Office may want to prioritize and select some of the performance measures that are standard practice in law enforcement.

Collect and review data regularly. Collect the information regularly and meet with chiefs periodically to review progress (quarterly). The Sheriff’s Office should use the information to identify ongoing performance, resource use and cost trends, and to inform ongoing budget management.

Recommendations

Appendix A: Recommended Resources for the Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office

1818

Performance measurement for law enforcement

David J. Roberts, Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Creating Performance Measures That Work: A Guide for Executives and Managers, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2006). Available online at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2481

Measuring Police Performance: Why it Matters, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Online article available at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2466

Staffing

Jeremy M. Wilson and Alexander Weiss, “Staffing the ‘Small’ Department: Taking Stock of Existing Benchmarks and Promising Approaches,” The Police Chief 80 (April 2013): 34–40. Available online at: http://ww.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=2906&issue_id=42013

Community Engagement

Deborah Weisel, Conducting Community Surveys: A Practical Guide for Law Enforcement Agencies, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (1999). Online article available here http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=600

Washington examples from peer counties

Benton County’s Budget Award book includes performance measures for each county department. The County Sheriff’s section of the document begins on page 277. It is available at http://benton.municipalcms.com/docview.aspx?docid=10772

Clallam County is another county that includes performance measures with its budget summaries for each department. These documents are available at http://www.clallam.net/bocc/Budget2013.html.

Clark County’s most recent Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report includes information on the Sheriff’s Office. It is available at http://www.clark.wa.gov/auditor/audit/documents/ServiceEffortsandAccomplishments2007to2011.pdf


The Performance Center provides resources on many topics, including:

Common Local Government Performance Measures: http://portal.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter/#/address?mid=6&rid=18321

Logic Modeling (guidelines and template) http://portal.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter/#/address?mid=6&rid=18376

Citizen Survey Template Toolkit http://portal.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter/#/address?mid=6&rid=18473

www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp%3FItem%3D2481

www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp%3FItem%3D2466

Staffing%0DJeremy%20M.%20Wilson%20and%20Alexander%20Weiss%2C%20%22Staffing%20the%20%E2%80%98Small%E2%80%99%20Department:%20Taking%20Stock%20of%20Existing%20Benchmarks%20and%20Promising%20Approaches%2C%22%20The%20Police%20Chief%2080%20%28April%202013%29:%2034%E2%80%9340.%20Available%20online%20at:%20http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Ddisplay%26article_id%3D2906%26issue_id%3D42013

Staffing%0DJeremy%20M.%20Wilson%20and%20Alexander%20Weiss%2C%20%22Staffing%20the%20%E2%80%98Small%E2%80%99%20Department:%20Taking%20Stock%20of%20Existing%20Benchmarks%20and%20Promising%20Approaches%2C%22%20The%20Police%20Chief%2080%20%28April%202013%29:%2034%E2%80%9340.%20Available%20online%20at:%20http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Ddisplay%26article_id%3D2906%26issue_id%3D42013

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=600

http://benton.municipalcms.com/docview.aspx?docid=10772

http://benton.municipalcms.com/docview.aspx?docid=10772

www.clallam.net/bocc/budget2013.html

www.clark.wa.gov/auditor/audit/documents/ServiceEffortsandAccomplishments2007to2011.pdf

www.clark.wa.gov/auditor/audit/documents/ServiceEffortsandAccomplishments2007to2011.pdf

http://portal.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter/%23/address%3Fmid%3D6%26rid%3D18321



Appendix B: Scope And Methodology

1919

This comprehensive Performance Management Review for the Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office is designed to assess the approach, information, and tools the organization uses to manage performance. The scope of the project included a review of the Office’s strategic goals and objectives, the methods and tools used to manage department performance and communicate with the public, and an assessment of the Office’s needs based on a comparison to leading law enforcement performance management practices and those of some of Cowlitz County’s peers.

Our first step was to meet with the Sheriff and senior management to review and discuss the goals and objectives that drive the Office’s performance management needs. We followed up with a second meeting with supervisory staff (sergeants) from the Office’s separate Divisions to develop an understanding of their work responsibilities, and corresponding performance management needs and existing practices.

The Sheriff’s Office provided us with their planning and management documents currently used to monitor and report performance, resource use, workload and costs. Some of the information that we reviewed included the Office’s strategic plan, budget request documents, and materials used to report on the Office’s activities and performance to the County’s citizens. We also requested a selection of the Office’s workload and performance data.

