Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Credits Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Board of Supervisors Don Stapley, Chairman, District 2 Fulton Brock, District 1 Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 County Manager David R. Smith Deputy County Manager Sandra L. Wilson Deputy Budget Directors Chris Bradley Brian Hushek Lee Ann Bohn Managing for Results Thomas Brandt, MFR Coordinator Kirk Jaeger, MFR Analyst Janet Woolum, MFR Analyst Office of Management and Budget Managing for Results 301 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 1070 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2143 Phone: (602) 506-7280, fax: (602) 506-3063 Email: results@mail.maricopa.gov www.maricopa.gov/mfr 2 Executive Summary Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Introduction • The Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 is intended to provide citizens and stakeholders with information and an analysis of key community indicators and County government activities that reflect current conditions in seven priority areas identified in the County Board of Supervisors’ 2005-2010 Strategic Plan. Strategic Priority 1: Safe Communities • • • Violent crime rate in 2005 increased by 4% from 2004, while the property crime rate decreased by 4.4% from 2004. The property crime rate has decreased by more than 10% since 2001. According to a survey conducted by Maricopa County Research and Reporting during the summer of 2006, when asked how safe they felt living in Maricopa County, 83% of citizens responding to the survey indicated they felt safe, and 63% of respondents felt about the same or safer than in the previous year. In their on-going efforts to resolve cases in a timely and efficient manner to reduce the burden on law enforcement and detention requirements, the Courts, in FY06, met the timeframe standard in resolving civil cases, showed much improvement toward reaching the standard in family case resolution, but lost ground in juvenile dependency and juvenile delinquency cases resolved within the timeframe standards. Strategic Priority 2: Public Health • • • • The death rate for individuals under age 75 in Maricopa County has been consistently less than the national average. Preliminary data reported by the County’s Department of Public Health for 2005 show 321.2 deaths per 100,000 residents, an increase of 2.3% from 2004. The leading causes of death of residents in Maricopa County are cancer, heart disease, and stroke. The rates of heart disease deaths and cancer deaths in Maricopa County have fluctuated since 2001, but the rate of stroke deaths has consistently declined since that time. Infant mortality rates in Maricopa County continue to decline. In 2005, the rate was at 6.2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births down from 6.5 in 2004. In 2005, three out of every four children (75.8%) ages 0-2 in Maricopa County received a full complement of immunizations. This is an increase from 73.2% in 2004. Strategic Priority 3: Regional Leadership • • On the issue of transportation, average commute times in Maricopa County increased significantly in 2005; however, on a more positive note, workers’ use of alternative modes of transportation (including telecommuting) also increased and is now higher than the national average. During the March 2006 election, Maricopa County Elections Department distributed a post-voting survey to voters who cast ballots at the polls. Of the 1,707 responses received, 93% responded “yes” when asked “Were you satisfied with the ease of voting?” Continued on page 4 3 Executive Summary Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Strategic Priority 3: Regional Leadership (cont.) • Attendance at Maricopa County Library District youth programs has increased by more than 100% since FY01. Nearly 83,000 youth attended County library programs in FY06. Strategic Priority 4: Sustainable Development • • • Air quality in Maricopa County continues to be a challenge. In 2005, both particulates and ozone levels exceeded the federal standard. Levels above the standard are considered to be unhealthy for the general population. Nearly 50% of the 7,785 square miles of unincorporated Maricopa County is open space. The County is home to the largest regional parks system in the United States. Maricopa County government has been recognized for its energy conservation efforts. Efforts to reduce water use in County facilities has resulted in consistent decreases since FY03. Strategic Priority 5: Fiscal Strength • • Maricopa County’s overall property tax rate decreased for the third consecutive year from $1.54 per $100 of assessed value in FY04 to $1.43 per $100 of assessed value in FY07. Per capita expenditures are on a steady decline; and County operating costs have remained low relative to population growth and inflation over the previous three years. Strategic Priority 6: Quality Workforce • • According to the Annual Employee Satisfaction Survey, satisfaction levels among the Maricopa County workforce continue to increase; and ratings in several employee satisfaction predictors, such as good management practices, working conditions, pay and benefits, and training and development, also have improved considerably in the six-year reporting period FY01-FY06. Maricopa County government has increased the diversity of its workforce and is making progress toward its goal of a workforce more representative of the population. Strategic Priority 7: Citizen Satisfaction • • 4 According to responses from the General Citizen Survey, the satisfaction rating with County government has remained relatively high (79%) with more than three out of four citizens surveyed indicating they are satisfied or very satisfied with County government. In FY06, 47% of Citizen Survey respondents indicated that the County’s responsiveness was good to excellent, a slight decrease from the FY05 rating of 48%. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Table of Contents Introduction.............................................................................................................6 Managing for Results .............................................................................................7 County Strategic Plan ............................................................................................8 Maricopa County Profile ........................................................................................9 Strategic Priority 1: Safe Communities 1.1 Maricopa County Crime Rates ...................................................................14 1.2 Emergency Response Rates .....................................................................16 1.3 Citizens’ Rating of Feeling Safe in the Neighborhood ...............................17 1.4 Court Cases Processed within Timeframes...............................................18 Strategic Priority 2: Public Health 2.1 Mortality Rates: Adults Under Age 75........................................................20 2.2 Leading Causes of Death ..........................................................................21 2.3 Infant Mortality Rate ..................................................................................22 2.4 Child Immunization Rate............................................................................23 2.5 Physical Activity .........................................................................................24 Strategic Priority 3: Regional Leadership 3.1 Transportation: Average Commute Time...................................................26 3.2 Alternative Modes of Transportation Used ................................................27 3.3 Homeownership .........................................................................................28 3.4 Elections: Ease of Voting ..........................................................................29 3.5 Participation in County-Sponsored Youth Programs .................................30 Strategic Priority 4: Sustainable Development 4.1 Air Quality ..................................................................................................32 4.2 Open Space in Maricopa County ...............................................................33 4.3 County Facilities Water and Energy Conservation ....................................34 Strategic Priority 5: Fiscal Strength 5.1 County Property Tax Rate..........................................................................36 5.2 County Expenditures Per Capita ...............................................................37 5.3 County Operating Costs.............................................................................38 Strategic Priority 6: Quality Workforce 6.1 Overall Employee Satisfaction ..................................................................40 6.2 Employee Satisfaction Predictors .............................................................41 6.3 Workforce Diversity ....................................................................................42 Strategic Priority 7: Citizen Satisfaction 7.1 Overall Citizen Satisfaction ........................................................................44 7.2 Citizen Rating of Communication Effectiveness ........................................45 7.3 Citizen Rating of Responsiveness .............................................................46 Notes and References............................................................................................47 5 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 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 2006 is intended to provide citizens and stakeholders with information and analysis of key community indicators and County government activities that reflect current conditions in seven priority areas identified in the County Board of Supervisors’ 2005-2010 Strategic Plan. The key indicators reveal whether key community attributes are going up or down; forward or backward; getting better or worse, or staying the same. The indicators selected for inclusion represent broad interests and trends in Maricopa County, and, in some cases, 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 comes 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 and state sources such as the Uniform Crime Reports, a database of city, county, and state law enforcement data, and the Arizona Department of Health Services 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 information as part of their family of performance measures. Many of the measures have been certified by the Maricopa County 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 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: • Orange County, California • Clark County, Nevada • • Harris County, Texas • Los Angeles County, California • King County, Washington • • • Salt Lake County, Utah San Diego County, California Santa Clara County, California Multnomah County, Oregon 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 602506-7280. 6 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Managing for Results (MFR) is a powerful tool for making good business decisions and achieving department and County goals and priorities. The ideas behind MFR are basic: identify the priorities the County is trying to address on behalf of its citizens; develop an overall plan for addressing those priorities; develop policies, programs, and services that align to those priority areas; organize and implement budgeting, accounting, and management systems that support the strategies, goals, and objectives specified in the overall plan; and develop and track costs and performance data that allow the County to gauge its progress in reaching its goals and objectives. Managing for Results A fully integrated management system focused on achieving results for Maricopa County’s citizens MFR is intended to encourage elected officials, department directors, program managers, and front-line workers to focus on achieving results for citizens as the reason for providing services. Regardless of organization size, structure, or policy area, every County department can apply the principles of MFR to improve performance and demonstrate how effectively and efficiently they are delivering programs and services to customers. Managing for Results in Maricopa County has been designed to provide a common framework and direction under which strategic planning, budgeting, and performance measurement are aligned in a unified, cyclical process. A benchmark of MFR success is management and staff commitment to using MFR principles and practices and linking results-based thinking to decision making, day-to-day operations, business systems, and to the ‘bigger picture;” and aligning communication and accountability with results. The Managing for Results system allows all Maricopa County employees to say: 1. What we are doing today contributes to our strategic direction. (Every department has a strategic plan linked to their operational plan and each employee’s performance plan.) 2. We know what we have done has been effective. (Performance measures are identified and managed by activity, demonstrating the results produced.) 3. We know how much it costs to deliver our programs effectively and efficiently. (All human and financial resources are tied to the services delivered so we can tell how much they cost and how effectively and efficiently services are delivered.) 7 County Strategic Plan Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 County 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. County Vision Citizens serving citizens by working collaboratively, innovatively, efficiently and effectively. We will be responsive to our customers while being fiscally prudent. County Strategic Priorities Safe Communities: Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system. Public Health: Promote and protect the public health of the community. Regional Leadership: Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas. Sustainable Development: Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Fiscal Strength: Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden. Quality Workforce: Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well. Citizen Satisfaction: Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County. 8 Maricopa County Profile Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Overview Maricopa County, Arizona, is the nation’s fourth largest county in terms of population size—3.6 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. Population Maricopa County continues to be one of the fastest growing regions in the United States. The County is growing at a rate of approximately 3.3 percent per year. The long-range growth for the community is expected to be approximately 3.0 percent, while the national average is closer to 1.0 percent. 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. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the County has grown from 2,122,100 residents in 1990 to 3,590,804 in 2005, representing a 69.2 percent increase in just 15 years, and is forecast to continue this rate of growth over the next several years. Maricopa County Population Estimates “One of the fastest growing regions in the country.” (in millions) 5 4.12 4.24 4.00 4 3.77 3.54 3.19 3.30 3.88 3.65 3.40 3 2 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: AZ Dept. of Economic Security, Elliott D. Pollack & Company 9 Maricopa County Profile Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Land Area Maricopa County has a land area of 9,226 square miles, of which 1,441 square miles are incorporated (15.6%) and 7,785 square miles are unincorporated (84.4%). In land area, 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 corporations, 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. Demographics According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, in 2005, Maricopa County had a estimated household population of nearly 3.6 million—1.8 million (50%) females and 1.8 million (50%) males. The median age was 33.4 years. Twenty-eight percent of the population were under 18 years and 11 percent were 65 years and older. 2005 Maricopa County Demographic Profile Maricopa County Population 3,590,804 Total Civil Labor Force 1,809,289 % of total population Median Age Under 5 years United States 67.1% 65.9% 33.4 36.4 8.3% 7.0% 18 years or older 72.3% 74.6% 65 years or older 10.9% 12.1% 78.3% 74.7% Black or African American 3.8% 12.1% Native American 1.9% 0.8% Asian or Pacific Islanders 2.8% 4.4% 10.9% 6.0% 2.3% 1.9% 29.2% 14.5% Race/Ethnicity White Some other race Two or more races Hispanic or Latino (of any race) Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 10 Maricopa County Profile Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Economics After more than two years of continued improvement the Maricopa County economy is starting to show signs of slowing growth. Increasing interest rates have caused a slowing in the housing market which is expected to continue, and is causing a modest decrease in housing appreciation. This will likely limit household spending and as a result will decrease the amount of sales tax revenue. On the other hand, the local employment market remains strong and people continue to prefer Metropolitan Phoenix as a place to relocate. However, the County still lags behind the nation and a number of the benchmark counties in per capita income. Maricopa County Unemployment Rates 5.7% 6.0% 5.3% 5.0% 4.4% 4.2% 4.1% 4.0% 3.3% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Comparison of 2004 Per Capita Income $50,000 Families Below the Poverty Level 2005 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 Maricopa County United States 9.5% 10.2% $5,000 $0 Salt Lake Maricopa (UT) (AZ) $31,365 $31,757 Clark (NV) U.S. Los Angeles (CA) Multnoma h (OR) San Diego (CA) Harris (TX) Orange (CA) Santa Clara (CA) King (WA) $32,963 $33,050 $33,179 $36,117 $37,965 $39,062 $41,868 $49,132 $49,286 Source: U.S. Census Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 11 Maricopa County Profile Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Education According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), in 2005, 84 percent of people 25 years and over in Maricopa County had at least graduated from high school, and 27 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Among people 16 to 19 years old, 9 percent were dropouts (i.e., they were not enrolled in school and had not graduated from high school). According to the ACS, total school enrollment in Maricopa County was more than 966,000 in 2005. Nursery school and kindergarten enrollment was 105,000, and elementary or high school enrollment was 635,000 children. College or graduate school enrollment was more than 227,000. 