Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 Executive Summary The Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators provides accountability to citizens by publishing information on how the County is doing to achieve its strategic goals and priorities based on a variety of community indicators. The updated information shows both trends over time and how the County compares to similar counties in the West. Below are some of the highlights. Highlights: Page Strategic Priority 1: Safe Communities 10— 11 Violent crime and property crime rates in 2004 declined by 3% and 6%, respectively, from 2003 rates. Violent crime was down more than 16% from 2002 and property crime decline 13% between 2002 and 2004. Strategic Priority 2: Public Health 12—13 Infant mortality rates continue to be less than the national average; for the fifth straight year, mortality rates of residents under age 75 decreased in 2004. Adult smoking rates have declined for the third year in a row. Strategic Priority 3: Regional Leadership 14—16 Use of alternative modes of transportation by workers has increased, while average commute times have decreased slightly; unemployment rates have declined; however, County per capita income is less than the national average and median family income is not keeping pace with median housing prices. Strategic Priority 4: Sustainable Development 17—18 Air quality measures are improving in some areas such as ozone, but levels of particulates remain a challenge. Nearly 50% of the 7,785 square miles of unincorporated Maricopa County is open space. In FY05, the County increased the miles of multi-use trails by approx 4%, and its barrier-free trails by nearly 40%. Strategic Priority 5: Fiscal Strength 19—20 Lower property tax rate in FY06; higher tax collection rates; per capita expenditures are on a steady decline; and County operating costs have remained low relative to population growth and inflation. Strategic Priority 6: Quality Workforce 21—22 Satisfaction levels among Maricopa County workforce are up and attrition rates have declined. Participation in County-sponsored training programs has increased. Strategic Priority 7: Citizen Satisfaction Overall citizen satisfaction has remained steady with more than three out of four residents surveyed indicating satisfaction with the job the County is doing, although satisfaction with key indicators of service quality and responsiveness decreased slightly. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 2 23—24 List of Charts & figures Title Page Safe Communities Maricopa County Violent Crime Rate ......................................................................................... 10 Comparison of 2004 Violent Crime Rates.................................................................................. 10 Maricopa County Property Crime Rate....................................................................................... 10 Comparison of 2004 Property Crime Rates................................................................................ 11 Maricopa County Percent of Cases Processed within Timeframes by Case Type ............... 11 Maricopa County Percent of Court Cases Processed within Timeframes............................. 11 Public Health Infant Mortality Rates..................................................................................................................... 12 Mortality Rates of Residents under Age 75 ................................................................................ 12 Immunization Rates ....................................................................................................................... 13 Adult Smoking Rates ...................................................................................................................... 13 Adult Obesity Rates........................................................................................................................ 13 Physical Activity: Number of Regional Park Visitors ............................................................... 13 Regional Leadership Maricopa County Use of Alternative Transportation ............................................................... 14 Maricopa County Average Commute Time................................................................................ 14 Comparison of Commute Times in 2004 ................................................................................... 14 2004 Unemployment Rates Comparison to Similar Counties ................................................. 15 Maricopa County Unemployment Rates ..................................................................................... 15 Comparison of 2003 Per Capita Income..................................................................................... 15 Maricopa County Per Capita Income .......................................................................................... 15 Maricopa County Ratio of Home Value to Family Income..................................................... 16 Comparison of Median Home Value to Median Family Income in 2004 ............................. 16 Maricopa County Student/Teacher Ratio................................................................................... 16 Comparison of Educational Attainment of Population over Age 25..................................... 16 Sustainable Development Maricopa County Air Quality Index ............................................................................................ 17 Maricopa County Ozone Exceedances........................................................................................ 17 Maricopa County PM-10 Exceedances........................................................................................ 17 Open Space in Maricopa County.................................................................................................. 18 Maricopa County Parks System .................................................................................................... 18 Maricopa County Miles of Recreation Trails.............................................................................. 18 Fiscal Strength Maricopa County Overall Property Tax Rate............................................................................. 19 Maricopa County Primary Tax Rate............................................................................................. 19 Primary Property Tax Rate Comparison for Selected Arizona Counties............................... 19 Maricopa County Property Tax Collection Rate........................................................................ 20 Maricopa County Budget Per Capita ........................................................................................... 20 Maricopa County Operating Cost vs. Inflation/Population.................................................... 20 (continued on next page) Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 3 List of Charts & figures (cont.) (continued from previous page) Title Page Quality Workforce Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction with Job.................................................................... 21 Maricopa County vs. State of Arizona Turnover Rates............................................................ 21 Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction with Training........................................................... 22 Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction with Resources........................................................ 22 Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction with Benefits ........................................................... 22 Maricopa County Employee Accident Rate................................................................................ 22 Citizen Satisfaction Citizen Knowledge of Maricopa County Government Structure/Organization.................. 