Service Efforts Accomplishments

Transcription

1 Prince William County, Virginia Service Efforts Accomplishments & Report For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 Prince William Board of County Supervisors Corey A. Stewart - At Large Chairman Martin E. Nohe - Coles District Vice-Chairman Hilda M. Barg - Woodbridge District Maureen S. Caddigan - Dumfries District W.S. "Wally" Covington, III - Brentsville District John D. Jenkins - Neabsco District Michael C. May - Occoquan District John T. Stirrup - Gainesville District Craig S. Gerhart County Executive

2 The 2006 Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report is available online at Printing by the Prince William County Graphic Arts and Print Shop 5001 Prince William Parkwary, Woodbridge, Virginia Where Paper & Concept Meet

3 Assistant County Executives Melissa S. Peacor Susan L. Roltsch Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report Coordinator James A. Webster, Internal Audit Director (703) Staff M. Lucinda Mason Lawrence R. Keller Sharen L. Johnson Sandy Blanks Michael A. Hurlocker Jeanna McKinney A special thanks to agencies participating in this report for all their assistance.

4

5 Table of Contents Introduction Transmittal Letter... a Executive Summary... c Prince William County Organizational Chart... w 2006 Service Area Chapters Adult Detention Services...1 Building Development...43 Fire and Rescue...69 Human Resources and Training & Organizational Development Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services Police Property and Facility Management Public Safety Communications Public Welfare Real Estate Assessments Risk Management Tax Administration Appendix Demographic Information by Jurisdiction...371

6 Certificate of Excellence in Service efforts & AccompliShmentS reporting Certificate of Achievement Presented to prince WilliAm county, va For Your Outstanding Efforts in Producing a High Quality Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for Fiscal Year 2005 A Certificate of Achievement in Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting is presented by AGA to state and local governmental entities whose annual performance reports fulfill the Governmental Accounting Standards Board s suggested criteria for communicating results and thereby increasing public accountability. Jeffrey S. Hart, CGFM AGA National President SEA CertReq _v2.indd 3 Relmond P. Van Daniker, DBA, CPA AGA Executive Director 7/24/06 11:51:54 AM

7 Craig S. Gerhart County Executive COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT Corey A. Stewart, Chairman 1 County Complex Court, Prince William, Virginia Martin E. Nohe, Vice-Chairman (703) Metro FAX: (703) Hilda M. Barg Maureen S. Caddigan W.S. Wally Covington, III John D. Jenkins Michael C. May John T. Stirrup April 6, 2007 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: I am pleased to present to you the Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report. This report is a key part of the accountability component of the Prince William County System. Through the SEA Report the community is provided a level of government accountability that is rare because the Report provides information not only on how much is spent on government services but also how well those services are performed. In addition the report provides benchmarks for gauging performance by making comparisons to prior year trend data, to other jurisdictions, and to targets. Last year, Prince William County was one of fourteen jurisdictions in the country to win the Association of Government Accountants (AGA) Certificate of Excellence in Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. The Certificate is presented by the AGA to state and local governmental entities whose annual performance reports fulfill the Governmental Accounting Standards Board s suggested criteria for communicating results and thereby increasing public accountability. Besides providing public accountability the report is used by County staff to review results, raise questions, and when appropriate, initiate change. The SEA Report also provides us with an awareness of how we stack up in some areas against other jurisdictions and thereby injects a level of competition that is generally not present in government operations. Sincerely, Craig S. Gerhart County Executive Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