To provide external perspective and benchmarks, we researched law enforcement-specific best practices related to performance management and measurement, with a particular emphasis on identifying practices relevant for smaller local governments. We also researched the ways that similar Washington counties report on the performance of the Sheriff’s Office.

20

Local Government Performance CenterPerformance Center’s Purpose

The Local Government Performance Center within the State Auditor’s Office offers tools, training, and other technical assistance to help local leaders who want their governments to work better, cost less, and improve the value of their services to citizens.

The Center’s three main components include:

• An online clearinghouse of performance tools and case studies.

• Training, including online classes and presentations at local government conferences and events.

• On-site training to assess and improve specific areas or programs on request.

State Auditor Independence

The purpose of the State Auditor’s Office is to help governments improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency of their operations. This work does not constitute an audit as defined by the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, and providing this service does not impair the Auditor’s organizational independence.

Contacts for more information

Sheri Sawyer, Assistant Director of the Local Government Performance Center, (360) 725-9745

Brian Willett, Performance Analyst, (360) 725-9731

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter

Twitter: @LocalGovPerform

Americans with Disabilities

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document will be made available in alternate formats. Please call (360) 902-0370 for more information.

This report was prepared for the State Auditor’s Office

by FLT Consulting, Inc.


www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter

Local Government Performance CenterSCORE Performance Measure AssessmentDecember 11, 2013

Th e staff at the South Correctional Entity (SCORE) is developing the measures and charts necessary to give them the information they need to operate the jail and communicate performance to its member cities. SCORE is doing a good job identifying the performance indicators needed to make fi nancial decisions about workload and staffi ng. We recommended ways SCORE could provide more information about its performance and improve its display of data.

Photo courtesy of Sam Van Fleet Photography

I ndependence • Respec t • I ntegrit y

AU

DITOR OF STATE

W

A S H I N G T O NNOV 11, 1889

Washington State Auditor’s Office

Troy Kelley

SCORE performance measure assessment | 2

Introduction

Th e South Correctional Entity (SCORE) is a misdemeanor jail serving seven member cities and a number of contract agencies in the southern Puget Sound area of King County. Th e seven member cities are Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila.Th e facility opened in September 2011 and has a bed capacity of 802; the classifi cation capacity (the maximum number of usable beds) is 681 beds. Th e classifi cation capacity is a common and needed capacity to accommodate various classifi cations of inmates and to handle surges in inmate population. Currently, the member cities have budgeted to operate 380 of the available beds. In addition to facilities for video arraignments, meals and medical services, the jail provides space for educational, community transition, and food service job training programs.Th e member cities are assessed a rate every year to cover the operating costs of the jail based on their use of the facility. Contract agencies are billed at a diff erent rate, and the funds generated serve to supplement the operating costs of the facility and keep the member cities’ rates down.Over the past year, the inmate population from contract agencies has increased dramatically, and now the managers at the jail feel pressure to increase staffi ng to meet the needs of the expanding inmate population.In May 2013, the SCORE Director contacted the Local Government Performance Center requesting an assessment of the jail’s current performance measures. Since its inception, the jail has collected and charted data as a management decision-making aid. As the jail and member cities have matured in their use of measures, the SCORE Director wanted an objective evaluation of their measures to identify options to improve what measures SCORE is tracking and how it is displaying the information. Th e Director wanted to communicate to representatives from the member cities the jail’s performance and needs relating to the increasing population.Th e Director requested that we evaluate the set of measures contained in the June 2013 Jail Statistics Report and the 2012 Annual Report. We were also given a draft copy of a cost of service and incremental cost analysis report written by the FCS Group. Our assessment catalogs the types of measures in the reports and reviews how each measure is charted. At the request of the SCORE managers, we did not evaluate the quality of each measure against established criteria, nor did we evaluate actual versus targeted


performance levels.

ResultsTh e staff at SCORE is developing the measures and charts necessary to give them the information they need to operate the jail and communicate performance to the member cities. SCORE is doing a good job identifying the performance indicators needed to make fi nancial decisions about workload and staffi ng. However, the focus on workload and staffi ng measures means other key operational considerations are largely absent from the current set of measures. By carrying out the following recommendations, SCORE could improve its display of data and provide more information about the jail’s performance.