23 Maricopa County Citizen Rating: Communication Effectiveness........................................... 23 Maricopa County Citizen Rating: Overall Satisfaction.............................................................. 23 Maricopa County Citizen Satisfaction with Use of Tax Dollars.............................................. 24 Maricopa County Citizen Rating: Quality of Service................................................................. 24 Maricopa County Citizen Rating: Responsiveness .................................................................... 24 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 4 Managing For Results By the mid-1990s, Maricopa County had achieved solid success in managing its budget and finances and began to realize the fruits of its efforts. In 1998, after a review of best practices in the field of performance management and performance-based budgeting, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) developed a proposal in which strategic planning, budgeting, and performance measures would be aligned in a unified process known as Managing for Results (MFR). In the summer and fall of 2000, Maricopa County began implementing MFR—a comprehensive and fully integrated management system that focuses on achieving results for Maricopa County citizens and makes it possible for departments to demonstrate accountability to taxpayers. Decision Making • Vision & Mission • Performance Targets • Strategic - Goals • Adjust Allocations If Required • Operational - Results • Operational/Process Improvement • Family of Measures per Activity • Employee Performance Plans Evaluating Results • Performance Audit • Employee Evaluations • Resources Consumed Managing For Results • Citizen Survey & Input Reporting Results • Data Verified • Actuals vs. Forecasts • Baselines & Benchmarks • All Customers Included Deliver Services Budgeting for Results • Demand for Services • Performance Budget • Resource Allocation Collect Data detention facilities, developing the regional human services campus, providing $5 million in funding to support the TGen project, reducing the overall property tax rate from $1.57 per $100 of assessed value in FY01 to $1.47 in FY05, purchasing Spur Cross Park, completing capital improvement projects for roads and bridges, creating a regional trails master plan, and much, much more. Managing for Results (MFR) Managing for Results (MFR) is a future-oriented approach to making decisions and deploying resources to achieve results. Under MFR, strategic planning, budgeting, and performance measurement are aligned in a unified, cyclical process with five modules that support the process with fully articulated goals, strategies and performance measures. A key component in the County’s Managing for Results program is evaluating results. From the start it was understood by leadership that citizens’ confidence in this program required a way to validate performance data. The County adopted the Performance Measurement Certification (PMC) program as part of the “Evaluating Results” module to validate performance measures and results. Under the PMC program, the Maricopa County Internal Audit Department reviews MFR measures and results, assigns certification ratings, and reports findings. The certification program enables County leaders to rely upon reported performance measures to make informed decisions concerning government resources. 2005-2010 Strategic Plan Building on those accomplishments, in June 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved a new strategic plan for Maricopa County. The 2005-2010 Maricopa County Strategic Plan contains the County’s mission and vision statements and a set of strategic priorities and goals that establish a roadmap of what the County aspires to achieve over the next three to five years. The new plan focuses on ensuring safe communities, promoting public health, providing regional leadership, encouraging sustainable development, enhancing the County’s fiscal strength, maintaining a quality workforce, and increasing citizen satisfaction. Today, more than 80% of County residents are satisfied with the job the County does. Yet, as the population of the County continues to expand, so too will the demand for services. To meet that growing demand, the County will need to continue to expand and explore new and innovative ways of providing services. The Managing for Results initiative will ensure that the County manages its efforts in a way that produces results that benefit all County residents. 2001-2005 Maricopa County Strategic Plan In 2001, the County implemented its first five-year plan under the MFR system. The County made great strides in addressing the priorities of that plan, including constructing two new adult detention facilities and two new juvenile Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 Planning for Results • Future Demand 5 County Strategic Plan Mission The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services so that residents can enjoy living in a healthy and safe community. Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, innovatively, efficiently and effectively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. Strategic Priorities Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Promote and protect the public health of the community. Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 6 Strategic Plan at a Glance Maricopa County Abbreviated Strategic Plan at a Glance KEY: Strategic Priority Strategic Goals S.P.1 S.P.1.1 S.P.1.2 S.P.1.3 S.P.1.4 Safe Communities Reduce crime rates Meet growing law enforcement and detention requirements Integrate national best practices into disaster and emergency management Equip County to respond to a bioterrorist attack or other massive emergency S.P.2 S.P.2.1 S.P.2.2 S.P.2.3 Public Health Improve public health Partner with health care providers to address public health issues Educate the public about healthy lifestyles S.P.3 S.P.3.1 S.P.3.2 S.P.3.3 S.P.3.4 S.P.3.5 Regional Leadership Complete transportation projects on-time and within budget Increase the capacity and the ease of voting Complete the regional human-services campus Build partnerships and relationships with all area governments Promote, expand, and improve County-sponsored programs and activities for young people S.P.4 S.P.4.1 S.P.4.2 S.P.4.3 S.P.4.4 Sustainable Development Manage development in unincorporated areas Improve outdoor recreation opportunities and the quality of the environment Preserve military installations Reduce energy and water consumption S.P.5 S.P.5.1 S.P.5.2 S.P.5.3 S.P.5.4 Fiscal Strength Reduce the overall property tax rate Reduce mandated fixed contributions to the State Plan for the County’s long-range capital infrastructure needs Generate additional revenues through new contracted commercial ventures S.P.6 S.P.6.1 S.P.6.2 S.P.6.3 Quality Workforce Implement a competitive total compensation package Promote diversity Improve employee suggestion and incentive programs S.P.7 S.P.7.1 S.P.7.2 S.P.7.3 S.P.7.4 S.P.7.5 Citizen Satisfaction Fully implement Managing for Results Develop a County-wide IT Strategic Plan Improve access to County services Improve performance of County programs Establish a comprehensive public outreach and communication plan Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 7 Introduction Maricopa County is accountable to its residents by communicating what it does or does not achieve. The Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators is intended to demonstrate the impact that Maricopa County’s Managing for Results initiative has had on the community by reporting objective measurements that reflect tangible results of its programs and show how the community is doing. They reveal whether key community attributes are going up or down; forward or backward; getting better or worse, or staying the same. information