8

9 INTRODUCTION Traditionally, governments provide the community with information on where tax dollars are spent but provide very little non-anecdotal information on what is accomplished through the expenditure of those funds. This report attempts to provide the community, the Board of County Supervisors, and County management with information on not only what resources are provided to County government agencies but also the results that are achieved by County agencies with the funding provided to them. The report also provides comparisons to performance over the prior five years; the performance of other jurisdictions; and where applicable, targets established in the Strategic Plan and the Adopted Fiscal Plan. Prince William County has entered into the Service Efforts and Accomplishments initiative in the belief that this information will help improve services as well as improve accountability and trust in government. Prince William is one of only a handful of jurisdictions in the Country that provide SEA reporting to the community. The report can be a powerful tool for public accountability and operational improvements if used correctly. However, because of the many factors that may cause variances in the data, care must be taken to not misuse the data by casting blame where substantial variances exist. Substantial variances in critical measures should instead trigger more indepth analysis and, where appropriate, improvements in operating methods and resource allocation. This report responds to direction provided in both the County s Fiscal Year 1996 and Fiscal Year 2000 Strategic Plans. The Fiscal Year 1996 Strategic Plan directed that the County develop SEA reports that provide cost, workload, and performance measures for some major service areas as benchmarked against prior year performance and similar measures in other jurisdictions. In the Fiscal Year 2000 Strategic Plan, the Effective Government Task Force recommended promoting attitudes of accountability by broadening the SEA report to encompass additional major service areas. The original SEA report, issued in January 1995, contained three service areas: Library, Police, and Public Welfare. The report now encompasses twenty-one service areas reported on a biennial cycle. The report follows a biennial cycle to enable broader coverage of service areas than would be possible on an annual cycle with available resources. The current year s report contains twelve major service areas, with the nine service areas reported last year available at Together, the twenty-one major service areas reported on a biennial cycle total 61 percent of the County Fiscal Year 2007 Adopted General Fund Budget (excluding the School Transfer) and also include 54 percent of the Special Revenue Funds, 98 percent of Enterprise Funds and 100 percent of Fire Levy funding. One service area, Property and Facility Management, is presented for the first time in this year s report. Initial data for this report were reviewed by focus groups composed of executive management, agency management and staff, and Internal Audit for the purposes of questioning unusual variances in the reported data and considering the reliability of the information. Agency staff then prepared responses to the questions based on internal information, contacts with their peers in the comparison jurisdictions, and in some cases site visits to the jurisdictions. The resultant contextual information is included in the comments section provided with each SEA indicator. Due to the number and complexity of variables related to many indicators it was not possible to address or fully analyze every variable. REPORT ADVANTAGES By providing key measures of spending, outputs and program results, along with comparative benchmarks, the SEA report is uniquely able to provide objective information that addresses many key questions raised by concerned citizens, elected officials, and management. Examples of these questions include: Does Prince William County spend more on a given service area than other jurisdictions? If so, are the citizens being provided more service or a higher quality of service? Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report c

10 Is a given service area providing more or less service this year than in prior years? Is a given service area effectively accomplishing its key objectives? In addition, the report allows management to see key operating variances that may require attention. The measurement and reporting of performance information allows managers to be aware of where we stand and when it is necessary take action to try and improve performance. The old axiom what gets measured gets done applies to SEA Reporting. The report also promotes public accountability and fosters a spirit of competition by providing comparisons to performance in other jurisdictions. SEA HIGHLIGHTS BY SERVICE AREA While considering the information contained in this report, the reader should be aware that Prince William County has several factors that increase its service level requirements in some areas compared to other jurisdictions. These factors include the highest percent juvenile population of any county in the State and one of the fastest growing populations in the State of Virginia. Also, the community s expectations for services may be heightened by Prince William s location next to relatively wealthy Northern Virginia jurisdictions. As Appendix A (Demographic Information by Jurisdiction) illustrates, the average assessed property value per capita in Prince William County in 2005 (most recent date for which data were available) was between 65 and 67 percent of the average value of a parcel in Loudoun County and Fairfax County. The following tables summarize some notable spending, efficiency, and results indicators for the service areas contained in this report. Reference page numbers are presented at the end of each bullet for readers who wish to read more about the summarized topic Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Prince William County

11 Adult Detention Services Spending Efficiency Results Total spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, increased by 13.1 percent from FY 2001 to FY This increase is largely due to higher costs associated with staff salary and benefits and to a higher inmate average daily population. (pages 5-6) Prince William spent less per capita on adult detention services than Alexandria, Arlington, and Henrico and more than Chesterfield and Fairfax in FY 2005 (the most recent comparison available). (pages 7-8) The percent of ADC funding from local tax support increased from 40.1 percent in FY 2001 to 52.4 percent in FY Part of this increase in local funding was due to cuts in state funding in FY 2003 and FY 2004, due to state budget shortfalls. (pages 11-13) From FY 2001 to FY 2006, the inmate average daily population per authorized employee increased by 2.5 percent, and the ADC average cost per inmate day, adjusted for inflation, increased by 21.8 percent. (pages 17-18, 35-36) Prince William had a lower average cost per Adult Detention Center inmate day than Fairfax, Alexandria, and Arlington, and a higher average cost per inmate day than Chesterfield and Henrico (FY FY 2006). (pages 37-38) The number of sick calls handled decreased by 11.8 percent, but spending for inmate medical services, adjusted for inflation, increased by 55.4 percent from $2.0 million in FY 2001 to $3.1 million in FY (pages 19-20) There were no escapes from the ADC during the six-year period. (page 22) In FY 2004, there were two releases made in error. The ADC took steps to correct the problem; and no other releases were made in error during the period from FY 2001 to FY (page 22) The ADC passed 100 percent of Department of Corrections inspections during the six-year period. (page 23) Crowding continues to be a concern, but the planned expansion should address this problem. (pages 27-28) Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report e