Recommendations:1. Identify strategic goals, objectives and priorities.2. Develop additional performance measures to tell if progress is being made in

accomplishing the strategic goals, objectives and priorities.3. Modify the current chart formats to improve utility, understandability and

clarity.


Performance Measure AssessmentSCORE’s current measures

Th e jail primarily uses its performance measures to keep member cities informed about the jail population. According to the FCS Group report, housing and booking account for roughly 89 percent of the fully-loaded costs for SCORE’s services.Between the 2012 Annual Report and the June 2013 Monthly Jail Statistics Report, we counted 42 measures of all types. Here is our breakdown of the numbers and types of measures:

Twenty-nine of the 42 measures are supplier/input metrics that track workload or categorize the supplier. Th is accounts for 69 percent of all the measures we identifi ed. Th at means the majority of the time and resources SCORE is spending on measures goes into tracking subjects beyond its span of control.Th e most common type of measures reported by SCORE is a version of Billable Average Daily Population (ADP) and the number and type of bookings from the member cities and contract agencies. Th e purpose of these measures is to account for how many inmates each member city is sending to the jail, in order to determine future billing rates.Some representatives of member cities we interviewed expressed gratitude for the available level of detail, but felt overwhelmed by the number of charts in the monthly Jail Statistics Report. SCORE staff we interviewed said the many versions and drill-downs of the ADP and bookings measures were produced at the request of the member cities’ representatives. Th e emphasis on supplier and input measures and the comparative lack of other types of measures make it diffi cult for SCORE staff to engage representatives from the member cities in decision-making conversations beyond how many inmates each city books and pays to confi ne in the jail.

Type of measure

Supplier Input Process Output Customer Outcome Effi ciency Other

16 13 5 5 1 1 0 1

38% 31% 11.9% 11.9% 2.4% 2.4% 0.0% 2.4%

See Appendix A for a complete description of the diff erent types of performance measures.


Recommendation – Create a strategic plan.

An organization can collect data and make a chart out of any number of measurable topics. When charted over time, the reader will be able to see if the data points are increasing, decreasing, or staying about the same.True performance management requires more than just data and charts. Th e organization needs to identify the purpose of its measures with goals, objectives and priorities. From there, setting a baseline and establishing targets gives readers the necessary context to determine if performance is improving and progress is being made on the organizational goals and objectives. Managers then need to regularly review the data and charts, combined with the context of past performance, goals, objectives, targets and baselines. Th is creates an “as-is” view of current performance capabilities that can be contrasted with the desired “should-be” state. If there is no gap between “as-is” and the “should-be” performance, managers should work to maintain current conditions. If a gap exists between the two states, managers should work to change the underlying processes and systems to bring the “as-is” in alignment with the “should-be”.Th e 2012 SCORE Annual Report contains some quantifi able elements that have the potential to be performance measures if the agency were to develop a strategic plan. For example, SCORE reports staff gender and ethnicity. Without a planning goal to increase staff diversity and the related strategies to recruit, promote and retain diverse staff , the information is just a descriptive demographic of the current SCORE condition. Another example from the Annual Report is the recidivism rate for the inmates. Th is is a useful measure of the eff ectiveness of the job training, educational and re-entry programs, but only if these programs have specifi c goals and strategies in place to minimize the number of inmates who reoff end. Without the indicated goals and strategies, the signifi cance of the recidivism rate is unclear.

Recommendation – Develop additional measures related to

strategic goals, objectives and priorities.

During the interviews with SCORE staff and the representatives from the member cities, we learned the jail has a target to complete bookings quickly. Th e target is to limit the arresting offi cer’s time at the SCORE facility to 10 minutes or less. We did not see measures related to this target showing the arresting offi cer’s current booking time or the total SCORE booking process cycle time. Supporting the 10-minute booking goal with accurate and consistent measures could yield information about ways to improve the current process. We also heard during the interviews that there is a concern that SCORE staff is required to work a signifi cant amount of overtime to cover shift s with the appropriate number of correctional offi cers per inmate. Th e increasing number of contract agency inmates is stressing the system, increasing the need for overtime. We also heard some member cities are reluctant to let SCORE add correctional offi cers because it might increase the rate they pay. We found no measures or charts that tracked the number of overtime hours or the staff /inmate ratio. Th e data is available, because it appears in the FCS Group report. Having this data on hand in the form of a performance measure might give SCORE staff and the member cities the information to make better decisions about staffi ng levels, overtime usage, and the appropriate rate to charge both member cities and contract agencies. Proper staffi ng levels may also correlate with inmate and staff safety.


