⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 5 findings
F1
“The Community Indicators” or activity trend section of the Performance Measurement Reports is too outdated to be of any use to department and division managers, but may be of interest to residents and elected officials. The Grand Jury recognizes the value of this information, but questions its distribution as part of the PMR. The Napa County Website seems to be a better tool for distributing important up-to-date activity levels.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Post key activity levels (“Community Indicators”) on the county website annually, or more frequently if data are available, and no later than 60 days following the end of the period being reported. 7
F2
The Grand Jury finds that the standards for establishing performance measurements that were found in the August 15, 2013 Budget Performance Measures Training manual to be a valuable resource. Unfortunately, the current version of the PMR does not adhere to the best practices outlined in that manual, particularly in identifying measures that are timely and focused on controllable factors.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The Grand Jury found that the process to produce and publish the PMR is expensive and largely futile. The over 300 pages of material contains mostly rote information that changes little from year to year other than entering the most current year’s figures. Nar- ratives seldom change significantly.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Discontinue publication of the Performance Measurement Report in its current form. If the Board of Supervisors finds the activity tracking and/or division overviews useful, produce them in a more condensed and efficient way. Use the website to do so whenever possible.
F4
The timing and frequency of the PMR build in delays that make it of no practical use other than providing long term activity trends. The report is of no use to budget analysts, who must have more current data for forecasting and budgeting, or to line managers who must have current data to allocate resources.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Discontinue publication of the Performance Measurement Report in its current form. If the Board of Supervisors finds the activity tracking and/or division overviews useful, produce them in a more condensed and efficient way. Use the website to do so whenever possible.
F5
Given the significant time and effort required to produce the PMR, and its limited useful- ness, the Grand Jury finds that the cost of this report far exceeds its value and therefore concludes that there is no fiscally sound reason to continue producing the report in its current form.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Discontinue publication of the Performance Measurement Report in its current form. If the Board of Supervisors finds the activity tracking and/or division overviews useful, produce them in a more condensed and efficient way. Use the website to do so whenever possible.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 6Monitoring activity trends, productivity, and service levels is an important part of managing any well run organization, and the interviews conducted by the Grand Jury indicate that the county management team universally employs those tools in its management practices. However, those measurements were developed by county managers for their own use and have nothing to do with the PMR. It is clear to the Grand Jury that the Performance Measurement Reports which are intended to help county managers develop and employ performance metrics and inform the Board of Supervisors and the public about the activities of the county government aren’t living up to expectations. Activity levels reported in the PMR are too delayed to be of any use other than establishing long term trends. Many of the productivity and service level measurements do not measure either productivity or service. Preparation of the PMR has come to be a rote task for divisions and departments, completed because it is a required task, not because it is of any 6 use to them, other than providing the Board of Supervisors some summary level information about their operations. Given an annual cost to produce the report of about $60,000, the jury questions the justification for continuing the report in its current form.
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Napa County
County
Napa County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office