12 Building Development Spending Efficiency Results Between 2001 and 2006 direct expenditures, adjusted for inflation, increased by 71 percent (page 46). Spending was increased to keep up with substantial growth in demand for building development services from 2001 through 2005 and to enhance customer service. From 2001 through 2005 current year fee revenue exceeded expenditures. In 2006, current year fee revenue dropped to 87 percent of expenditures. (page 50) The cost per building permit issued increased 22 percent from 2001 to 2006 as the County added resources to improve customer service and the size and complexity of structures increased. With a decline in building permits issued and an increase in spending, 2006 saw a substantial jump compared to 2005 in cost per building permit issued (page 55) In 2006, Prince William had a higher cost per building permit issued than Fairfax and Loudoun. (page 56) Nonresidential and commercial tenant first submission plans were reviewed far more quickly in 2006 than in (page 62) In 2005, Prince William reviewed first submission nonresidential and residential plans faster than Fairfax, but reviewed commercial tenant layout building plans more slowly than Fairfax. (page 64 and 66) Since 2001 between 92 and 95 percent of inspections were performed on the day requested. (page 67) 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Prince William County

13 Fire and Rescue Spending Efficiency Results Total volunteer and career spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, increased 35% between FY 2001 and FY Increased career hours and 24 hour staffing to support volunteer stations, as well as an increase in capital expenditures (equipment, vehicles, station construction) resulted in a significant increase in spending. (page 74 ) Prince William has fewer authorized fire and rescue career employees per thousand residents than other comparison jurisdictions. (page 79 ) Between FY 2001 and FY 2006, total spending rose 75% while total Fire and EMS incidents increased by 21%. Much of the increase in spending was due to an increase in career staffing, 24 hour staffing, and capital expenditures. (page 84 ) During the six year period development related reviews grew by 265%. (page 84 ) The witnessed cardiac arrest survival rates exceeded the Strategic Plan Goal in FY 2004, FY 2005, and FY (page 86 ) Since FY 2004, compared to other jurisdictions, Prince William has had one of the lowest rates of residential fire related deaths. (page 88 ) The percent of Fire responses within established target times in medium density areas improved 4% between FY 2003 and FY Unfavorable response time trends were experienced in high density and low density areas for the same period. (page 89 ) The percent of BLS responses within target in low density areas improved slightly between FY 2003 and FY 2006, while the percent of response times within target in high density and medium density trended unfavorably. (page 91) The percent of ALS responses within established target times improved slightly in medium density areas but was not favorable in high density and low density areas between FY 2003 and FY ALS response time was impacted by increasing call volumes and population growth, which results in higher traffic density. (page 93) The timeliness of Fire Marshal Office code inspections declined in FY (page 95) In FY 2006 citizen satisfaction with fire protection was 97.9% and with medical rescue was 95.7%. While these satisfaction ratings remain high in FY2006, satisfaction with medical rescue was down from FY (page 99) Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

14 Human Resources and Training & Organizational Development Spending Efficiency Results Spending per capita for human resources (HR) only, adjusted for inflation, increased 8.6 percent over the period FY 2001 through FY Spending on the training and organizational development function (T&OD) that began in FY 2002, increased 241 percent through FY During the period FY 2002 through FY 2006 when both HR and T&OD programs were operating, the combined cost per capita grew 29.4 percent from $5.54 to $7.17. (pages 104 and 105). Prince William spent less per capita than Arlington and Chesterfield during the period FY 2001 through FY 2006 and less than Henrico for FY 2003 and FY Data for Henrico were not available for FY 2005 and FY 2006 data were not available for Fairfax. (page 106). Increases in HR staff contributed to a reduction in the number of county employees per human resources staff member from in FY 2001 to in FY (page 109). However, in each year from FY 2003 through FY 2006, Prince William s HR staff served more employees per staff member than Chesterfield and Arlington and served more than Henrico for FY 2003 and FY FY 2005 and FY 2006 data for Henrico were not available and data for Fairfax were not available). (page 111). The number of training hours per FTE grew substantially during the period, from an average of 2.69 hours in FY 2001 to an average of 9.64 hours in FY Prior to FY 2002, human resources did not have a separate training function. (page 113). The percent of positions paid in accordance with the compensation policy grew substantially during the period FY 2001 through FY Thirty-seven percent were paid in accordance with the policy in FY 2001 while 94.9 percent were paid per the policy in FY 2005 and FY (page 126). The turnover rate declined each year from FY 2001 through FY 2004 before it increased in FY 2005 and recovered partially in FY (page 117). Prince William s turnover rate, excluding retirements, exceeded the rate for Chesterfield from FY 2003 through FY 2006 and exceeded Arlington s rate in FY 2005 and FY Arlington data were not available for FY 2003 and FY Prince William s turnover rate, including retirements, exceeded the rates for Chesterfield in FY 2005 and FY 2006 and for Arlington in FY Arlington s rate exceeded Prince William s rate in FY Data for Fairfax and Henrico were not available for the period and data for Chesterfield and Arlington were not available for some of the periods. (pages 118 and 119). h 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Prince William County