as part of their family of performance measures. Many of the measures have been certified by the Internal Audit Department under the Performance Measurement Certification program. The most recent information available is used throughout the report. To evaluate its performance, Maricopa County benchmarks itself against its past performance and against other similarly situated counties, all in the western United States. The benchmark counties were selected based on similarities in areas of population/demographics, growth/economic development, and size/geography. The nine counties are: The indicators selected for inclusion represent broad interests and trends in Maricopa County, are comparable to indicator efforts in similar communities throughout the nation, and generally, correspond to the County’s Strategic Priorities. While many of the indicators are not completely within the control of County government, decisions made by County leadership influence the measures and contribute to the quality of life in Maricopa County. • • • • • • • Much of the information found in the report is from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). ACS provides estimates of demographic, social, economic and housing statistics based on data gathered from around the country. Other data come from national sources such as the Uniform Crime Reports, a database of city, county, and state law enforcement data, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as part of the Healthy People 2010 initiative to collect data critical to monitoring the overall health of the nation. Additional sources include County departments responsible for tracking the • • Clark County, Nevada Harris County, Texas King County, Washington Los Angeles County, California Multnomah County, Oregon Orange County, California Salt Lake County, Utah San Diego County, California Santa Clara County, California Certain items such as property taxes could not be benchmarked with these communities as statutes vary from state to state. In those cases, Maricopa County used other Arizona counties as its benchmark. If, after reviewing the Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators, you have any questions or comments, please contact the Office of Management and Budget at 602-506-7280. Government Performance Project (GPP) In 2001, Maricopa County was selected as one of the 40 leading counties to participate in the Government Performance Project. The Government Performance Project was a national project conducted by the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in partnership with Governing magazine. The study collected, evaluated, and compared information about how well governmental jurisdictions were managed in five key areas: financial management, human resources, information technology, capital management, and managing for results. The comparative results of the study were published in a special issue of Governing in February 2002. Maricopa County was identified as one of the best-run counties in the country and was one of only two counties in the nation to receive the highest overall score of “A-”. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 8 Maricopa County Financial Management A- Capital Management B+ Human Resources B+ Managing for Results A- Information Technology A Average Grade: A- Maricopa County Profile Overview Maricopa County, Arizona, is the nation’s fourth largest county in terms of population size—3.5 million—and the 14th largest in the continental United States in land area, covering 9,226 square miles. Twenty-four cities and towns are located in the County; its largest city, Phoenix, is the County seat. History Most of what is now Maricopa County was included as part of the Territory of New Mexico until 1863, when the Arizona Territory was established. Established on February 14, 1871, the County was one of the original four counties of Territorial Arizona. The County was named in honor of the Maricopa Indians, who were known to have inhabited the area as early as 1775. Maricopa County’s outer geographical boundaries were set in 1881 and have not changed since. Profile At-a-Glance Population 3,559,540 Total Civil Labor Force 1,728,165 Median Age Under 20 years 32.7 30.3% Population 20—24 years 7.3% More than half the state’s population resides in Maricopa County. The County ranked first among all U.S. counties for population growth from 1990 to 1999. It is now the nation’s fourth largest county in terms of population. The County has grown from just over 2,122,100 residents in 1990 to 3,524,175 in 2004, representing a 66.1 percent increase in just 14 years, and is forecast to continue this rate of growth over the next several decades. 25—59 years 43.0% 60+ years 14.7% Educational Attainment 23.8% Some college 26.3% Bachelor’s degree 17.5% Graduate or professional degree 8.8% Race/Ethnicity Land Area White Maricopa County has a land area of 9,226 square miles, of which 1,441 square miles are incorporated (15.6 percent) and 7,785 square miles are unincorporated (84.4 percent). It is the fifth largest of Arizona's 15 counties, and is larger than seven states and the District of Columbia. The County measures 132 miles from east to west and 103 miles from north to south. Thirty-one percent (31%) of the area is owned individually or by corporation, and 41% is owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The U.S. Forest Service and the State of Arizona each control 11% of the County; an additional 1% is publicly owned. Nearly 4% is Indian reservation land. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 High school graduate Black or African American 3.7% Native American 2.0% Asian or Pacific Islanders 2.8% Other Hispanic or Latino (of any race) Total Housing Units 10.9% 28.4% 1,429,101 Owner-occupied housing units 68.2% Renter-occupied housing units 31.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2004 9 80.6% Strategic Priority 1 SAFE COMMUNITIES Citizens consider their safety to be one of the most significant factors affecting their quality of life and where they choose to live and work. Maricopa County has adopted a key strategic priority to ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system that strives to reduce crime rates, meet growing law enforcement and detention requirements, and equip the County to manage its response to emergencies in an effective, efficient, and timely manner. Community indicators of the County’s progress toward meeting its “Safe Communities” goals include, but are not limited to, crime rates, emergency response rates, and efficient court case resolution. Comparison of 2004 Violent Crime Rates (rate per 100,000 residents) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Orange Santa Clara Multnomah King Salt Lake 277.7 303.6 341.5 356.4 359.8 San Diego Maricopa 468.4 493.1 Clark Harris LA 693.5 723.6 767.6 Source: FBI “Crime in the United States, 2004” Crime Rates The Federal Bureau of Investigation publishes crime statistics for states and communities across the United States. Violent crimes include murder, rape, robbery, and assault. Property crimes include burglary, larceny, arson, and auto theft. In 2004, the violent crime rate per 100,000 residents (493.1) in Maricopa County decreased by 3% from 2003 (506.5), and 16% from 2002 (572.1). Maricopa County had the fourth highest rate among the benchmark group. Note: Data for Maricopa County and the benchmark group are reported based on the Phoenix-Mesa Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) that includes Maricopa County. The rate of property crime per 100,000 residents also decreased in Maricopa County, according to the FBI reports. In 2004, property crimes in Maricopa County decreased by 6.4% over 2003 with 5,478 crimes per 100,000 residents. Maricopa County no longer ranks first in property crime among benchmark counties; Salt Lake County now holds that distinction. The County