2005 Educational Attainment of Population > Age 25 County Comparison (% of population attaining specific levels) Maricopa County is home to a variety of public and private universities, and a nationally recognized network of community colleges: • Arizona State University 100 90 80 • Polytechnic Campus 30 Campus • University of Phoenix • Grand Canyon University • Western International University • Embry Riddle University • Ottawa University • DeVry Institute • Midwestern University • A.T. Still University • Thunderbird-The Garvin School of Int'l Mgmt. • Phoenix School of Law 12 76.5 74.4 60 50 • Downtown Phoenix 87.1 85.7 84.4 70 • Tempe Campus • West Campus 82.6 81.7 91.6 88.7 84.7 44.6 40 34.9 27.6 34 27.4 43.6 35.5 27.3 28.5 19.9 20 6.7 10 5.2 7.9 6.9 8.0 8.3 8.5 7.8 5.7 7.9 0 LA Harris Clark Orange High School San Diego Maricopa Bachelor's Degree Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Salt Lake Santa Clara Associates Multnomah King Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Citizens consider their personal 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. Safe Communities Ensure safe communities and a streamlined, integrated justice system Indicator 1.1 Crime Rates Indicator 1.2 Emergency Response Rates Indicator 1.3 Citizens’ Rating of Feeling Safe in their Neighborhoods Indicator 1.4 Court Cases Processed within Timeframes Key County Departments: Sheriff’s Office County Attorney Trial Courts Indigent Representation Emergency Management Clerk of the Superior Court Facilities Management Public Health 13 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Safe Communities Indicator 1.1 Crime Rates Description: The rate of violent crime per 100,000 inhabitants, and the rate of property crime per 100,000 inhabitants Source: Annual FBI Uniform Crime Report Crime rates are basic indicators of public safety. Some of the factors that contribute to the rate of crime in a community include geographic and demographic factors, transient factors, economic conditions, family conditions, climate, effective strength of law enforcement agencies, policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecution, adjudication, corrections, and probation), citizen’s attitudes toward crime, and crime reporting practices of the citizenry. Crime not only affects the quality of life of those who directly experience or witness it, but may also affect the lives of others in the community who feel threatened by it, undermining their sense of personal security. Low crime rates promote neighborhood stability and increase a community’s attractiveness as a place to live, work, and conduct business. Key Findings: • • The violent crime rate in Maricopa County had been declining since 2000, but in 2005 the rate increased by 4.0%, from 493 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004 to 513 crimes per 100,000 Maricopa County Violent Crime Rate inhabitants in 2005. (violent crime per 100,000 population) 700 The national average in 2005 was 469.2 per 100,000 inhabitants, an increase of 2.3% from 2004. When compared to similar counties, Maricopa County’s violent crime rate is higher than six of the benchmark counties. 650 600 550 500 450 400 2001 2002 Crime Rate 566.5 572.1 % change n/a 0.9% Source: FBI Crime in the United States, 2005 800 County Comparison of 2005 Violent Crime Rates (rate per 100,000 population) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Orange 283.6 Santa Clara Multnomah 316.2 Salt Lake King San Diego Maricopa LA Clark Harris 332.3 363.0 469.3 513.0 663.3 674.9 712.6 327.3 Source: FBI Crime in the United States, 2005 14 2003 2004 2005 506.5 493.1 513.0 -11.5% -2.6% 4.0% Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Safe Communities Incidents of violent and property crime are a fundamental measure of our citizens’ security and quality of life. The rapidly growing population in the County creates challenges, but law enforcement continues to work to reduce property crime rates in the County from previous years. The County is working with other local governments to develop strategies to address the high property crime rate. Key Findings: • • The property crime rate continued to decline in 2005, with a decrease of 4.4% from 2004. The property crime rate has decreased by more than 10% since 2001. The property crime rate of 5,236 per 100,000 inhabitants in Maricopa County is third highest among the benchmark counties and is higher than the national rate of 3,230 per 100,000 inhabitants. Indicator 1.1 Crime Rates (cont). Description: The rate of violent crime per 100,000 inhabitants, and the rate of property crime per 100,000 inhabitants1 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report Maricopa County Property Crime Rate (property crimes per 100,000 population) 6,500 6,200 5,900 5,600 5,300 5,000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Property crimes 5,860 6,275 5,853 5,478 5,236 % change 3.80% 7.10% -6.70% -6.40% -4.40% Source: FBI Crime in the United States, 2005 Comparison of 2005 Property Crime Rates (rate per 100,000 inhabitants) 6,000 5,236 5,000 5,287 5,359 4,613 4,408 4,221 4,000 3,308 2,861 3,000 2,648 2,394 2,000 1,000 0 Orange Santa Clara LA San Diego Harris Multnomah Clark Maricopa Salt Lake King Source: FBI Crime in the United States, 2005 15 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Safe Communities Indicator 1.2 Emergency Response Times Description: Percentage of Priority One calls responded to by the Sheriff’s Office within acceptable standards (5 minutes or less). Priority One calls typically are incidents in progress. Source: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office How long it might take to get help is another factor in quality of life and how residents might perceive their safety. A timely response to emergencies contributes to the citizens’ sense of safety and security in their community. Key Findings: • • In FY06, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office responded to 34% of Priority One calls within five minutes or less. This is down from 45% in FY05, but up from FY03 and FY04 levels. Priority One calls for service in FY06 increased 27% over FY05 levels. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Emergency Response Times Percent of Priority 1 calls responded to in 5 minutes or less 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Response Rate FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 26.5% 32.0% 45.0% 34.0% Source: Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office • The 2006 General Citizen Survey asked survey participants “How much do you agree or disagree that you have a family preparedness plan to assure your safety in the event of a disaster or terrorist attack? (Would you say you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?).” More than half of the respondents (56%) agreed with the statement, while 30% disagreed with the statement, and 4% strongly disagreed (9% answered Don’t Know). Emergency Response to Natural and Man-Made Disasters Maricopa County is working to fully implement National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) best practices into a consistent approach to disaster and emergency management through Maricopa County at all jurisdictional levels and across all related functional disciplines. Maricopa County Department of Emergency Management and Department of Transportation, with support from the Sheriff’s Office, are developing a mass evacuation and mass influx plan, and Emergency Management has coordinated NIMS training for key County departments as well as city/town governments, fire districts, hospitals, and other emergency response agencies. 16 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Safe Communities In 2004, citizens ranked public safety as the 2nd highest “quality of life” issue.* Starting with the 2006 Community Indicators report, the County began tracking “Citizen Feelings of Safety” based on responses to new questions added to the General Citizen Survey. Indicator 1.3 Citizens’ Rating of Feeling Safe in their Neighborhood Key Findings: • • During the summer of 2006, 83% of citizens responding to the survey indicated they felt very safe or safe, while 10% felt unsafe or very unsafe. Results from the same survey showed that 65% of respondents felt about the same or safer this year than last year, and 31% felt less safe. Maricopa County Citizen Rating 2006: Feelings of Safety Description: Percent rating “safe” or “very safe” in General Citizen Survey2 Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Overall, how safe or unsafe do you feel living in Maricopa County? (Do you feel very safe, safe, unsafe, or very unsafe?) Neutral, 5% Unsafe, 9% Very Unsafe, 1% Safe, 62% Don't Know, 2% Very Safe, 21% Source: Maricopa County General Citizen Survey Citizen Rating 2006: Feelings of Safety Do you feel safer living in Maricopa County now than you did a year ago? 4% Much safer 8% Safer 53% About the same 29% Less safe 2% Much less safe 4% Don’t know/NA Source: Maricopa County General Citizen Survey * What Matters? The Morrison Institute, Arizona State University, 2004. 