15 Human Resources and Training & Organizational Development Spending Efficiency Results Executive Summary Average hours of sick leave used per employee increased 2.5 percent from 71.8 hours in FY 2003 to 73.6 hours in FY (page 122). Prince William s sick leave utilization exceeded Chesterfield s rate in FY 2004 through FY Data for recent years were not available for Arlington and Henrico. Fairfax data were not available for the four-year period. (page 123) In FY 2006, 88 percent of employees were satisfied with the County as an employer and 94.2 percent stated that they were proud to work for the County. (page 127). Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report i

16 Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services Spending Efficiency Results Total spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, increased by 2.0 percent from $59.08 in FY 2001 to $60.29 in FY 2006; while locally-funded spending per capita (supported through Prince William tax support) adjusted for inflation increased by 47.7 percent from $22.31 in FY 2001 to $32.94 in FY (pages ) In FY 2006, Prince William s spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, was $61, which was lower than that of Fairfax ($120), Chesterfield ($100), and Henrico ($86), and close to that of Chesapeake ($63). (pages ) The number of Prince William CSB authorized FTE employees per 1,000 residents declined by 14 percent, from in FY 2001 to in FY Prince William had fewer authorized employees per 1,000 residents than any of the comparison jurisdictions each year from FY 2001 to FY (pages ) Prince William tax support as a percentage of total expenditures went from 37.8 percent in FY 2001 to 54.6 percent in FY (pages ) In FY 2006, the Prince William CSB served 3,022 Mental Health clients, 1,974 Substance Abuse clients; 1,191 school-based New Horizons clients; 680 Early Intervention clients; and 621 Mental Retardation clients. (pages ) In FY 2006, Prince William s average spending per client served adjusted for inflation ($3,394) was higher than that of Chesapeake ($3,298) and Henrico ($3,084), and lower than that of Fairfax ($6,254) and Chesterfield ($5,656). (pages ) In FY 2006, Prince William had fewer total clients per 100,000 residents than Chesapeake, Fairfax, and Henrico, and close to the same number as Chesterfield. (pages ) The number of Mental Health client admissions to a state facility per 100,000 residents was 43 percent higher in FY 2006 than in FY 2001 (51 compared with 36). (pages ) In FY 2006, Prince William had more Mental Health admissions to a state facility per 100,000 residents than any of the comparison Community Services Boards, as shown below: Prince William - 51 Chesapeake - 25 Chesterfield - 18 Fairfax - 33 Henrico - 34 (pages ) 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Prince William County

17 Police Spending Efficiency Results Spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, increased 9 percent from FY 2001 through FY Spending includes costs of investigating the sniper case in FY 2002 as well as handling terrorism response preparation and investigation of leads. (page 172). Among the comparison jurisdictions, Prince William spent more per capita in FY 2005 than Chesterfield, but less than Virginia Beach, Fairfax, and Henrico. (page 173). The number of sworn officers per thousand major crimes grew by 18.4 percent from FY 2000 to FY (page 177). Fairfax had a higher ratio of sworn officers per thousand major crimes than Prince William, but Virginia Beach and Henrico had a lower ratio. (page 178). As staffing has increased, dispatch calls per patrol officer has declined, from 343 in 2000 to 303 in (page 179). The number of major crimes per thousand residents is at a six-year low of 22.71, which is below the goal of fewer than 24. (page 180). In 2005, Prince William s rate was lower than the rate for Henrico and Virginia Beach, while higher than the rate for Fairfax. (page 181). The closure rate for major crimes has declined from 22.7 percent in 2000 to 22.3 percent in The decline in the overall closure rate was driven by a decline in the violent crime closure rate from 69 percent in 2000 to 59 percent in (pages ). Comparable closure rates for Virginia Beach, Henrico, and Fairfax exceeded Prince William s rate. (page 184). Emergency response time improved from 7.5 minutes in 2000 to 5.3 minutes in (page 189). Citizen satisfaction with overall police performance remains high at 92.5 percent. (page 192). Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