Potential additional measures for consideration

Th e 2012 SCORE Annual Report contains a number of quantifi able statistics. Th e following could be converted into relevant performance measures with charts and tables by adding data beyond the current year totals and measuring/reporting more frequently. However, without the goals, objectives and strategies from a strategic plan, it is diffi cult to evaluate the relevance of these potential measures:

• Th e number of prescription medications administered per month/quarter (Output)

• Th e number of inmate medical examinations per month/quarter (Output)• Th e number of inmate mental health consultations per month/quarter

(Output)• Th e number of emergency room referrals per quarter (Process)• Th e number of Video Court appearances per month/quarter (Output)• Th e number of inmate incidents/violations resulting in a an additional

criminal charge while incarcerated per quarter (Process)• Th e number and type of reportable employee injuries per quarter (Process)• Th e number and type of life-saving incidents per quarter (Process)

In addition to the quantifi able metrics in the reports, SCORE should consider adding some effi ciency measures to the set of measures reported to the member cities to help explain the costs of running the facility. Here are a few suggestions:

• Average cost per inmate per day• Average medical costs per inmate per month/quarter• Average transportation cost per inmate• Average cost per video arraignment

Recommendation – Modify the current charts to improve utility,

understandability and clarity.

Th e purpose of converting data into a chart is to increase understanding and provide a backdrop for better communication and decision making. Improving the quality of an organization’s charts tends to reveal hidden information, add context, or correct improper assumptions.SCORE staff has done a good job converting their data into charts. Many organizations simply leave data in tables or spreadsheets. Here are two suggestions to modify the jail’s existing charts to improve readability and analysis:

• Limit the use of color. Use color to highlight something important or improve understanding.

• Use run charts to show performance over time. Run charts allow analysts to predict future performance levels and detect when changes to the underlying processes and systems have occurred.

Th e following illustrations present a set of example charts as they existed in the SCORE Annual Report or the Monthly June Jail Statistics Report and how an alternate charting style can improve utility, understandability and clarity.


Charting – Example 1Total monthly bookings

Bar charts are best used to compare things to each other. Run charts are much better at showing performance over time. Using baselines helps put data in context and makes it easier to identify performance changes and trends.

Issues with the format:

• Bar charts are not the best tool for showing changes in performance over time.

• Th e 13 colors are not needed and can be distracting.

• Th e large scale leaves a big area with dead space where nothing changes on each bar.

Another way to present the data

• Th e run chart presents 13 data points better than a bar chart.

• Th e scale shows the increase more clearly and eliminates the dead space.

• Th e median gives a sense of context for the recent growth by providing a baseline.


Charting – Example 2SCORE Member Agency Felony Investigative and Custody Transfer

Bookings

Th e following graph is set up to compare the performance of three types of bookings each month against each other. A diff erent style of graph can show how each type of booking is changing over time.


• Reds and greens and two shades of the same color are very diffi cult for readers to see.

• Th e use of more than 30 bars makes it diffi cult to compare.

• Th e emergence of felony rush to county bookings is hard to pick out from the other bars in the chart.


• Th e trends are easier to see when each type of booking is displayed separately.

• Th is chart style shows changes over time more distinctly.


Charting – Example 3 Member and Contract Average Daily Population

As in earlier examples, a run chart can show performance over time better than a bar chart. Th e use of stacked bars makes it diffi cult to see how the size of one key piece has changed over time. A run chart can show that change more clearly.


• Th e colors can be diffi cult to distinguish.

• Th e graph clearly shows the overall growth, but the growth in each type is hard to see.

• Th e increasing trend in contract bookings is masked by the other categories.


• Th e trends are easier to see when each type of population is displayed separately.

• Th e increasing trend in the contract population stands out clearly.

• No legend is needed to show the diff erent types.


Charting – Example 4A Member City’s Average Daily Population

Here is a good use of a run chart to show performance over time, but there are ways to improve upon its use. Showing performance in one continuous line could make it easier to see the long-term trends. Adding a baseline and a description of expectations could also give the data more context.


• Splitting the years makes it diffi cult to see the overall trend.

• Th e chart does not show how the performance compares to expectations.


• Showing the data together shows that the overall trend is downward, not upward.

• Comparing the performance to the budget expectation gives the reader more context.