17 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Safe Communities Indicator 1.4 Court Cases Processed within Timeframes Description: Established standards regarding timely case resolution for criminal, civil, family, juvenile dependency, and juvenile delinquency cases Victims, witnesses, defendants, and members of the community expect resolution of cases without unnecessary delay. Court caseloads continue to climb with the County’s population growth. Resolving cases in a timely and efficient manner will help to ease the burden on law enforcement and detention requirements, and is an indicator of the County’s efforts toward a streamlined, integrated justice system. The Courts have established the following standards regarding case resolution: Criminal: 99% of criminal cases resolved within 180 days; Civil: 95% of civil cases resolved within 18 months; Family: 99% of cases (pre-decree) resolved within 12 months; Juvenile Dependency: 95% of cases (pre-finding) resolved within 90 days; Source: Maricopa County Superior Court Juvenile Delinquency: 95% of cases resolved within 90 days. Key Findings: • “The judicial branch in Maricopa County is committed to excellence. It is also committed to the timely, fair, and impartial administration of justice.” —Judge Barbara Rodriquez Mundell, Presiding Judge In FY2006, the Courts met the standard in resolving civil cases, showed much improvement toward reaching the standard in family case resolution, but lost ground in the number of juvenile dependency and juvenile delinquency cases resolved within the timeframe standards. Percent of cases by type processed within standard Case Type Target FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 Criminal 99% 78.0% 83.0% 86.0% 83.3% 83.4% 84.3% Civil 95% 87.0% 86.0% 95.0% 93.9% 93.5% 95.0% Family 99% 85.0% 85.0% 85.5% 85.2% 88.1% 93.2% Juvenile Dependency 95% na na 88.4% 88.1% 78.2% 61.4% Juvenile Delinquency 95% na na 87.5% 85.2% 80.9% 77.7% na=not available Source: Maricopa County Superior Court • In FY2006, the Maricopa County court system resolved 10,680 juvenile delinquency cases; 35,570 civil cases, 33,670 family court cases, and 30,179 criminal court cases. 18 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 The benefits of a healthy community are varied and numerous. It results in a productive workforce and improved quality of life. Additionally, if people are in good health, there is less drain on the limited resources in the healthcare system, allowing other critical issues to be addressed. 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 healthcare providers to address public health issues, and supporting Healthy People 2010— a set of health objectives for the nation to achieve over the first decade of the 21st century. Public Health Promote and protect the public health of the community Indicator 2.1 Mortality Rate: Adults under age 75 Indicator 2.2 Leading Causes of Death Indicator 2.3 Infant Mortality Rate Indicator 2.4 Child Immunization Rate Indicator 2.5 Physical Activity Key County Departments: Public Health Environmental Services Parks and Recreation Human Services Animal Care & Control Correctional Health Community Development Air Quality 19 Public Health Indicator 2.1 Mortality Rate: Adults under 75 Description: Rate of death of residents under age 75, per 100,000 residents Source: Arizona Department of Health Services; Maricopa County Public Health Department (Health Status Report); National Center for Health Statistics Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 The adult mortality rate is an indicator that captures, indirectly or directly, other aspects of health and well-being. Tracking the rate of deaths before age 75 in a population can point to concerns in the healthcare delivery system or environment. A low mortality rate is a positive sign that adult health is improving. Key Findings: • The death rate for individuals under age 75 in Maricopa County has been consistently less than the national average. Preliminary data reported by the County’s Department of Public Health for 2005 show 321.2 deaths per 100,000 residents, an increase of 2.3% from 2004. This increase reverses the downward trend the County has been experiencing since 2001. Mortality Rates -- Residents under Age 75 (deaths per 100,000 residents) 450 350 390.0 391.1 400 386.9 375.8 335.4 329.7 322.6 313.9 321.2 300 250 200 150 100 2001 2002 2003 Maricopa County 2004 2005 National Average Selected Maricopa County Department of Public Health Programs: • • • • 20 Bio-defense Preparedness and Response Chronic Disease and Tobacco Control Family Health Health Care for the Homeless • • • • HIV/HCV Services Immunization Services Infectious Disease Control and Treatment Nutrition Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Public Health For the past decade, the leading causes of death in Maricopa County have been cancer, heart disease and strokes, many of which are preventable by either behavior changes or treatable with early prevention screening. Leading causes of death (non-injury) and the associated age-adjusted death rates in Maricopa County provide a picture of the health status of residents, and show the County’s progress toward achieving Healthy People 2010 national health objectives. Low rates are positive signs that adult health is improving. Key Findings: • • • The rate of heart disease deaths in Maricopa County has fluctuated since 2001, but the rate of stroke deaths has consistently declined since 2001. The rate of cancer deaths in the County has fluctuated since 2001, as have diabetesrelated deaths. The rate of respiratory disease deaths in Maricopa County had been declining since 2001, but the rate increased considerably in 2005, and continues to be considerably higher than the Healthy People 2010 target. Indicator 2.2 Leading Causes of Death Description: Rate of deaths per 100,000 resident population in five categories: cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetesrelated, and respiratory disease Source: Arizona Department of Health Services; Maricopa County Public Health Department (Health Status Report) Leading causes of death (non-injury), rate per 100,000 residents HP 2010 Target 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Cancer 159.9 155.4 153.3 152.2 160.8 155.8 Heart Disease 166.0 158.3 170.4 166.8 157.3 158.6 Stroke 48.0 48.3 46.9 43.2 43.0 39.1 Diabetes-Related 45.0 45.8 41.7 48.4 44.5 47.7 Respiratory Disease 62.3 133.3 129.2 122.2 115.2 127.7 Source: Arizona Department of Health Services • Alcohol and tobacco use are risk factors for many diseases and conditions, including many forms of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Adopting healthy behaviors, such as eating nutritious foods, engaging in regular physical activity and avoiding tobacco, may prevent or control the devastating effects of these diseases. According to a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention*, in 2005, 20% of Maricopa County adults reported having smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and currently smoke. This is an increase from the 18.3% reported in 2004, but remains slightly below the national median of 20.6%. * Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 21 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Public Health Indicator 2.3 Infant Mortality Rate Description: Rate of death for infants (age 0-1) per 1,000 live births Source: Arizona Department of Health Services; Maricopa County Department of Public Health The infant mortality rate is a commonly used measure of the health and overall well-being of young children. A low infant mortality rate is a positive sign that child well-being is improving. It is an indicator that also captures, indirectly or directly, other aspects of health and well-being in a community. Key Findings: • The infant mortality rate in Maricopa County has been consistently less than the national average. In 2005, the Maricopa County Department of Public Health reported 6.2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, down slightly from the 6.5 reported in 2004. The trend shows the infant mortality rate to be relatively steady, but the rate is still higher than the Healthy Arizona 2010 target of 6.0 per 1,000 live births. Infant Mortality Rate (infant deaths per 1,000 live births) 7.5 7.0 6.9 7 6.7 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.8 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.2 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 2000 2001 2002 Maricopa County 2003 2004 2005 National Average Source: Maricopa County Department of Public Health • In an effort to lower the infant mortality rate, Maricopa County Public Health Department is collaborating with St. Luke’s Health Initiatives and the “Alliance for Innovations in Healthcare” program to improve perinatal outcomes, and is working with Arizona State University Resiliency Solution Group on a research project analyzing perinatal experience among women who have delivered babies. 