continues to work with other local governments to develop strategies to address the high property crime rate, which includes auto theft, with a rate of 1,175 auto thefts per 100,000 residents. Maricopa County Violent Crime Rate (violent crime per 100,000 population) Maricopa County Property Crime Rate (property crimes per 100,000 population) 600 500 6,500 400 6,200 300 5,860.3 200 5,900 100 5,600 0 6,274.6 2001 2002 2003 2004 566.5 572.1 506.5 493.1 5,852.6 5,478.0 5,300 5,000 Source: FBI "Crime in the United States, 2004” 2001 2002 Source: FBI "Crime in the United States, 2004” Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 10 2003 2004 Safe Communities (cont.) Comparison of 2004 Property Crime Rates • Family: 99% of cases (pre-decree) resolved within 12 months • Juvenile Dependency: 95% of cases resolved within 90 days • Juvenile Delinquency: 95% of cases resolved within 90 days (rate per 100,000 residents) 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 The Courts have established high expectations with case processing timeframes. In FY05, the Courts showed improvement toward reaching the standards in criminal and family case resolution, maintained efforts in civil case resolution, but lost ground in the number of juvenile dependency and juvenile delinquency cases resolved within the timeframe standards. 2000 1000 0 Orange Santa Clara LA San Diego Harris Clark Multnomah King Maricopa Salt Lake 2479 2578 2980 3285 4369 4550 4870 5079 5478 5483 Source: FBI “Crime in the United States, 2004” Emergency Response Rate Citizens want assurance that they will receive the help they need, when they need it. A timely response to emergencies contributes to the citizen’s sense of safety and security in their community. Response times measure the speed at which emergency response units are able to respond when called. Maricopa County Percent of Cases Processed within Timeframes by Case Type Currently, no central area collects emergency response time information for all jurisdictions and agencies in the County. The Maricopa County Sheriff tracks a metric that measures the percentage of Priority 1 calls responded to within acceptable standards. In FY04, the Sheriff’s Office reported they had achieved the standard of 5 minutes on 32% of the calls. For FY05, the 5-minute standard was achieved on 47% of the calls, an increase of 15 percentage points. Case Type FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 Criminal 78.00% 83.00% 86.00% 83.30% 83.40% Civil 87.00% 86.00% 95.00% 93.90% 93.50% Family 85.00% 85.00% 85.50% 85.20% 88.10% Juvenile Dependency NA NA 88.40% 88.10% 78.20% Juvenile Delinquency NA NA 87.50% 85.20% 80.90% Source: Maricopa County Superior Court Maricopa County Percent of Court Cases Processed within Timeframes Court Case Resolution 100% Resolving cases in a timely and efficient manner will help to ease the burden on law enforcement and detention requirements, and is a reflection of the County’s efforts to ensure a streamlined, integrated justice system. 80% The Courts have established the following standards regarding timely case resolution: 20% 60% 40% 0% Criminal • Criminal: 99% of criminal cases resolved within 180 days • Civil: 95% of civil cases resolved within 18 months Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 2001 Civil Family 2002 2003 Source: Maricopa County Superior Court 11 Juvenile Juvenile Dependency Delinquency 2004 2005 Strategic Priority 2 Public Health The benefits of a healthy community are varied and numerous. They include a productive workforce and improved quality of life for all County residents. Additionally, if people are in good health, there is less drain on the limited resources in the healthcare system, allowing other County-wide critical issues to be addressed. Infant Mortality Rates (infant deaths per 1,000 live births) 7.5 6.9 7 6.5 6.5 7.0 6.7 6.8 6.4 6.9 6.3 6.5 6 Rapid population growth has resulted in an increased demand for public health services from an already strained public health service delivery system. As part of its strategic plan, the County has set a strategic priority to promote and protect the public health of the community by educating the public about healthy lifestyles, partnering with health care providers to address public health issues, and supporting the public health and healthy education objectives of Healthy People 2010—a national health promotion and disease prevention initiative. Community indicators of the County’s progress toward reaching public health goals include mortality and immunization rates, and selected health risk factors. 5.5 5 4.5 4 2000 2001 2002 Maricopa County 2003 2004 National Average Source: Maricopa County Department of Public Health Mortality Rates Residents under Age 75 (deaths per 100,000 residents) 400 393.4 391.1 390.0 380 360 Mortality Rates 342.3 Changes to the infant mortality rate can be an indication of a public health issue developing in the community. Community awareness of such a change allows the healthcare system at both the public and private levels to develop the appropriate response to address the problem. 329.7 322.4 320 313.9 300 2000 2001 2002 2003 Maricopa County National Average 2004 Source: Maricopa County Department of Public Health Maricopa County’s infant mortality rate has been consistently less than the national average (2004 national data not yet available). In 2004, the Maricopa County Department of Public Health reported 6.5 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, up slightly from the 6.3 reported in 2003. Immunization Rates Many childhood diseases can be prevented and on-going good health can be achieved by ensuring that children receive the proper immunizations. The effects of receiving the immunizations are felt throughout a community, from the school system, to the work environment, and home life. Similar to the tracking of the infant mortality rate, tracking the rate of deaths before age 75 can point to concerns in the healthcare delivery system or environment. Maricopa County’s death rate for individuals under age 75 has been consistently less than the national average (note: national data is not yet available for 2003 and 2004.) Preliminary County data for 2004 show the continued trend of decrease in mortality rate of residents under age 75. In 2004, the Maricopa County Department of Public Health reported 314 deaths per 100,000 residents, down 2.6% from 2003. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 335.4 340 Maricopa County’s record of immunizing its children is lower than the national average, but the County is closing the gap to the national average. Preliminary information provided by the Maricopa County Department of Public Health and the Arizona Department of Health Services showed that in 2004 immunization rates for children at 24 months old increased to 77% from 68.6% in 2003. 12 Public Health (cont.) In the same study, 23.1% of Maricopa County adults reported having a Body Mass Index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30.0—an index equal to or above 30.0 is considered obese. Immunization Rates (for children at 24 months old) 80.0% 79.0% 77.0% 74.2% 75.0% 72.4% 72.9% 71.0% 70.7% 68.6% 70.0% Adult Obesity Rates 66.0% 65.0% (% reported BMI greater than or equal to 30) 62.5% 29.0 60.0% 22.7 22.2 24.0 55.0% 21.2 19.0 50.0% 23.1 18.8 19.0 2000 2001 2002 Maricopa County 2003 Jul-04 National Average 14.0 Sources: Maricopa County Department of Public Health, Arizona Department of Health Services 9.0 Health Risk Factors A sedentary lifestyle, smoking, and being overweight are among the primary risk factors for many health problems. In a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as part of the 2004 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 18.3% of Maricopa County adults reported having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and currently smoke. This is below the national median of 20.8%, and a significant decrease from 2003 (20.5%). 