Charting – Example 5 Bookings by Agency

Pie charts are useful for determining the relative size of each slice. When there are lots of slices, or the size of the slices are diffi cult to determine, pie charts can be confusing. Sometimes, the best way to present the data is in a table. Another way to show the data and improve understanding is to use a Pareto Chart. Pareto Charts are laid out in descending from largest to smallest while also providing the total value. Th e Pareto Chart clearly shows that the four largest member cities account for 70 percent of the bookings.


• Th ere are too many slices and many of the slices are so small they are very hard to see.

• Pie charts are at their best when the pie clearly shows distinct size diff erence between parts of a whole.

• Readers have to look at the number of bookings on each slice to distinguish which ones are bigger.

Another way to present the data:

• A Pareto Chart can present the data in descending order so the comparative size of each bar is clear.

• Th e curving line shows the cumulative percentage of the whole as each agency is provider is added.

• Th e chart combines the smallest providers into the “Other” category.

• Th e numbers are presented on the left , while the percentage is presented on the right.


Summary of suggested improvements to SCORE’s graphs:

• Use run charts, not bar charts, to show performance over time.• Don’t break out the current year’s data from the previous year on line

charts and run charts.• Use lines depicting targets or budgets to add context and meaning.• Use tables or Pareto Charts when there are too many categories for a pie

chart.• Tone down the use of color for decorative purposes.

Results

Performance management organizations continually refi ne and improve their performance measures. However, measuring every available data element raises costs and can limit focus on what matters. Measures should support the organization’s goals and priorities by giving managers information about whether key performance elements are getting better, worse, or staying about the same. Selecting the right type and number of measures requires patience and perserverance.Th e way data is displayed can either clarify or obscure the information management needs to make decisions.Th e managers at SCORE are well on their way to developing a comprehensive suite of performance measures that should be able to give them the information they need to operate the jail and communicate important performance elements to their member cities. Implementing the recommendations detailed in this report should help them further along this path:1. Identify strategic goals, objectives and priorities.2. Develop additional performance measures to tell if progress is being made in

accomplishing the strategic goals, objectives and priorities.3. Modify the current chart formats to improve utility, understandability and

clarity.


Appendix A: Types of measures

Th e type of measure comes from the part of the system it is meant to monitor. Most work can be described as a system. Th e basic element of a system is the process. Th e process is made up of three elements; what you make (outputs), how you make them (process) and what you need for the process to work (inputs). To describe the system of work, expand the process to include who uses the outputs (customers), where the inputs come from (suppliers), and what are the expected results of this work (outcomes).

Diff erent categories of measures used in this assessment:

Outputs - Productivity counts – How many reports, audits, permits, contracts, plans, citations, etc. does the organization issue or make in any given period?Customer – Do the outputs meet the needs and expectations of the people who use them? Examples include: number of complaints, compliance rates and satisfaction survey data.Outcomes – Results and program eff ectiveness – How well is the organization accomplishing its purpose and mission? Are people safer or healthier, does traffi c move better, is the environment cleaner, is there more economic development, etc.? It is important to understand that organizations do not control outcomes; they can only hope to infl uence them.Process – Information about the work that goes into making or delivering the outputs. How long does it take, how big is the backlog, how much overtime is needed, how much does it cost, etc.?Inputs – Th e amount of resources and information needed by the process. Th is also includes measures of workload. Examples include front counter or phone call traffi c counts, applications fi led, staffi ng and budget numbers, etc.Suppliers – Identifi es, counts, and categorizes who delivers the inputs.Effi ciency – A special kind of process measure that establishes the unit cost of an output; calculated by dividing an input by the number of outputs produced. Examples include miles per gallon, staff hours per audit, or cost per permit.Other – A quantifi able measure or metric that doesn’t fi t into one of the other categories. Common examples include background or demographic information like the ratio of men to women or a budget breakdown by department.

Defi nition of a process

Defi nition of a system


Appendix B: 10 elements we look for when assessing performance measures Measure selection is focused, balanced, useful and manageable:

1. Measures report on progress toward achieving strategic goals and priorities.2. Management can use the data and charts to evaluate performance and identify

needs.3. Th e number of measures is limited to the most relevant aspects of performance.4. Measures address a balance of system perspectives, including:

• Workload• Productivity• Program eff ectiveness• Customer satisfaction• Service quality• Process speed and timeliness• Effi ciency

Reporting is consistent, clear, detailed, and comparative:

5. Data are collected frequently so reports can be produced quarterly or monthly6. Performance is communicated graphically with easy to understand tables and

charts.7. Th ere is enough information on each chart to identify patterns and trends.8. Current performance can be compared to baselines, benchmarks and targets.