22 Public Health Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Many childhood diseases can be prevented and on-going good health can be achieved by ensuring that children receive the proper immunizations. Immunization is considered to be one of the most important interventions available for preventing serious diseases among infants and children. Children who receive immunizations are protected from dangerous childhood diseases such as mumps, polio, and tetanus. The positive effects of receiving the immunizations are felt throughout a community, from the school system, to the work environment, as well as home life. This indicator measures the efforts to improve the overall well-being of infants and children by tracking the percent of children who have received a full complement of immunization by 24 months of age. Key Findings: • High immunization rates are a positive sign for the community. In 2005, the child immunization rate in Maricopa County was not as high as the national average, but the County is closing the gap to the national average. Information provided by the National Immunization Survey showed that in 2005 the percent of children ages 0-2 in Maricopa County who have received a full complement of immunizations increased to 75.8% from 73.2% in 2004. Indicator 2.4 Child Immunization Rate Description: Percent of 0-2 years old who have received full complement of immunizations Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Immunization Survey Immunization Rate (for children at 24 months old) 80% 77.3% 74.2% 72.4% 72.9% 75% 77.9% 75.8% 73.2% 71.0% 70.7% 68.6% 70% 66.0% 65% 62.5% 60% 55% 50% 2000 2001 2002 Maricopa County 2003 2004 2005 National Average Source: National Immunization Survey • Maricopa County Human Services Department Education Division, through its Head Start Zero-Five Program, ensures children are properly immunized and remain current with a schedule for well-child and dental exams to ensure health and dental needs are identified in a timely manner. 23 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Public Health Indicator 2.5 Physical Activity Description: Number of visitors to Maricopa County regional parks4 Source: Maricopa Department of Parks and Recreation Regular physical exercise can help prevent and manage health problems, such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes. Maricopa County is home to the largest regional parks system in the United States. Through the County Parks and Recreation Department and Department of Public Health, the County works to encourage participation in outdoor activities that lead to healthier lifestyles. An indicator of the level of physical activity and healthy behaviors is the use of the many outdoor recreation opportunities that the County provides. Key Findings: • In FY06, parks visitation held steady at more than 1.26 millions individuals. Number of Regional Park Visitors 2.00 (in millions) Maricopa County Regional Parks System • Adobe Dam Regional Park 1.50 • Buckeye Hills Regional Park 1.19 • Cave Creek Regional Park 1.25 1.26 1.26 1.00 • Desert Outdoor Center • Estrella Mountain Regional Park 0.50 • Lake Pleasant Regional Park 0.00 • McDowell Mountain Regional Park FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Sources: Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department • San Tan Mountain Regional Park • Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area • Usery Mountain Regional Park • White Tank Mountain Regional Park * Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 24 • Leisure Time Physical Activity According to a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention*, in 2005, 77.5% of County adult residents responding to a national survey indicated that they had engaged in some leisure time exercise in the past 30 days. This is a significant improvement from the 74.2% who reported some leisure time activity in the 2004 study. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 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 by addressing such issues as transportation, elections, housing, economic development, youth and families, education, and public health and safety. Regional Leadership Provide regional leadership in critical public policy areas Indicator 3.1 Transportation: Average Commute Time Indicator 3.2 Alternative Modes of Transportation Used Indicator 3.3 Homeownership Indicator 3.4 Elections: Ease of Voting Indicator 3.5 County-Sponsored Youth Programs Key County Departments: Transportation Elections Community Development Human Services Parks and Recreation Library District Flood Control District Planning and Development 25 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Regional Leadership Transportation: Average Commute Time The ability of residents, workers, and goods to move within the County is integral to Maricopa County’s quality of life and economic prosperity. Worker commute time is an indirect measure of the effectiveness of regional transportation planning and other development activities. Description: Workers average commute time to work (in minutes)5 Key Findings: Indicator 3.1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey • • Average commute time in Maricopa County rose in 2005 from 24.5 minutes to 26.4 minutes, adding nearly two full minutes to workers’ drive time. The County’s average commute time (26.4 minutes) was higher than the national average (25.1 minutes) and higher than six of the other nine benchmark counties. Maricopa County Average Commute Time 27.0 (in minutes) 26.4 26.5 26.0 25.5 25.1 25.0 25.0 24.7 24.4 24.5 24.3 24.3 24.7 24.5 24.4 24.3 24.2 24.0 23.5 23.0 2000 2001 2002 Maricopa 2003 2004 2005 U.S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Comparison of Commute Times in 2005 (in minutes) 30.0 29.0 27.6 28.0 26.5 Maricopa Orange 25.2 24.0 22.0 26.4 25.8 26.0 23.6 23.7 23.9 Santa Clara Multnomah Clark 21.2 20.0 18.0 Salt Lake Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 26 San Diego King Harris LA Regional Leadership Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 The availability and use of alternative modes of travel, such as carpools, public transportation, walking, biking, or telecommuting, can impact a variety of measures, such as commute times, congestion and accident statistics. It also influences other quality of life measures such as air quality. Use of alternative modes of transportation by workers in Maricopa County is an indicator of the countywide effort to alleviate traffic congestion and improve air quality by encouraging use of other methods of transport to work. Key Findings: • Workers in Maricopa County continued to increase their use of alternative modes of transportation (i.e., something other than driving alone or telecommuting) from 2004 to 2005. In 2005, the percent of workers using alternative modes was higher than the national average, with increases in the use of every alternative mode measured by the Census Bureau. Indicator 3.2 Alternative Modes of Transportation Used Description: Percent of workers using alternative modes of transportation to work6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Maricopa County Use of Alternative Transportation (% of workers using alternative modes of transportation) 30% 25% 23.7% 22.1% 19.7% 20% 24.4% 23.2% 22.6% 18.9% 18.5% 22.3% 22.2% 23.0% 19.3% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 Maricopa County 2004 2005 U.S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Commuting to Work in Maricopa County 2005 75.5% Drove alone 14.4% Carpooled 2.2% Took public transportation 1.5% Walked to work 2.2% Used other means 4.2% Telecommuting/worked at home Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 27 Regional Leadership Indicator 3.3 Homeownership Description: Percent of residents living in owneroccupied housing7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Homeownership contributes to safe, stable neighborhoods and is associated with increased property values. The percentage of residents living in owner-occupied housing is an indicator of the economic strength and quality of life of the region and of Countywide efforts to support increased homeownership. Key Findings: • • In 2005, the percent of residents living in owner-occupied housing was 67.5%, down from 68.2% in 2004. Homeownership in Maricopa County has been consistently higher than the national average indicating that Maricopa County has a relatively solid base of households who own their own homes. Maricopa County Housing Rate of Homeownership (% of residents living in owner-occupied housing) 80% 70% 68.3% 68.1% 65.7% 68.0% 66.4% 66.8% 68.2% 67.1% 67.5% 66.9% 60% 50% “By July 2007, complete all phases for the regional Human