4.0 2002 2003 Maricopa County 2004 Nat'l Median % Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Physical Activity An indicator of healthy activity of residents in the County is the number of visitors to the regional parks. In FY05, more than 1.26 million individuals used the County’s regional park system, a 1.1% increase from FY04. However, this is lower than the County’s population growth rate (3.3%). Adult Smoking Rates (% reported currently smoking) Number of Regional Park Visitors 29.0 (in millions) 24.2 24.0 23.0 2.00 22.0 20.5 20.8 18.3 19.0 1.50 1.19 1.25 1.26 14.0 1.00 9.0 0.50 4.0 2002 2003 Maricopa County 2004 Nat'l Median % 0.00 FY03 Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System FY04 Source: Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 13 FY05 Strategic Priority 3 Regional Leadership Public policy plays a pivotal role in creating an environment that enables citizens to maintain a high quality of life. Sufficient physical infrastructure, such as roads, water/ wastewater facilities, and housing, will become more important as the County continues to grow, necessitating a greater focus on these fundamental community building blocks. The County has set as a strategic priority to continue its leadership role in the region in addressing such issues as transportation, elections, housing, economic development, youth and families, education, and public health and safety. Community indicators related to these public policy issues that signal the impact of the County’s leadership role are varied and diverse, but collectively will tell us where and when progress is being made. alternative modes of travel have begun to show improvement. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2004, 19.32% of the workers in the County used alternative modes of transportation. This is up from 18.46% in 2002, and 18.94% in 2003. Maricopa County ranks fifth among the benchmark counties with respect to the percent of its workforce that uses alternative transportation. Average commute time in Maricopa County fell slightly in 2004 from 24.7 minutes to 24.5 minutes, a positive measure nonetheless given the County’s growth in all directions. Among the 10 benchmark counties, Maricopa County ranks sixth in commute times, with Los Angeles County (CA) recording the longest commute time at 29.2 minutes. Only Maricopa County, King County (WA), and Orange County (CA) saw declines in commute times in 2004. Transportation Maricopa County Average Commute Time The ability for citizens, their families and friends, their employers/business associates, and others, such as tourists, to access and move about the County is a major contributor to the livability of the area. The County has direct responsibility for some of the local transportation system, such as the roadways in unincorporated areas. It also is a key player in regional transportation planning which affects all who live and work in Maricopa County. (in minutes) 25.2 25.0 25.0 24.7 24.8 24.5 24.6 24.3 24.4 24.0 The availability and use of alternative modes of travel can impact a variety of measures, such as commute time, congestion and accident statistics. It also influences other quality of life measures such as air quality. Use of 23.8 23.6 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2000 through 2003, 2004 Comparison of Commute Times in 2004 Maricopa County Use of Alternative Transportation (in minutes) (% of workers using alternative modes of transportation) 23.00% 24.2 24.2 30.0 28.0 22.13% 22.00% 26.0 21.00% 24.0 19.66% 20.00% 18.94% 19.32% 22.0 18.47% 19.00% 20.0 18.00% 18.0 17.00% Salt Lake Clark 20.9 23.5 Santa Clara Multnomah 23.7 24.1 Maricopa San Diego King Orange Harris LA 24.5 25.7 25.8 27 27.2 29.2 16.00% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2004 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2000 through 2003, 2004 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 14 Regional Leadership (cont.) Economic Development Maricopa County Unemployment Rates The County’s economic growth is directly influenced by employment opportunities available to its residents that come from attracting productive businesses and high quality jobs. The County plays a role in drawing businesses to the community by promoting an environment supportive of business and industry and ensuring that resources, such as public transportation, are developed and accessible and by having favorable tax structures for both businesses and citizens. Community indicators that signal the overall health of the County’s economy include unemployment rates, per capita income, and housing costs. 5.6% 6.0% 4.9% 5.0% 4.4% 3.9% 4.0% 2.7% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics The unemployment rate in Maricopa County decreased in 2003 and 2004, where the rate was 4.4%. Per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the County had the largest 12month increase in employment from December 2003 to December 2004 among all U.S. counties, with an increase in total employment of 75,700, and recorded the largest percentage increase in employment (4.7%) during that same period. Among the benchmark counties, Maricopa County is now tied with Clark County (NV); and only Orange County (CA) has a lower rate. the benchmark counties. Only Salt Lake County (UT) was less in 2003 at $29,699. Comparison of 2003 Per Capita Income $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 Per capita income is an important indicator of economic well-being in a local economy. In 2003 (the most recent information available), Maricopa County’s per capita income was $30,160, which was 111% of Arizona’s average ($27,232), and 96% of the national average ($31,472), according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Maricopa County’s per capita income is low compared to $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 Salt Lake Maricopa Clark LA $29,699 $30,160 $30,961 $31,569 Multnomah San Diego $34,017 $35,841 Harris Orange King Santa Clara $36,314 $39,268 $45,334 $46,640 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2004 Maricopa County Per Capita Income 2004 Unemployment Rates Comparison to Similar Counties $40,000 $30,000 7.0% 6.0% $20,000 5.0% 4.0% $10,000 3.0% 2.0% $0 1.0% Maricopa County Arizona National Average 0.0% Multnomah Los Angeles Santa Clara Harris Salt Lake King San Diego Clark Maricopa Orange 7.60% 6.60% 6.60% 6.40% 5.40% 5.10% 4.70% 4.40% 4.40% 4.30% 2001 2002 2003 $29,068 $26,055 $30,527 $29,020 $26,360 $30,906 $30,160 $27,232 $31,472 Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 2000 $28,993 $25,661 $29,847 15 Regional Leadership (cont.) Housing Education Affordable housing opportunities spur expansion of communities, which adds growth to the local economy, and homeownership can significantly contribute to quality of life. Housing costs are influenced by a number of factors, some of which the County controls, such as planning, zoning, building permits, and associated fees in the unincorporated areas of the County. A quality education system is conducive to the development of an informed and productive population that contributes to the community. The County, through the Superintendent of Schools, plays a role in providing fiscal and educational services to school districts to ensure students receive the best possible education. In 2005, the student/teacher ratio was 16.27 students to every one teacher, up from 15.64 in 2004. Note: the information provided is only for public schools in Maricopa County. The medium value of a home in Maricopa County continues to increase. In 2004, it was $159,900, a 2% increase from 2003. From 2001-2004, the median home value increased almost 11%, while the median family income declined almost 1%. Thus the amount of a family’s income required to secure housing is increasing. While Maricopa County’s ratio continues to increase, it is still favorable compared to other benchmark communities. Only Harris County (TX) has a smaller ratio when comparing median home values to median family income. Maricopa County Student/Teacher Ratio 16.40 16.27 16.20 15.94 16.00 15.80 15.64 15.60 15.40 15.20 2003 Maricopa County Ratio of Home Value to Family Income 2004 2005 Data Source: Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools Maricopa County 2001 2002 2003 2004 Median Home Value $144,360 $149,807 $156,623 $159,900 Median Family Income $ 55,383 $ 54,832 $ 52,725 $ 54,804 Ratio Median Home Value to Median Family Income 2.61 2.73 2.97 2.92 In 2004, the percent of Maricopa County residents over 25 who completed high school, including equivalency, was 85.2%. The County ranks fifth among benchmark counties in percent of high school completion. Percent of Maricopa County residents who have completed a Bachelor’s Degree was 27.9%; completing Associates Degree was 8.2%. Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2000 through 2003, 2004 Comparison of Educational Attainment of Population > Age 25 Comparison Median Home Value to Median Family Income in 2004 County 2004 Median Home 2004 Median Family Value Income Ratio Median Home Value to Median Family Income Harris $ 114,249 $ 50,012 2.28 Maricopa $ 159,900 $ 54,804 2.92 Salt Lake $ 168,433 $ 55,751 3.02 Multnomah $ 197,788 $ 53,034 3.73 King $ 295,493 $ 71,814 4.11 Clark $ 207,869 $ 50,463 4.12 Santa Clara $ 602,727 $ 85,581 7.04 Orange $ 512,208 $ 71,489 7.16 LA $ 395,424 $ 50,598 7.82 San Diego $ 471,132 $ 58,720 (% of population attaining specific levels) 0 43.3 8.02 90.9 87.9 86.8 86.5 85.2 84.7 82.8 82.1 76.4 73.8 34.8 45 28.8 27.9 33 33.3 18.4 27.5 27.9 20 40 High School 60 Bachelor's Degree Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2004 Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2004 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 8.2 6.9 8.4 8.2 8.2 7.1 8.3 7.9 5.4 6.3 King Multnomah Santa Clara Salt Lake Maricopa San Diego Orange Clark Harris LA 16 80 Associates 100 Strategic Priority 4 Sustainable Development Many factors influence the decision on where people choose to live. Communities where citizens have areas to relax and enjoy the environment and that work to improve their overall livability will ensure sustainable development in ways that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In Maricopa County, sustainability issues dealing with air quality, water availability, and open space are becoming increasingly important to the livability of the community. Smart planning has become critical to balance population growth while maintaining Maricopa County’s famous quality of life and protecting important economic and environmental assets like our military installations and the natural areas. Maricopa County Ozone Exceedances (Days per year where at least one site exceeded the 8-hr standard of 0.085 ppm) 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 17 14 12 1 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: Maricopa County Air Quality Department Maricopa County tracks air quality levels at different sites throughout the County. It monitors levels of carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulates, and the number of days that levels exceed national air quality standards. Maricopa County has adopted a key strategic priority to carefully plan and manage land use to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Community indicators that signal progress toward this strategic priority include, but are not limited to, air quality and the amount of open space available for leisure activities. In the past, the County has been found to have serious non-attainment of air quality standards related to particulates (PM-10). Particulate matter is the term for solid or liquid particles found in the air, such as soot, dust, or smoke, and others so small they can only be seen through an electron microscope. PM-10 can adversely affect the Air Quality According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the number of good or healthy air quality days in Maricopa County has been increasing since 1999. This is a positive development given the County’s history of unhealthy air quality days. Maricopa County PM-10 Exceedances (Days per year where at least one site exceeded the 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m3) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Maricopa County — Air Quality Index 300 20 250 200 150 8 6 5 4 2 2000 100 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: Maricopa County Air Quality Department 50 respiratory system in people and animals. In 2004, the County experienced five days in which at least one monitor exceeded the 24-hour standard. Ozone levels are tracked 0 1995 1996 1997 Source: U.S. EPA Air Data 1998 Good 1999 Moderate 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 17 Sustainable Development (cont.) Air Quality (cont.) Maricopa County Parks System throughout the County at 17 sites, and in 2004, Maricopa County recorded only one day where at least one site exceeded the standard. Open Space Open space contributes to livability in Maricopa County. While growth is desirable, it is necessary to balance development with the preservation of open space to provide recreational and leisure environments for residents to enjoy throughout the County. In addition to the dedicated space in subdivisions, Maricopa County’s unincorporated areas have nearly 2.5 million acres of open space. This includes parks, wilderness areas and national Trails System Preservation of open spaces offers the availability of outdoor recreation opportunities that contribute to the quality of life of the citizens. The Parks and Recreation Department has developed a Trails Master Plan, which upon completion would circle the County with recreation trails for residents and visitors alike. Maricopa County owns and maintains approximately 178 miles of recreation trails in its Countywide system, and has consistently increased the miles of trails over the past few years. This includes 136.3 miles of multi-use trails, up from 131.0 miles (+4%) in 2004, and 5 miles of barrier-free trails up from 3.6 miles, a 39% increase from 2004. Open Space in Maricopa County 2,404,550 Acres (Unincorporated Areas) Sonoran Desert National Monument 496,000 acres (20.6%) Barry M. Goldwater Gunnery Range 819,000 acres (34.1%) Tonto National Forest 489,250 acres (20.3%) Maricopa County Regional Parks 120,000 acres (5.0%) BLM Wilderness Areas 480,300 acres (20.0%) Source: Maricopa County Planning and Development Department forests. Nearly 50% of the 7,785 square miles of unincorporated area in Maricopa County is open space. Note: this measure is solely for the unincorporated areas; cities and towns in Maricopa County have additional areas preserved as open space. Maricopa County Miles of Recreation Trails 125 100 75 50 Parks 25 Maricopa County boasts the nation’s largest county park system, with 10 regional parks totaling more than 120,000 acres. Each year, more than a million park visitors enjoy affordable recreation available year-round in the regional park system. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 0 2003 2004 2005 Barrier Free Trails Designated Multi-Use Trails Competitive Tracks 3.2 3.6 5 127.7 131.0 136.3 34.7 36.7 36.7 Source: Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department 18 Strategic Priority 5 Fiscal Strength The ability of the County to meet the needs of its citizens is directly related to its ability to achieve and sustain fiscal stability. The County’s strategic priority to continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden will create the foundation necessary to achieve the outcomes that citizens desire. Maricopa County Overall Property Tax Rate (per $100 of Assessed Value) $1.75 $1.62 $1.57 $1.54 $1.54 $1.60 $1.54 $1.47 $1.45 $1.45 Community indicators that signal the County’s progress toward its goals and priorities related to fiscal strength include the property tax rate, budget per capita, and operating costs relative to inflation and County population. $1.30 $1.15 $1.00 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Property Tax Rate Maricopa County’s 2005-2010 Strategic Plan includes a strategic priority to minimize the property tax burden. Many factors influence the County’s ability to achieve this priority, however, current and accurate property valuation, as well as prudent spending plans and responsible spending, are key in minimizing the overall tax burden of our citizens. Maricopa County Primary Tax Rate (per $100 of Assessed Value) $1.35 $1.30 $1.25 Maricopa County’s property taxes are charged for each $100 of assessed value of property. The Primary Tax supports the County General Fund, which pays for the general operations of the County. $1.21 $1.21 $1.19 $1.20 $1.16 $1.18 $1.20 $1.20 FY05 FY06 $1.15 $1.10 $1.05 Maricopa County’s overall property tax rate—which includes the Primary Tax, and secondary tax rates for the Flood Control District and the Library District—held flat at $1.54 per $100 of assessed value for three years in a row, but has declined for the past two years, to $1.47 per $100 of assessed value in FY05 and $1.45 in FY06. $1.00 FY00 FY01 FY03 FY04 Primary Property Tax Rate Comparison for Select Arizona Counties The Primary Tax rate also held steady from FY03 to FY04 at $1.21, but decreased to $1.20 per $100 of assessed value in both FY05 and FY06 demonstrating the relative steadiness of this rate, even though mandated service costs continue to increase year after year. Maricopa County rates are consistently lower than the state average and comparative Arizona counties. (per $100 of Assessed Value) $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 FY2001-02 FY2002-03 FY2003-04 FY2004-05 FY2005-06 Pinal $4.60 $4.60 $4.60 $4.48 $4.48 Pima $4.07 $4.07 $4.07 $4.07 $4.07 State Average $2.23 $2.22 $2.24 $2.22 $2.21 Mohave $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 Yavapai $1.61 $1.68 $1.68 $1.70 $1.70 Maricopa $1.18 $1.21 $1.21 $1.20 $1.20 Source: Arizona Tax Research Association Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 FY02 19 Fiscal Strength (cont.) Percent of Property Tax Collected Maricopa County Budget Per Capita The ability to realize budgeted revenue is key to ensuring that an organization remains financially solid. Maricopa County has had a good experience with property tax collection. The collection rate remains high and has improved slightly from FY03 to FY05, when 97% of the taxes billed were collected. In addition, back tax collections have consistently risen. $1,000 $821.34 $900 $800 $823.70 $712.20 $708.44 $660.48 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 FY04 FY05 Budget Per Capita w/Healthcare system Maricopa County Property Tax Collection Rate FY06 Budget Per Capita w/o Healthcare system Source: Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget, Arizona DES Population Estimates $3,400,000,000 $3,200,000,000 Operating Costs Compared to Inflation/Population $3,000,000,000 $2,400,000,000 $2,200,000,000 FY03 FY03 FY04 $14,298,942 Penalities and Interest $2,778,914,160 FY05 FY05 $87,198,697 $2,937,625,213 $3,034,158,805 The cost of County government has increased to accommodate the service demands placed on it due to the phenomenal population growth in Maricopa County over the past decade. However, Maricopa County’s operating expenditure budget increase has been consistently less than the combined increase in population and inflation, which reflects efficient and cost-effective management. $14,907,895 $82,088,479 $2,681,948,987 Current Year Taxes Collected FY04 $13,483,261 $73,709,346 Back Taxes Collected Current Year Taxes Billed 96.82% 96.51% $2,600,000,000 96.98% $2,800,000,000 $3,128,755,426 $3,226,077,805 Source: Maricopa County Treasurer Budget Per Capita The budget per capita demonstrates the efficiency with which the County expends taxpayer dollars. Budget per capita decreased significantly in FY06 due primarily to the transfer of the Maricopa County Healthcare Delivery System from Maricopa County to the Special Health Care District. However, it is important to note that after factoring in the reduction in expenditures from the Healthcare Delivery System, the County still experienced a sizeable reduction in budget per capita in FY06. Per capita expenditures minus the cost of the Healthcare Delivery System have shown a steady decline over the previous 3 fiscal years. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 Maricopa County Operating Cost vs. Inflation/Population 4.00% 2.00% 2.80% 2.20% 1.9% 2.70% 3.20% 2.8% 3.30% 3.20% 0.00% -2.00% -6.1% -4.00% -6.00% -8.00% FY03 FY04 Population 20 Inflation FY05 Operating Strategic Priority 6 Quality Workforce Maricopa County recognizes the important role its employees have in the success of its operation. Their contribution is valuable in the provision of quality services to citizens. The County has established a strategic priority to maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Through this strategic priority the County strives to become an “Employer of Choice” as measured by increasing retention rates, increasing the pool of qualified applicants, and ensuring employee satisfaction on human resources issues such as morale, compensation, training, and decision processes. Maricopa County vs. State of Arizona Turnover Rates 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Each year the County administers an employee satisfaction survey so that County leadership can keep in tune with how employees feel about working for the County. Through the employee satisfaction survey, Maricopa County leadership can ascertain whether or not employees feel as though they have the training and resources necessary to effectively 75% 74% 76% FY 04 FY 05 2004 2005 9.96% Maricopa County All 16.10% 14.30% 13.00% 13.70% State of Arizona All* 13.20% 17.80% 15.50% 18.10% *estimates using BLS standards calculations Turnover Rates A key to maintaining a quality workforce is reducing the turnover rate. Turnover rates are calculated by dividing employee separations (voluntary and involuntary including retirements and layoffs) by the average number of employees for the year using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics standards. Maricopa County’s overall turnover rate rose slightly to 13.7% in FY05, after a low of 13.0% in FY04. However, this is still well below the turnover rate of Arizona State Government employees. Beginning with FY05, the County also began tracking the turnover rate based on voluntary departures only. 100% 76% 2003 Source: Maricopa County Employee Compensation Department Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction with Job 71% 2002 Maricopa Cty Voluntary* 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 Training Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Employee Satisfaction Survey FY03-FY05 Training and resources are key to the employee’s ability to perform their jobs and deliver high quality services that citizens deserve. Employees’ opportunities to continuously improve their knowledge, skills, and abilities increases their contribution to the mission of the County, and ensures they remain current with best practices and County policies and procedures. perform their jobs. This survey also is a valuable tool to assist management in improving processes, which translates into better services to its customers. The County has shown a relatively consistent satisfaction rating over the past few years. In FY05, 76% of employees responding to the survey indicated overall satisfaction with their jobs, up from 74% in FY04. