09-14-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESULTS FOR CITIZENS, OPTIONS FOR OFFICIALS create obstacles to effective operation, enterprises should be freed from those constraints. In developing contracts, the local governments should set performance measures and provide incentives for superior results. Our goal is that local governments could choose from several competing enterprises (or other local govern ments) in carrying out their functions. There are several interesting examples in Great Britain and the United States of transforming govenuTient operations into enterprises. During the 1980s, the Conservative government in Great Britain began to transform large ponions of the public service bureaus of government into self- contained agencies. These new agencies are to be headed by strong executives with broad discretion over staffing and budgets, and arc given clear performance targets. We sec several advantages of this approach: Creating thc.se enterprises would allow city councils and county boards to shed some of their operating responsibilities and focus their work on policy making. At the same time, they would have a choice of competitive providers. Because they have to earn their budget, managers and employees of these enterprises would have stronger incentives to adopt a customer-service orientation. ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO CHOOSE RESULTS-BASED REGULATION In many ce»vicc areas, local govcmmc; is arc the final delivery point in a state-local service system. Over the years, a complex system of mandated procedures has been instituted in some of these areas. For example, if a county is providing .services to a child with developmental dfsabMities ;uid severe behavior problems, it will go through a scries of planning processes and assemble intcrcisciplinary teams to develop different indivic lali/.cd plans for the child's special needs. 3ccause of this focus on process -- doing things right, less attention is paid to results - doing Uk right thing. In cases where local government is carrying out those shaied responsibilities (including mo.st mandates), we propose giving those units significant flexibility to craft a new kind of relationship with the state. We recommend: □ Local units of government and state agencies should develop contract relationships that focus on results. Such agreements would give the local unit significant flexibility for how it reaches those goais. The local unit and the responsible state agency could negotiate a contract (or a scries of contracts) which would specify performance standards ar.u expected results. Our recommendation is very similar to the social services contracting proposal included in H.F. 2420, introduced in 1992 by Representative Wayne Simoneau and Senator Don Samuelson. The Legislature passed that bill, an initiative of ArK)ka Countv. Social services provide the clearest example of where results-based regulation might apply. However, there are many other possible examples in areas such as education, licensing and inspec tion functions. For a variety of service areas, local government should be given a choice. Either they can work under the current regime of adminisu^tive rules or a more "entrcprcneurially- friendly" system based on performance standards and results. CREATE A "VALUE FOR MONEY" AUDITING FUNCTION FOR LOCA! GOVERNMENTS The state should fill a gap in its performance auditing capabilities. No office is charged to evaluate the performance of local govcmmeni.s. The State Auditor conducts or supervises financial audits of local governments. The Legislative Auditor evaluates programs of stare agencies and audits their books. We recommend: □ The Legislature should direct the Legislative Auditor or the St:ite Auditor io develop and implement a program of performance auditing of local governments.