Services Campus for the homeless and support homeownership in the County.” —Maricopa County goal, 2005-2010 Strategic Plan 28 40% 2001 2002 2003 Maricopa Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2004 U.S. 2005 Regional Leadership Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Maricopa County is working to increase voter satisfaction with the process of voting by increasing the capacity and the ease of voting in the County. Early voting is intended to reduce lines at polling places making voting easier and more efficient. Early Voting • • According to the Maricopa County Elections Department, in the March 2006 elections, 112,662 ballots (regular and provisional) were cast; 63% were mail/early ballots. In the September 2006 elections, 293,947 ballots (regular and provisional) were cast; 39% were mail/early ballots. Percent of total ballots cast by early voting March 2006 Sept 2006 63% 39% Early voting Indicator 3.4 Elections: Ease of Voting Description: Ease the voting as measured by number of mail/early ballots cast and voter satisfaction with the voting process Source: Maricopa County Elections Department Source: Maricopa County Elections Department • The mission of the Maricopa County Elections Department is to provide access to the electoral process for citizens and candidates so they have equal access and may readily participate in elections. In FY2005, Maricopa County Elections Department processed 357,302 voter registrations and more than 2,390 candidate filings. Voter Satisfaction with Ease of Voting • In the March 2006 election, a post-voting survey was distributed to voters who cast ballots at the polls. Of the 1,707 responses received (4.3% response rate), 93% responded “yes” when asked “Were you satisfied with the ease of voting?” Maricopa County Elections Voter Satisfaction March 2006 Voters’ rating of satisfaction with ease of voting Somewhat, 3% No, 2% Yes, 93% No Response, 2% Source: Maricopa County Elections Department 29 Regional Leadership Indicator 3.5 Participation in CountySponsored Youth Programs Description: Total attendance at Maricopa County Library District youth programs Source: Maricopa County Library District Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Maricopa County is working to promote, expand, and improve County-sponsored programs and activities for young people in the County to help them build their skills, develop a sense of civic involvement in the community, and successfully complete their education. Outside of school, one of the best places to learn about civic engagement is the local library. Maricopa County Library District offered more than 2,100 children’s programs in FY2006. The level of participation in County-sponsored youth programs is an indicator of young people’s community involvement. Key Findings: • • In FY06, attendance at Library District youth programs topped 82,000, an increase of approximately 33% from the 63,000 attendance reported in FY05. Attendance at Library District youth programs has increased by more than 100% since FY01. Maricopa County Library District http://www.mcldaz.org/ • Avondale Civic Center Aguila Branch Campbell Branch El Mirage Branch Fountain Hills Branch Gila Bend Branch Guadalupe Branch Hollyhock Branch Litchfield Park Branch North Valley Regional Northwest Regional Perry Branch Gilbert Queen Creek Branch Robson Branch Southeast Regional • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Maricopa County Library District Youth Programs 90.0 82.9 (attendance in thousands) 80.0 70.0 60.8 60.0 63.2 52.9 50.0 41.0 40.0 37.4 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 Source: Maricopa County Library District According to Arizona Public Library Statistics: 2004-2005, Maricopa County Library District had nearly 200,000 print materials in their children’s services collection, which was 8% of the total children’s collections available in the County. The Library District had 20,330 registered borrowers age 14 and under in FY05. 30 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 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 has adopted a key strategic priority to carefully plan and manage land use to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment. Sustainable Development Carefully plan and manage land use in Maricopa County to promote sustainable development and to preserve and strengthen our environment Indicator 4.1 Air Quality Indicator 4.2 Open Space Indicator 4.3 County Facilities Water and Energy Conservation Key County Departments: Planning and Development Air Quality Parks and Recreation Facilities Management Equipment Services Environmental Services Solid Waste Transportation 31 Sustainable Development Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Air quality is an indicator of the environmental health of a community, which has a direct impact on quality of life. Maricopa County Air Quality Department tracks air quality levels at different sites throughout the County monitoring levels of carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulates, and the number of days that levels exceed national air quality standards. Particulate matter—soot, dust, smoke, etc.—is small in size and can damage the respiratory system. Ozone is a pollutant typically seen in the summer months and is formed by a mixture of heat, sunlight, and the presence of volatile organic compounds such as fumes from vehicle fuels and/or cleaning solvents. Ozone’s health effects can damage the lung tissue and even trigger asthma. Indicator 4.1 Air Quality Description: Number of days where at least one of the County’s air quality monitors recorded levels above the federal standard Source: Maricopa County Air Quality Department Key Findings: • In 2005, Maricopa County recorded 19 days where at least one air quality monitor recorded particulate levels above the federal standard. Levels above the standard are considered to be unhealthy for the general population. • In 2005, Maricopa County recorded 12 days where at least one air quality monitor recorded ozone levels above the Maricopa County Air Quality--Particulates Levels (Days per year where at least one site exceeded the federal standard) federal standard. 19 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 5 2003 2004 2 2 0 2000 2001 2002 2005 Source: Maricopa County Air Quality Department Maricopa County Air Quality--Ozone Levels (Days per year where at least one site exceeded the federal standard) 22 20 20 17 18 14 16 14 12 12 12 10 8 6 4 1 2 0 2000 2001 Source: Maricopa County Air Quality Department 32 2002 2003 2004 2005 Currently, the US Environmental Protection Agency has deemed Maricopa County to be in “serious non-attainment” of the particulate standard. Maricopa County, along with the State and other regulatory agencies, is developing a Rate of Progress plan to submit to the EPA. This plan will include ideas to reduce particulate emissions Countywide by 5% each year until the County reaches the federal standard. Sustainable Development Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 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. This indicator provides a measure of progress toward creating a balance between the preservation of open space and developed areas in unincorporated Maricopa County leading to sustainable development. Indicator 4.2 Open Space Description: Acres of open space (in unincorporated Maricopa County) Open Space in Maricopa County 2,404,550 Acres (Unincorporated Areas) Source: Maricopa County Planning and Development Department; Maricopa County Parks and Recreation 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 The County is required by state law to prepare a comprehensive plan “to conserve the natural resources of the County, to ensure efficient expenditure of public funds, and to promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the public.” Maricopa County 2020, Eye to the Future, the County’s comprehensive plan, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in October 1997, and subsequently updated with new elements in 2002. A copy is available at www.maricopa.gov/planning. Park Recreation Trail Miles Maricopa County Miles of Recreation Trails by Trail Type Maricopa County owns and maintains approximately 184 miles of recreation trails in its Countywide system, and has consistently increased the miles of trails over the past few years. This includes 142.3 miles of multi-use trails, up from 136.3 miles (+4%) in 2005, 5 miles of barrier-free trails, and 36.3 miles of competitive tracks. 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2003 2004 2005 3.