18 Property and Facility Management Spending Efficiency Results Property and Facility Management inflation adjusted spending per capita declined 11 percent from 2001 to Most of this decline occurred between 2001 and (page 196) In 2006, 42% of Buildings & Grounds and 10% of Property Management spending (excluding lease expenditures) was outsourced. (page 199) Prince William Property & Facility Management spent more per capita on leases than the comparison jurisdictions. Excluding lease expenditures, Prince William spent less on property & facility management services than two of the three comparison jurisdictions. (page 200) The number of county employees supported per property management authorized position increased 11 percent between 2003 and (page 202) Square footage maintained per authorized Building Maintenance mechanic position was about the same in 2006 as in (page 205) Key property management output measures grew at a much faster pace than spending between 2001 and (page 206) Customers expressed high satisfaction with Property Management services. (page 208) The lease cost per square foot of commercial space declined sharply as the result of an efficiency initiative undertaken by Property Management. (page 209) Average electric cost per square foot increased substantially. (page 211) Building Maintenance and Grounds Maintenance activities received very high customer satisfaction ratings.(page 213) Custodial services saw a significant decline in customer satisfaction ratings. This may be attributable to a low response rate to the survey (page 213) Buildings and Grounds routine work requests completed within 10 days declined from 94% to 68% due to staff vacancies and effort to accomplish priority projects. (page 214) l 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Prince William County

19 Public Safety Communications Spending Efficiency Results Spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, decreased 10.5 percent from FY 2001 through FY (page 221) While the number of calls answered per telecommunicator decreased 16.4 percent during the period from 9,220 in FY 2001 to 7,705 in FY 2006, the average number of dispatched calls per telecommunicator increased 4.5 percent from 2,337 in FY 2001 to 2,443 in FY (page 233) In addition, more communications traffic is added through the growth in the number of police officers (23 percent from FY 2001 through FY 2006) and firefighters (41 percent from FY 2001 through FY 2006). (page 233) The cost per incident dispatched declined 4 percent during the 6- year period from FY 2001 through FY (page 240) The FY 2006 cost per incident dispatched was $41.11, which is higher than Chesterfield s $33.27, Howard s $23.60, and Henrico s $ (page 241). During the period FY 2004 to FY 2006, the timeliness of dispatch improved. During that period, the percent of police priority calls dispatched within 120 seconds increased from 49 percent to 61 percent and the percent of fire and rescue priority calls dispatched within 60 seconds increased from 17 percent to 44 percent. Henrico reported better dispatch timeliness statistics in FY (pages 237 through 239) Based on the annual citizen satisfaction survey, 92.5 percent of citizens were satisfied with E-911 service in FY (page 242) Public safety agency satisfaction with dispatch service improved from 85 percent in FY 2001 to 97.5 percent in FY (page 242) Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report m

20 Public Welfare Spending Efficiency Results Spending per capita for public welfare services declined by 11.7 percent, from $88.84 in FY 2001 to $78.47 in FY (pages ) Local spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, increased by 21.7 percent, from $21.58 in FY 2001 to $26.27 in FY In FY 2006, 33.5 percent of expenditures were funded through local tax support, compared with 24.3 percent in FY (pages ; 256). The number of authorized FTE employees per 1,000 residents declined by 20 percent, from in FY 2001 to in FY The number of FTE employees increased by less than one percent (0.9%), and the county population increased by 25.9 percent. (page 253) The average monthly Prince William agency cost per individual receiving Food Stamps declined 27 percent from FY 2001 to FY 2006 and was lower for Prince William than for Fairfax, Alexandria, and Loudoun, and higher for Prince William than for Henrico and Chesterfield. (page 259) Prince William accepted more Child Protective Services (CPS) referrals per 1,000 children in the population than all of the comparison jurisdictions except Alexandria each year from FY 2001 to FY In FY 2006, Prince William handled a higher percentage of its accepted CPS referrals as CPS investigations and a lower percentage as family assessments than all of the comparison jurisdictions except Henrico. (pages ) Public assistance applications processed within the required time standard during FY 2006 (pages ): Medicaid - 86 percent, the highest level during the 6-year period and up from 68 percent in FY 2004; TANF - 93 percent, up from 81 percent in FY 2005; Expedited Food Stamps - 96 percent; Regular Food Stamps - 98 percent. As of June , the average monthly wage of VIEW participants was higher for Prince William than for the comparison jurisdictions. (pages ) In FY 2006, 48 foster care children achieved permanency, compared with 40 in FY 2004 and 33 in FY (page 289) Child Protective Services (FY 2006): Prince William found 2.5 children to be neglected or abused per 1,000 children, based on CPS investigations. Compared with Prince William, this number was higher for Henrico and Alexandria, and lower for Chesterfield, Loudoun, and Fairfax. (page 293) n 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Prince William County