Leaders use the information to manage, follow-up and communicate:

9. Management considers the information when making important decisions about budgets, priorities, and ways to improve performance.

10. Departments report on the changes designed to improve performance and desired results.



Performance Center’s PurposeTh e Local Government Performance Center within the State Auditor’s Offi ce off ers tools, training, and other technical assistance to help local leaders who want their governments to work better, cost less, and improve the value of their services to citizens.Th e Center’s three main components include:

• An online clearinghouse of performance tools and case studies.• Training, including online classes and presentations at local government

conferences and events.• On-site training to assess and improve specifi c areas or programs on request.

State Auditor IndependenceTh e purpose of the State Auditor’s Offi ce is to help governments improve the eff ectiveness, effi ciency, and transparency of their operations. Th is work does not constitute an audit as defi ned by the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, and providing this service does not impair the Auditor’s organizational independence.

Contacts for more informationSheri Sawyer, Assistant Director of the Local Government Performance Center, (360) 725-9745Brian Willett, Performance Analyst, (360) 725-9731Email: [email protected]: www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceCenter

More SCORE informationWebsite: www.scorejail.org

The Washington State Auditor’s Offi ce is an Equal Employment Opportunity employer. Persons with a disability who need assistance in the applications process, or who need this information in an alternate format, may call 360-725-5623 or the telecommunications device for the hearing impaired at 1-800-833-6388.

Exhibit 5

Lean Academy Start Up Guide


Like most governments, cities and counties in Washington State are being asked to do more with less. They have slashed budgets, reduced staff , and eliminated programs – but still struggle with delivering required services using existing resources.

In a 2012 performance management needs assessment, 72 percent of city and county respondents told the Local Government Performance Center that they were unfamiliar or need help with successfully implementing process improvement techniques.

There are many process improvement methodologies that have been used in the private sector and are making their way to the public sector. Whatever the name – Lean, Six Sigma, Kaizen – the key tenants of any process improvement technique are to reduce variation, remove waste and manage constraints of any process. The successful end result is quick action that improves service delivery and reduces costs.

At no cost to your jurisdiction – other than your time and travel expenses - you and your team will receive Lean training and a facilitated Lean- Kaizen workshop at your jurisdiction. Additional coaching and learning activities follow the workshops.

This Academy is designed for organizations who are considering a process improvement methodology, whether in the “I’d like to know more” phase, or the “let’s do it!” phase. The successful organization will be one that commits the time, energy and resources to the program activities. You get out of it what you put into it.


Th e Lean Academy Guide

Business Government

Investors TaxpayersBoard of Directors Government board or

LegislatureCEO County/City Manager or

GovernorBusiness Unit Department of DivisionProducts or Services Products or Services

Business versus Government

Acco

unta

bilit

y

Business Government

Investors TaxpayersBoard of Directors Government board or

LegislatureCEO County/City Manager or

GovernorBusiness Unit Department of DivisionProducts or Services Products or Services

Business versus Government

Acco

unta

bilit

y

initiator:[email protected];wfState:distributed;wfType:email;workflowId:1ebabe2d3489d8419b22b3d741a8e852


The components of the program

Introduction to Lean Workshop

If your organization has not participated in an Introduction to Lean workshop, we will provide an overview of Lean concepts, introduction to Lean tools, and some practice applying them. Participants will walk away with the knowledge, tools and confi dence needed to identify process improvements and participate fully in Lean events, particularly those in offi ce or government settings.

Pre-Kaizen Event Training

Learn the basics of Lean and how to prepare and lead a successful Lean kaizen team

In this training, we will re-cap the basics of Lean and learn how to prepare for a successful Lean Kaizen event. There are several goals at this crucial fi rst phase: understand the need for Lean, develop a vision for the kaizen event, develop a project plan, develop a communication plan, and build commitment for Lean principles. Most important is training on how to select appropriate Lean projects.

Specifi c topics will include:

1. Create a scope and project plan for the Lean kaizen event, which includes: clear vision for event, timeline, deliverables, desired outcomes, boundaries, metrics, and a few potential processes/value streams to target during the event.

