The Consolidation of Local Government Services: The Incidence and Practice of Service Delivery Consolidation in North Carolina

Transcription

1 The Consolidation of Local Government Services: The Incidence and Practice of Service Delivery Consolidation in North Carolina NCCCMA Summer Conference June 29, 2012 Presenter: Chuck Abernathy

2 Why Service Consolidation? Organizational and Fiscal Threats Diminishing Revenues Unfunded Mandates Lower Levels of Public Confidence The recession dramatically reduced the ability of cities and counties to fund basic services. Published Spring Public Administration Quarterly

3 Service Merger Generalizations 1) Service consolidation occurs in a political or public environment where the introduction of certain factors increases the complexity of the process. Citizen Interest/Employee Impacts/ Type of Service/Institutional Factors 2) Service Merger is an integrative and incremental process. Distinct stages can be identified. 3) The process of achieving agreement on service consolidation requires negotiation. Who gets what, when and how. Who provides and who pays.

4 Service Consolidation Defined The topic should be defined as both a distinct practice and academic topic. Service merger is a form of integrated interaction or activity between units of local government. It involves at least two units of government sometimes having overlapping jurisdictional authority. The activity occurs when identical or similar departments are merged. Each government involved in the service consolidation retains their governing political organization and structure and remains a separate legal entity. The specific service that is merged ceases to be provided by at least one unit of government.

5 Service Consolidation is Different from other forms of Government Interaction Service Consolidation differs fundamentally from: Cooperation Collaboration Regionalism Functional Consolidation Two-tiered Consolidation Comprehensive City-County Consolidation

6 Continued. 4) Service Consolidation does not consistently produce a positive or negative outcome when implemented. Specific circumstances affect the results including compromise. 5) Service Consolidation is affected by institutional factors such as statutory and constitutional provisions in each State.

7 Research Expectations Service consolidation is a routine occurrence and examples of consolidated services can be found in most units of local governments. Most county managers view county managers view service consolidation as a viable alternative for local govt. service delivery. Most county managers will view service consolidation as a positive undertaking worth the time, effort and resources.

8 Research Expectations continued County managers perceive obstacles to service consolidation and these impediments can be identified and studied. Proactive steps can be taken to mitigate the perceived impediments. These strategies can be identified and studied. Certain types of services may be more viable candidates for consolidation and other characteristics viewed less favorably. Common characteristics can be cited to better understand why certain services are pursued.

9 Methodology Survey conducted in January, County Managers. Response rate was 66%. 5 pages. 3 sets of questions. The incidence of service consolidation. Perceived obstacles and how to successfully implement. The potential for service consolidation as a vehicle for future positive change.

10 Methodology continued Two limitations. Managers transitioning and commenting on projects implemented prior to their arrival. City managers were not included because of the limited scope. (attitudes could very well differ). Focus Group. Five individuals met and reviewed findings and assisted with generalizations regarding why certain services are selected for merger and why some are avoided.

11 Survey Results.Attitudes Towards Service Consolidation 62 out of 66 (93.9%) responded positively to a question concerning the receptiveness towards this activity. 53 out of 66 (80.3%) viewed their communities as receptive.

12 Why.what are the perceived positive outcomes? Financial Advantages were referenced by 81% of the respondents. Savings/Efficiencies/ Overhead/Economies of Scale Service delivery advantages were referenced by 52.6% of the respondents. Improved service delivery/service effectiveness/ improved coordination/standardized services. Accountability advantages were referenced by 24% of the respondents. Public clarity/ accountability/improved public perception/ demonstrates unity Miscellaneous. Reduces duplication. Increases professionalism. Recruitment improves. Leverages purchasing. Not referenced.distribution of costs. Cooperative grant seeking. Development opportunities.

13 What is the Incidence of Service Consolidation in NC? I looked at services already consolidated, those currently under consideration and those that were viewed as positive future candidates 93.9% (62) had one consolidated service 29.2% (18) had two or three merged services 59.6% (37) had four or more merged services 34.9% (23) were currently considering merging a service.

14 Which Services are Consolidated? Tax Collection 69.5% 41 Building Inspection 64.4% Communications 64.4% 38 Animal Control 55.9% 33 Water and Wastewater 28.8% 17 GIS 28.8% 17 Parks and Recreation 25.4% 15 Planning and Dev. 20.3% 12 Transportation 15.3% 9 Waste Collection 15.3% 9 Fire Service 13.6% 8 Law Enforcement 10.1% 6 Fleet Management 6.8% 4 Facility Management 6.8% 4 Information Technology 5.1% 3 Arts/Purchasing/Finance Referenced once or twice

15 Services Identified as Currently Under Consideration Parks and Recreation 13.1% 5 Building Inspections 13.1% 5 Planning and Development 10.5% 4 Water and Wastewater 10.5% Communications 10.5% 4 Animal Control 7.8% 3 Law Enforcement 7.8% 3 Health Department 5.2% 2 Waste Collection 5.2% 2 Tax Collection 5.2% 2 All Services 5.2% 2 Library/EMS/Jail/Fire/Transportation

16 Services with Future Potential Parks and Recreation 31.7% 19 Water and Wastewater 30.0% 18 Planning and Development 28.3% 17 Building Inspections 25.0% Communications 23.3% 14 GIS 21.7% 13 Animal Control 18.3% 11 Information Technology 18.3% 11 Tax Collection 16.7% 10 Purchasing 13.3% 8 Law Enforcement 11.7% 7 Fleet Management 11.7% 7 Waste Collection 10.0% 6 Fire Service 6.7% 4 Accounting/Finance 5.0% 3 Transportation 3.3% 2 Cultural and Arts 3.3% 2 None 20.0% (?) 12

17 Why are some Services Viewed Favorably? Focus Group and Literature Review Water and Wastewater. Expense/capital costs/ major issue for previous rural areas/grants Law Enforcement. Less referenced. Controversial/political/not capital intensive/ large numbers of employees impacted. Fire Departments. Less referenced. Large number of volunteers/controversial Tax Collection. Strong Candidate. Vehicle collection mandated. State role Animal Control/911 Communications/Building Inspection. Strong Candidates. Similar services between different units. Enhanced professionalism encourages cooperation. Planning and Development. Strong Candidates. Similar interests/ encourage development/ Routine and more Internal Services not cited. Not expected.

18 Success Strategies Identified in Completed Mergers Identified examples in other counties Committee with citizen representative Hired a consultant Conducted a strategic plan Not Identified? Identifying a champion. Producing a strategy regarding employee transition issues. Systematic upfront assessment. Benchmarking and performance measurement in advance.

19 Barriers or Obstacles Associated with Service Consolidation Do not believe community or political support exists. View differences with other units of government as too significant. Doubt whether consolidation can increase efficiency and effectiveness. View differences in services delivered as too great Concern about controlling or monitoring the service after it is merged. Internal dissension from employees.

20 Expectations and Results of Service Consolidation Initiatives % meeting or Exceeding Expectations Service Improvements 97% Local Elected Support 95% Community Support 89% Cooperation between gov. units 87% Financial Savings 87%

21 Conclusions.. Service consolidation is a common activity. Most County Managers view the activity as a positive alternative for service delivery. There are potential constraints but the possible benefits outweigh the challenges. Certain types of services are viewed more favorably and the reasons can be identified and studied.