21 Public Welfare Spending Efficiency Results Prince William determined 4.3 children to be in need of services per 1,000 children, as the result of CPS family assessments. This number was lower for Prince William than for all of the comparison jurisdictions except Fairfax. (page 294) The number of founded adult abuse and neglect cases per 1,000 Prince William County adults (age 18 and older) was 49 percent higher in FY 2006 (0.42) compared with FY 2001 (0.28). This number was highest in FY 2004 at 0.53 founded cases per 1,000 adults in the county. (pages ) Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report o

22 Real Estate Assessments Spending Efficiency Results Spending per capita adjusted for inflation increased (12.35%) between FY 2001 and FY (page 309) Prince William spent less per capita than other jurisdictions that provided spending data in FY (page 310) Prince William s cost per parcel assessed was lower than comparison jurisdictions between FY 2001 and FY (page 328) Prince William s median assessment to sales ratio compared to prior year sales remained relatively stable between 96.1 and 96.7 percent during the six year period. (page 317) In FY 2005 Prince William had a higher rate of average assessment variation than the comparison jurisdictions. (page 322) Prince William had the lowest percent of total parcels appealed in FY 2004, FY 2005, and FY 2006 compared to other jurisdictions. The number of parcels appealed has declined 56% over the six year period (pages 323,324) The number of parcels adjusted declined 84% since FY 2001 and Prince William had the lowest percent of parcels adjusted, compared to other jurisdictions, since FY (pages 323,325) p 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Prince William County

23 Risk Management Spending Efficiency Results Overall Risk Management Program spending per capita grew by 100% between 2001 and (page 333) The overall increase was driven by a 53% increase in spending per capita for risk management program expenditures excluding insurance and claims and a 130% increase in spending per capita for insurance and claims. (page 333) Authorized Risk Management Program employees per thousand residents grew by 112% between FY 2001 and FY (page 335) The average annual number of county employees per authorized risk management position declined 20 percent from 2002 through (pages 336 and 337) Property value at risk per Risk Management authorized position declined by 47 percent from FY 2001 through FY (page 336 and 337) Risk Management efforts to reduce risk and loss by training employees, conducting inspections, and improving environmental management practices has increased substantially. (page 337) In FY 2003 through FY 2006 Prince William spent less for liability claims per capita than the comparison jurisdictions. Also, the number of liability claims per 10,000 residents declined substantially from 2001 through (pages 343 and 344) The number of preventable light motor vehicle incidents per 100,000 miles rose from 0.87 in 2001 to 1.30 in 2004 and then declined to 1.06 in (page 347) Expenditures for workers compensation claims per $100 of payroll grew from $0.95 in FY 2002 to $2.53 in FY out of 234 claims were responsible for 94 percent of the FY 2006 workers compensation expenditures. (page 348) The lost workday rate per 100 employees rose from 25.7 days in FY 2001 to 34.8 days in FY The injury incident rate was about the same in 2006 as in (page 351) Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

24 Tax Administration Spending Efficiency Results Spending per capita, adjusted for inflation, decreased 8.6 percent over the six year period. (page 357) Prince William spent less per capita on Tax Administration activities than the comparison jurisdictions for those years in which the comparison jurisdictions provided data. (page 358) The number of authorized employees per thousand residents decreased 3.5 percent between FY 2001 and FY 2006 and remains lower than other jurisdictions. (page 359) The number of items processed per Tax Administration authorized position increased 37.7 percent during the six year period and continues to be higher than comparison jurisdictions. (page 361) Prince William s average spending per item processed has steadily declined since FY (page 368) In % of citizens calling with tax questions were were satisfied with the timeliness of the response and 87.4% were satisfied with the helpfulness of the response to tax questions. (page 363) r 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Prince William County