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 Generally, employees were satisfied with the level of training they have received for their jobs. The rating has remained 21 Quality Workforce (cont.) Training (cont.) steady over the previous three fiscal years with nearly three out of four (72%) indicating they were satisfied or very satisfied with the level of training they received. Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction with Benefits FY 2005 FY 2004 Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction with Training FY 2002 72% 72% 62% 29% 59% 32% 66% 21% FY 2001 73% 56% 38% FY 2003 100% 58% 36% 0% 10% 20% 80% 30% 40% 50% Very Satisfied 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Satisfied Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting FY05 Benefits Survey 60% 40% 20% Safety Ensuring employee safety is paramount for the County. By maintaining a safe work environment and practices, the County is able to maintain a productive workforce. This translates into better and more cost-effective services. 0% FY03 FY04 FY05 Satisfaction with Level of Training Received Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Employee Satisfaction Survey FY03-FY05 The County has been working to reduce the accident rate per exposure hour for County employees. In FY05, the rate, based on the number of injuries per 200,000 of hours of work exposure (i.e., on-the-job work hours) was 5.5 injuries, up from 3.7 injuries in FY04, but less than 5.79 reported in FY03. Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction with Resources 100% 79% 81% 73% 80% 60% 40% Maricopa County Employee Accident Rate (injuries per 200,000 hours of exposure) 20% 0% FY03 FY04 6.00 FY05 Satisfaction with Equipment and Supplies 5.00 Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Employee Satisfaction Survey FY03-FY05 4.00 3.00 Employee compensation is a key element in attracting and retaining quality staff. Quality employee healthcare benefits as part of the compensation package has become more important as the cost of healthcare continues to increase. In FY04, more than 90% of County employees indicated satisfaction with benefits offered by the County. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 2.00 1.00 5.50 5.79 3.71 FY03 FY04 0.00 Source: Maricopa County Risk Management 22 FY05 Strategic Priority 7 Citizen Satisfaction Citizens want and deserve quality services from government for their tax dollars. One of the strategic priorities of Maricopa County is to continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided, including effectiveness in telling the public about the services it provides. effectiveness of the County in communicating information about its services. In 2005, 44% of citizens who responded to the survey rated communication effectiveness as good or excellent, a decrease from 48% in 2004, but up from the 2003 rating (41%). Maricopa County Citizen Rating: Communication Effectiveness Understanding how the County’s performance is viewed by its customers is paramount to improving the quality of service delivery. County leadership’s decision-making abilities are enhanced by having this feedback. Levels of customer satisfaction are evaluated through satisfaction surveys and on-going customer feedback. Since 2000, the County has conducted an annual Citizen Satisfaction Survey to assess how its customers perceive the quality of service delivered by County departments. A complete copy of the 2005 Citizen Satisfaction Survey results is available for download at www.maricopa.gov/mfr. 100% 80% 60% 40% 48% 44% FY04 FY05 41% 20% The County’s Citizen Satisfaction Survey asked how much citizens knew about the structure and organization of their County government. In 2005, 65% of the respondents indicated they knew something about the structure and organization of County government, up from 60% in FY04. 0% FY03 Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Citizen Satisfaction Survey FY03-FY05 The County’s annual Citizen Satisfaction Survey also asked “How satisfied are you with Maricopa County government?” In FY05, 83% of the respondents indicated Effectively communicating to citizens about the services the County provides is key to citizen satisfaction. Through the annual survey, the County asks citizens to rate the Citizen Knowledge of Maricopa County Government Structure/Organization Maricopa County Citizen Rating: Overall Satisfaction 100% 35% FY05 46% 15% 4% 80% 40% FY04 43% 75% 77% 76% 81% 83% 83% FY04 FY05 60% 12% 4% 40% 38% FY03 42% 16% 3% 20% 0% 20% Almost Nothing 40% Some 60% 80% Much Very Much 100% 0% FY00 Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Citizen Satisfaction Survey FY03-FY05 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 FY01 FY02 FY03 Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Citizen Satisfaction Survey FY03-FY05 23 Citizen Satisfaction (cont.) Citizen Satisfaction (cont.) The County recognizes the importance of being responsive to customer needs and delivering services in a timely manner. To be effective, services should be available when they are needed or requested. The ability to meet this demand is a key component of service delivery. In FY05, 48% of Citizen Satisfaction Survey respondents indicated that the County’s responsiveness was good to excellent, a slight improvement from FY04 (46%). they were satisfied with County government. This satisfaction rating has increased over previous fiscal years. Additionally, Maricopa County solicits feedback from citizens on their satisfaction with how Maricopa County uses their tax dollars to provide services. The results from the 2005 citizen survey showed that 66% of respondents were satisfied to very satisfied with how the County uses their tax dollars to provide services in a cost-effective manner, slightly lower than the satisfaction level reported in the 2004 survey. Maricopa County Citizen Rating: Quality of Service Maricopa County Citizen Satisfaction with Use of Tax Dollars 100% 80% 60% 100% 40% 80% 60% FY03 FY04 64% 20% 60% 40% 60% 60% 67% 0% 66% FY05 Maricopa County is doing a Good to Excellent Job 20% Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Citizen Satisfaction Survey FY03-FY05 0% FY03 FY04 FY05 Satisfied to very satisfied with use of tax dollars Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Citizen Satisfaction Survey FY03-FY05 To get more specific ratings on the quality of the services provided by the County, the Citizen Satisfaction Survey also asked “In general, how would you rate the job that Maricopa County is doing, would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?” A majority of respondents (64%) believe that Maricopa County is doing a good to excellent job, a slight improvement from FY04 (60%). Maricopa County Citizen Rating: Responsiveness 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 46% 46% 48% FY03 FY04 FY05 0% Maricopa County's Responsiveness is Good to Excellent Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Citizen Satisfaction Survey FY03-FY05 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 24 Credits Board of Supervisors Max W. Wilson, Chairman, District 4 Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Mary Rose Garrido Wilcox, District 5 County Manager David R. Smith Deputy County Manager Sandra L. Wilson Deputy Budget Directors Chris Bradley Brian Hushek Budget Administrator Lee Ann Bohn Managing for Results Thomas Brandt, Coordinator Kirk Jaeger, Analyst Janet Woolum, Analyst Office of Management and Budget 301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 1070 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2143 Phone: (602) 506-7280 Fax: (602) 506-3063 www.maricopa.gov/budget Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 25 To obtain more information about Managing for Results and Maricopa County’s Strategic Plan contact the Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget, 602-506-7280, or visit the web site: www.maricopa.gov/mfr Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2005 26