2. Identify champions and sponsors for the event -These are the leaders who will participate in the Kaizen event and generate enthusiasm, ensure that attendees have the necessary time off , communicate direction, help follow through on process improvements and decisions made during the event and more.

3. Select event participants - We will help develop selection criteria and guidelines.

4. Assess readiness – We will discuss the driving forces and barriers to implementing improvements and general support for Lean activities. We will help determine what data needs to be collected before the kaizen event.

5. Communicate the vision, event plan, and realistic expectations for the kaizen event – We will discuss relevant strategies and methods to accomplish this and will develop a tailored communication plan.

2

Who should attend

Up to 50 participants including, but not limited to, executive sponsors and those expected to participate in the Lean kaizen event.

Duration

Four hours

Who should attend

High performers who are respected by their peers and excited about creating a better place to work. Leadership and project management skills required.

Duration

One day


Lean Kaizen Workshop

Discover and implement breakthrough improvements in the way work is done

In this fi ve-day workshop, participants will use Lean methodology to root out waste, improve quality, and improve morale. The goal of this workshop is to discover ways to do more with less: increase productive capacity. The workshop team is guided to exploit improvement opportunities that (a) are low- or no-cost and (b) can be implemented immediately.

Typical deliverables:

• Increased capacity

• Improved quality

• Process map of the new process

• Implementation plan

• Communication plan

• Standard work

Post-Kaizen Coaching

Personal Lean Coaching via telephone

The cohort of Lean team leaders will receive three two-hour sessions of Lean coaching at one-month intervals at approximately 30, 60 and 90 days after completion of the kaizen.

3

Who should attend

The leader who holds budget authority over the process being improved (this is a sponsorship role - does not require full-time participation)

The Lean team leader

Subject-matter experts familiar with the process being analyzed and mapped

People who actually do the work

Duration

Five days

How to select a Kaizen workshop project

Make a list of potential processes by considering processes with the greatest perceived problems:

• Backlogs

• Customer complaints

• Quality issues

• Performance measures that don’t meet targets

• Recognizable “wastes” (overproduction, waiting, transportation, over-processing, inventories, movement, defects)

• Not enough capacity to launch a new product or service

Looking at the process list, consider these questions for each potential project:

• What is the desired outcome for each project (e.g., improve quality, increase customer satisfaction, better work fl ow, eliminate errors)?

• Does it have a highly motivated leader/champion?

• Are the employees who do the process motivated to meet customer needs?

• Are they open to learning and improvement?

• Are key managers engaged?

• Will the improvement lead to money savings, re-direct resources, or free up capacity?

• Will the improvement benefi t customers?

• Will the improvement benefi t employees?

• Does it align with your strategic plan?

• Will you see results immediately? Within a year?

If you are just starting your Lean journey, consider saving these project on your list for

when you have more Lean experience:

• Dependent on other risky projects

• Too broad – a process that involves multiple external organizations

• Too narrow – a process that involves only one person

• Managers over the process are unwilling to change or improve

• Politically sensitive

• Requires a large fi nancial investment


4

Lean Academy Application

Name:

About your organizationStrongly disagree

Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat

agreeStrongly

agree N/A

Our organization has a clearly defi ned strategyThe strategy is communicated consistently throughout the organizationThe strategy is key to our organization’s successThe strategy does not change often

The strategy is well known by everyone in the organizationA process improvement approach is viewed as critical to achieving the strategyOur leadership team is committed to making Lean workOur organization embraces change

Our organization sticks to process improvement eff orts

Organization:

Department:

Email:

Phone:

Comments:

initiator:[email protected];wfState:distributed;wfType:email;workflowId:d3e6ceaad2ef0e4c89196117f0172a37

Lean Academy Application

1. Have you participated in any Lean or process improvement related training? If so what? When?

2. What is the process you are trying to improve with the Lean Academy?

3. Why does this process need to be changed?

4. How is the improvement project relevant to your organization’s objectives?

5. Do you have executive-level support for your project?

6. How will the organization benefi t if this process is improved?

7. How will the customers benefi t if the process is improved?

8. Do you have performance measures currently in place for this process? If so, what are they?

9. What do you want to change and by how much?

10. Who might be impacted by changes to the process?

11. How could you involve them in the change?

12. Who do you think needs to serve on the Lean Academy Team?

13. Who needs to approve any changes before they are implemented?

Additional Comments:

Please submit this application or email to Sheri Sawyer at [email protected]. For questions, please call 360-725-9745.