25 REPORT LIMITATIONS It is important to note the limitations of this report: Inter-jurisdictional comparisons should be used carefully. We have attempted to adjust comparison data for variations in the kinds of services provided and the manner in which a jurisdiction defines a given indicator. However, deviations may be attributable to factors our research did not identify. Great deviations from average should be a starting point for more detailed analysis. For the most part, indicators are presented in total and are not broken down by geographical location, time of day, portions of a process time line, etc. Therefore, a breakout of sub- elements of a performance indicator is likely to show some sub-elements with performance that varies from the total. For example, the overall crime rate for Prince William County differs from crime rates for different parts of the County. While the report offers insights on service results, its focus is not to analyze the cause of negative or positive results. While we have attempted to add contextual information and to look at causes of major variances, more detailed analysis may be necessary to provide reliable explanations and solutions. Internal data are subject to periodic audit for the accuracy of the data. Each year the County Internal Audit Program audits a portion of the data in the SEA Report. Data received from comparison jurisdictions are not subject to audit. All data are reviewed annually for major variations from prior years and there is follow-up on cases that appear substantially out of line. Since the inception of this report we have made great strides in expanding its breadth and improving the indicators and contextual information. However, this is an evolutionary process. There are aspects of performance for which we currently have no indicators or for which improved indicators are needed. We will continue to add to and refine indicators and add to the contextual information contained in the report. Also, as more and better performance data become available in other jurisdictions, we will be able to compare many additional areas of performance for which data are not currently available to us. These future enhancements, along with efforts made by our SEA agencies to establish relationships with their comparative jurisdiction peers, hold promise for improving the breadth and quality of comparative performance data. METHODOLOGY The Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report is prepared by the Office of Executive Management, Internal Audit Program in coordination with the various agencies included in the SEA report. The following general steps were involved in the preparation of this year s report. Agreement on Indicators Internal Audit and agency management for each service area discussed which measures of spending, outputs, and results were appropriate to include in the report. Sources of spending, outputs, and results measures included: the Strategic Plan, measures currently available in the County budget or other internal reports, measures reported to national or state organizations / agencies, and performance measures recommended by organizations researching performance measurement and reporting (such as the Government Accounting Standards Board). Measures were selected that the group felt were representative of the service area and that were fairly readily available in current internal information systems. Strategic Plan community outcome measures which are developed by citizen / staff task forces were included when applicable since these measures were identified as critical success indicators by citizens. Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report s

26 Comparison Jurisdictions Early in the development of the SEA Report, Internal Audit agreed to use Chesterfield, Henrico, and Fairfax Counties as comparison jurisdictions for each SEA service area. Chesterfield and Henrico Counties were selected because they are the closest Virginia jurisdictions to Prince William in population size. Fairfax County was selected because of its proximity to Prince William and inevitable questions about how we compare. In addition, each SEA agency was responsible for selecting one additional comparative jurisdiction of its choice. The only restriction was that the selected jurisdiction must be either a Virginia or D.C metro area jurisdiction. Data Gathering Agencies gathered and provided internal data for reporting. In addition, Internal Audit developed, in conjunction with agency staff, survey forms to be issued to comparison jurisdiction agencies for collecting the interjurisdictional comparative data. Agency representatives then administered the surveys and provided the survey information to Internal Audit for inclusion in the SEA Report. Surveys were not completed and returned by each comparison jurisdiction in all cases. As a result, some service areas include survey results for fewer than the intended four comparison jurisdictions. Inflation and Population Adjustments Where appropriate, data were adjusted for changes in population and changes in purchasing power to maintain comparability between years and jurisdictions. Inflation adjustments are based on the Consumer Price Index as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Virginia jurisdiction population data were obtained from the University of Virginia s Weldon Cooper Center. Variance Analysis / Contextual Information A focus group meeting was held for each SEA service area to review the report in draft form. During the focus group meeting, unusual variances were discussed and agency staff was asked to research the reasons for the variances. The resultant information forms the basis of the contextual information included in the report. The contextual information is included in the comment section related to each measure. The focus groups were composed of agency management, Internal Audit staff, Budget staff and, for some chapters, either the County Executive and / or Assistant County Executive. Data Reliability Each year the County Internal Audit Program audits the reliability of a portion of the data in the SEA Report. These in depth performance data audits involve verifying that reported performance data agree with data base totals and then verifying the accuracy of the data base against supporting documentation. Because of the time intensive nature of these audits, only a small number of measures (40 to 50) are audited annually. Broader but less in depth data quality assurance measures include analytical review of all County performance measures during the Phase I budget meetings and during SEA focus group meetings. In the Phase I budget meetings budget analysts review and question the performance data presented by all County programs. Phase I budget discussions include questioning the accuracy of performance data and discussing changes that should be made to measures to make them more meaningful. Similarly, during SEA focus group meetings, trends in data are reviewed and the validity of unusual data points is questioned. In addition, on an ongoing basis, analytical reviews of performance data are conducted by Budget and Internal Audit staff. t 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Prince William County