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 Designated Multi-Use 127.4 134.6 136.3 142.3 Competitive Tracks 34.7 36.7 36.7 36.3 Barrier Free 2006 Source: Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department 33 Sustainable Development Indicator 4.3 County Facilities Water and Energy Conservation Description: Energy and water consumption per square foot of County buildings Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 This indicator provides a measure of the County’s efforts in enhancing and expanding internal conservation programs for reducing both energy and water usage in County buildings, which will strengthen our environment and contribute to sustainable development. Key Findings: • • Source: Maricopa County Facilities Management Annual water usage per square foot in County buildings has consistently declined since FY03. In FY06, water usage declined to 58.0 gallons per square foot, which is down from 59.4 gallons per square foot in FY05. Annual energy use (kWh) per square foot has remained steady over the past three fiscal years, at an average of approximately 32 kilowatts per square foot in County buildings. Maricopa County Facilities Energy and Water Conservation 100 Usage per sq. ft. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FY03 FY 04 FY05 FY06 Water Use (gal.) per sq. ft. 85.9 70.0 59.4 58.0 Energy Use (kWh) per sq. ft. 30.8 32.0 31.9 31.7 Source: Maricopa County Facilities Management • • In March 2006, Maricopa County received three 2005 Governor’s Awards of Merit for Energy Efficiency for several energyefficient elements at the new Downtown Justice Center, for the Department of Transportation (MCDOT) warehouse lighting retrofit, and for the County’s conversion from traditional cathode ray tube (CRT) computer monitors to liquid crystal display (LCD) screens that have lower energy usage requirements and greater functionality. In October 2006, Maricopa County was recognized by Valley Forward, a Phoenix-based environmental organization, for implementing bio-diesel fuel into the County’s fleet; and for the installation of a state-of-the-art, flat-panel solar thermal system at the Desert Outdoor Center at Lake Pleasant, which will provide solar energy for the Center to power the heating and cooling system, reducing overall electrical consumption by more than 25%. 34 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 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. Many factors influence the County’s ability to achieve this priority. 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. Fiscal Strength Continue to exercise sound financial management and build the County’s fiscal strength while minimizing the property tax burden Indicator 5.1 Property Tax Rate Indicator 5.2 County Expenditures Per Capita Indicator 5.3 County Operating Costs Key County Departments: Management and Budget Finance Library District Flood Control District Stadium District Materials Management Parks and Recreation Facilities Management 35 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Fiscal Strength Indicator 5.1 County Property Tax Rate Description: Overall property tax rate per $100 of assessed value of property Source: Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget Prudent spending plans and responsible spending are key in minimizing the overall tax burden of our citizens. 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. This indicator measures the County’s fiscal strength based on its ability to keep the property tax from increasing. Key Findings: • 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 three years, to $1.47 per $100 of assessed value in FY05, $1.45 in FY06, and $1.43 in FY07. Maricopa County Overall Property Tax Rate (per $100 of Assessed Value) $1.75 $1.60 $1.57 $1.54 $1.54 $1.54 $1.47 $1.45 $1.43 FY06 FY07 $1.45 $1.30 $1.15 $1.00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Source: Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget Maricopa County Primary Tax Rate $1.35 (per $100 of Assessed Value) $1.30 $1.25 $1.21 $1.21 $1.20 $1.20 $1.18 $1.20 $1.18 $1.16 $1.15 $1.10 $1.05 $1.00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Source: Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget 36 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY04 FY05 Fiscal Strength Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 The expenditures per capita indicator indirectly demonstrates the efficiency with which the County expends taxpayer dollars. Indicator 5.2 County Expenditures Per Capita Key Findings: • • Expenditures 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, but it continued to decrease into FY07. Per capita expenditures (recalculated to exclude the cost of the Healthcare Delivery System to allow for comparable trending) have shown a steady decline over the previous four fiscal years. Description: Approved expenditures divided by County population Source: Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget Maricopa County Budget Per Capita $1,000 $800 $712.20 $708.44 $660.48 FY05 FY06 $648.21 $600 $400 $200 $0 FY04 FY07 Sources: Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget, Arizona Department of Economic Security Maricopa County FY06-FY07 Adopted Budget (% of budget by service area) Education 0.27% Culture & Recreation 0.35% Public Safety 35.89% General Government 32.56% Highways & Streets 8.43% Health, Welfare & Sanitation 22.50% Sources: Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget 37 Fiscal Strength Indicator 5.3 County Operating Costs Description: Percent change in County operating costs changes compared to changes in population and the rate of inflation Source: Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 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 historically less than the combined increase in population and inflation, which reflects efficient and cost-effective management. Key Findings: • County operating costs have increased by 5.4% which is primarily is due to enhancements in employee compensation and benefit packages; growth in the justice system; and large, increased contributions paid to the State of Arizona for mandated health care costs. This compares to an increase of population and inflation of 5.4%. Maricopa County Operating Costs % change compared to population change and inflation rate 5.4% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 2.8% 2.2% 1.9% 2.7% 3.2% 2.8% 3.3% 3.2% 3.1% 2.3% 0.0% -2.0% -4.0% -6.0% -6.1% -8.0% FY03 FY04 Population Sources: Maricopa County Office of Management and Budget 38 FY05 Inflation Operating FY06 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 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 management practices. Quality Workforce Maintain a quality workforce and equip County employees with the tools, skills, workspace and resources they need to do their jobs safely and well Indicator 6.1 Overall Employee Satisfaction Indicator 6.2 Employee Satisfaction Predictors Indicator 6.3 Workforce Diversity Key County Departments: Human Resources Employee Health Initiatives Diversity Office Management and Budget Risk Management 39 Quality Workforce Indicator 6.1 Overall Employee Satisfaction Description: Overall County employee satisfaction based on Annual Employee Satisfaction Survey8 Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Employee Satisfaction Survey Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Best practice organizations routinely use employee attitude surveys as standard practice for providing employees and management with up-to-date information on how an organization is doing from an employee perspective. This indicator is a measure of employee morale and job satisfaction among workforce in County-appointed departments (i.e., departments whose directors were appointed by the County Manager) based on results from an annual employee satisfaction survey. Key Findings: • The County has shown a relatively consistent satisfaction rating over the past few years. In FY06, 79% of employees responding to the survey indicated overall satisfaction with their jobs, up from 76% in FY05. Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction with Job (% of respondents indicating satisfaction) 100% 80% 71% 76% 75% 74% 76% 79% FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY06 60% 40% 20% 0% FY 01 Source: Maricopa County Employee Satisfaction Survey Employee Turnover The County’s turnover rate indicates how well the County is able to retain a skilled and competent workforce. The voluntary turnover rate in FY06 was 11.5% compared to 10.3% in FY05. According to the FY06 Maricopa County Exit Interviews Report, prepared by Maricopa County Research and Reporting based on interviews with individuals leaving employment with the County, 33% of respondents indicated their first reason for leaving was “personal,” 22% of respondents indicated it was for “growth and advancement opportunities,” and 16% indicated it was related to “pay.” 40 Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Quality Workforce Employee satisfaction predictors measure employee perceptions and attitudes along several dimensions that have been identified through research as having a direct influence on overall job satisfaction. When employees perceive these dimensions favorably, they tend to have higher morale and are more satisfied with their jobs. Description: Employee perceptions along the following dimensions: • • • • • • Management Practices—employee perceptions of how the management of the department administers personnel policies Working Conditions—employee perceptions of physical working conditions, equipment and