Inquiry Into Performance Measures for Human Services Departments

Conclusions 1

• CL1 Page 4
  Many of the conditions found that led to poor grades for the County in the Governing report remain in place. Among them are “there is virtually no validation of measures, little use of targets in management process, and that few performance measures trace outcomes.” One of the few areas where the County earned a high grade in the report was for the Enterprise Data Warehouse and its uses by Promise (performance tracking system) and CSE which “brought easier access to information about mental health, juvenile services and probation.” A change in overall departmental orientation, from service delivery to recidivism reduction, whether in Corrections, or across the human services spectrum, can only come from the top administrators and the Board of Supervisors. It requires making departmental expectations and consequences clear. Policymakers have the right and responsibility to know how public funds are being spent and how effectively they are allocated. 4 Human service-related agencies that are charged with a mission of rehabilitating clients (rather than protective, service, or product oriented functions) bear a special burden since their goal is to reduce the need for public assistance. Giving aid, without helping the recipient become independent of it, could be seen as doing everyone a disservice. Finding I County human services departments have been slow compared to other counties in implementing performance measures that evaluate end results for their programs and contracts. Most existing performance measures only quantify the amount of service rendered, several do not match the departmental missions, and some programs are not measured at all. Recommendation I The County Executive should require human services department managers to set performance measures for their programs and contracts that relate to their mission and measure the effectiveness of all programs and out-sourced contracts rather than only the quantity of services rendered. Finding II Some, but not all County human services departments recognize that recidivism is an important performance measure. Recommendation II The County Executive should consider making recidivism one benchmark measure of success, including it in the mission, public purpose statement, and performance measures of all human services departments. Finding III Performance measurements in several important human service areas are not scientifically rigorous. Recommendation III County human services departments should design performance measures that are scientifically rigorous, avoiding statistical pitfalls in evaluating performance outcomes. 5 Finding IV Data bank systems in the County (such as Promise) exist that could be used to improve the rigor and effectiveness of performance measures. CSE has the capability to locate best-practice information for application to County human services functions. Recommendation IV The County Executive should consider broadening CSE’s mandate to cover adults and to assist human services departments in setting and measuring performance goals using County data systems more effectively. PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 8th day of June, 2004. ________________________________ Richard H. Woodward Foreperson 6

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.