27 THE PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY SYSTEM The SEA Report is a part of Prince William County s System. Major components of this system include strategic planning, performance measurement, budgeting, service delivery, and evaluation of results / accountability. The Prince William County System is depicted below. <Graphic> Strategic Plan The foundation of the System is the County s Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is a four-year document designed to help the County achieve its long-term vision. It provides policy guidance for service delivery and resource allocation decisions during the Board of County Supervisor s four-year term. The Prince William County Strategic Plan defines: 1) The mission statement for the County Government; 2) Strategic goals for the County; 3) Community outcomes which measure success in achieving the strategic goals; and 4) Strategies and objectives to achieve the goals. There is substantial citizen involvement in development of the Strategic Plan and in the establishment of the community outcome goals. The Strategic Plan represents many hundreds of hours of work from citizens, the Board of County Supervisors, and County staff. Budget Process All agencies included in the Prince William County Adopted Budget identify service levels (performance measures) for their key activities. The County Executive considers these service levels in the context of the previous year s actual performance in developing his recommended budget. Also, guidance from the Strategic Plan and information from the SEA Report are used by the County Executive in developing his recommended budget. This information is also available to the public and to the Board of County Supervisors during the period leading up to budget adoption. Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report u

28 Evaluate Results / Accountability Substantial information is gathered and publicly reported to enable citizens, the Board of County Supervisors, and County staff to evaluate the performance of Prince William County Government programs. These reports include the SEA Report, the annual Prince William County Citizen Satisfaction Survey, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and the Financial Trending System (FITNIS) Report. Prince William County Citizen Satisfaction Survey The Prince William County Citizen Satisfaction Survey is an element of the Prince William County System that warrants special mention. Through this survey, conducted annually since 1993, the County Government obtains information from citizens regarding their satisfaction with services and the relative importance they place on various services. This information is used for strategic planning, fiscal planning, and operational decisions. The telephone survey of over 1,000 randomly selected households is conducted by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia and has a margin of error of less than three percent. The Prince William County Citizen Satisfaction Survey is available at Government Services Planning, Budgeting, and Accountability Ordinance In July, 1994 the Prince William Board of County Supervisors adopted the Government Services planning, budgeting, and accountability ordinance (Prince William County Code Section 2-1). The ordinance s requirements for accountability and emphasis on strategic planning and the use of performance measures is implemented through Prince William s System for Results Oriented Government. Some key provisions of the ordinance include: 1) the County Executive shall periodically report to the Board on the performance of the government; 2) the County Executive shall review and consider program performance in making funding recommendations to the Board in the proposed budget; 3) entities covered by the ordinance are required to submit accurate, complete, and timely service level data; and 4) the County Executive may periodically require verification or audit of service level data. HOW TO OBTAIN REPORTS The Strategic Plan, Adopted Fiscal Plan, SEA Report, Citizen Satisfaction Survey, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and FITNIS Report are on the Prince William County website at Copies may also be obtained by contacting the County Executive s office at (703) v 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report Prince William County

29 CITIZENS Clerk of the Circuit Court Commonwealth's Attorney Sheriff BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS School Board Public Schools Adult Detention Center Cooperative Extension Prince William Public Health District Electoral Board Court System (1) Voters Registration Community Policy and Management Team Community Services Board Social Services Board Library Board Park Authority Board Service Authority Board Advisory Boards, Commissions, & Committees Convention & Vistors Bureau Board of Directors At-Risk-Youth and Family Services Social Services Department Prince William Library Park Authority Prince William County Service Authority Convention and Visitors Bureau County Executive County Attorney Community Services (2) Office of Executive Management Human Rights Office Office on Youth Police Department Fire & Rescue Department Department of Economic Development Finance Department Public Works Department Area Agency on Aging Office of Information Technology Public Safety Communications Planning Office Office of Housing & Community Development Office of Criminal Justice Services Department of Transportation Notes: (1) Circuit Court, General District Court, Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, Juvenile Court Services, Law Library, Magistrate & Circuit Court Judges (2) Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Services (3) Yellow highlighted areas are included either partially or completely in the SEA Report Prince William County 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Report

30 x 2006 Service Efforts & Accomplishments Prince William County