supplies, and amount of space to perform the job effectively Communication—employee perceptions of how well information is communicated to employees between County departments, and within their own departments from department management Training and Development—employee perception of the opportunities available to develop job skills Work Environment—how employees perceive the work environment to be safe, positive, and respectful Pay and Benefits—how employees perceive their pay and benefits and the County’s efforts toward ensuring employee well-being Indicator 6.2 Employee Satisfaction Predictors Description: Employee perceptions along dimension of management practices, working conditions, communication, training and development, work environment, and pay and benefits Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting Employee Satisfaction Survey Key Findings: • • All of the predictors have shown increases in satisfaction in the six-year period from FY01 to FY06. Employee satisfaction with Pay and Benefits and with Working Conditions has shown the greatest increases, while Communication has remained relatively level during this period. Employee rating of various satisfaction predictors (Scale: 2=very dissatisfied, 8=very satisfied; above 5=positive, below 5=negative) FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 Management Practices 5.20 5.29 5.26 5.23 5.29 5.39 Working Conditions 5.94 6.08 5.91 6.07 6.10 6.22 Communication 5.26 5.34 5.32 5.32 5.32 5.44 Growth/Advancement 5.74 5.84 5.81 5.79 5.82 5.97 Pay and Benefits 4.98 5.28 5.18 5.18 5.28 5.45 Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting 41 Quality Workforce Indicator 6.3 Workforce Diversity Description: Percent of County total workforce by race/ethnicity Source: Maricopa County Human Resources Department, County Manager’s Diversity Office Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Diversity refers to the spectrum of people that make up County government as well as the residents it serves. Diversity includes people of different ethnicity, culture, gender, religion, age, personal style, appearance and tenure, as well as people of diverse opinions, perspectives, sexual orientation, lifestyles, ideas, thinking and being. Understanding and respect for differences and similarities that comes from a diverse workforce is a predictor of employee satisfaction. This indicator shows the change in the ethnicity base of County employees. Key Findings: • The County has made some progress toward its goal of creating a workforce that is representative of the population. According to the Maricopa County Diversity Office, the County has increased the diversity of its employee base, i.e., nearly all minority categories have increased their percent of total employees. Maricopa County Employee Diversity (percent of County total workforce by race/ethnicity) “By July 2007, ensure that the ethnicity base of County employees is keeping pace with the changing demographics of our growing and diverse community.” —Maricopa County goal, 2005-2010 Strategic Plan 42 County Workforce 2005 County Workforce 2006 White 69.4% 66.3% Hispanic 20.1% 21.4% Black 5.9% 7.6% Asian/Pacific Islander 2.8% 2.6% Am. Indian/Alaskan 1.6% 1.7% Some Other Race 0.2% 0.4% Source: Maricopa County Diversity Office Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 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. Indicator 7.1 Overall Citizen Satisfaction Citizen Satisfaction Continue to improve the County’s public image by increasing citizen satisfaction with the quality and cost-effectiveness of services provided by the County Indicator 7.2 Citizen Rating of Communication Effectiveness Indicator 7.3 Citizen Rating of County Responsiveness Key County Departments: All Departments 43 Citizen Satisfaction Indicator 7.1 Overall Citizen Satisfaction Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Understanding how the County’s performance is viewed by its customers is paramount to improving the quality of service delivery. This indicator measures citizen satisfaction with County government based on results from the annual General Citizen Survey. Key Findings: Description: Response to question 3 on the General Citizen Survey: “How satisfied are you with Maricopa County government?” Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting, General Citizen Survey • According to responses from the General Citizen Survey, the satisfaction rating with County government has remained relatively high with more than three out of four citizens surveyed satisfied or very satisfied with County government. In FY06, 80% of the respondents indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with County government, which is down from the 83% in FY05. Maricopa County Citizen Rating: Overall Satisfaction 100% 83% 80% 75% 77% 83% 81% 80% 76% 60% 40% 20% 0% FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 % rating satisfied to very satisfied with Maricopa County Government Source: Maricopa County General Citizen Survey • A telephone survey of residents is one way to determine satisfaction with County services that affect residents’ daily lives. Such surveys enable County administration and departments to identify strengths and weaknesses in the provision of services. Since 2000, the County has conducted an annual Citizen Survey to assess how its customers perceive the quality of service delivered by County departments. A complete copy of the 2006 General Citizen Survey results is available for download at www.maricopa.gov/mfr. 44 Citizen Satisfaction Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 Effectively communicating to citizens about services the County provides is key to increasing citizen awareness and understanding about the roles and responsibilities of County government. Through the annual citizen survey, the County asks citizens to rate the effectiveness of the County in communicating information about its services. Indicator 7.2 Citizen Rating of Communication Effectiveness Key Findings: • In FY06, 45% of citizens responding to the General Citizen Survey rated the communication effectiveness of County government as good or excellent, an increase from the FY05 rating of 44%, but not quite as good as the 48% rating in FY04. Maricopa County Citizen Rating: County Effectiveness in Communication Description: Response to question 16 on the General Citizen Survey: “How would you rate the effectiveness of Maricopa County in telling the public about the services it provides?” (% rating County as good to excellent) Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting, General Citizen Survey 100% 80% 60% 48% 39% 41% FY02 FY03 44% 45% FY05 FY06 40% 20% 0% FY04 % rating Communication as Good to Excellent Source: Maricopa County General Citizen Survey “By September 2008, establish a comprehensive public outreach and community plan to increase the County’s effectiveness in communicating the services it provides....” —Maricopa County goal, 2005-2010 Strategic Plan 45 Citizen Satisfaction Indicator 7.3 Citizen Rating of County Responsiveness Description: Response to question 17 on the General Citizen Survey: “What about the responsiveness of County government, would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?” Source: Maricopa County Research and Reporting, General Citizen Survey Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 The County recognizes the importance of being responsive to customer needs. Responsiveness means building trust that government can be counted on to listen to citizens and can be trusted to honor citizen values by acting on what it hears. Research has shown that responsiveness is one of the most important factors in contributing to citizen perceptions of local government performance. To be responsive, access to services should be available when they are needed or requested. Key Findings: • In FY06, 47% of Citizen Survey respondents indicated that the County’s responsiveness was good to excellent, a slight decrease from the FY05 (48%) rating. Maricopa County Citizen Rating: Responsiveness (% rating County as good to excellent) 100% 80% 60% 46% 46% 48% FY03 FY04 FY05 47% 40% 20% “By May 2010, improve access to the services offered by the County to ensure the inclusion and participation of our diverse community.” 0% FY06 % rating Responsiveness as Good to Excellent Source: Maricopa County General Citizen Survey —Maricopa County goal, 2005-2010 Strategic Plan • 46 In FY06, the County’s STAR Call Center received 948,470 calls from citizens. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the calls were answered within 30 seconds. Maricopa County Annual Report of Community Indicators 2006 1. Uniform Crime Report data are reported at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)-level so the rates used in this report for Maricopa County are for the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA, which includes parts of Pinal County. Benchmark counties also are reported at the MSA level: Harris County, TX: Houston-Sugarland-Baytown MSA; Orange County, CA: Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine MSA; Multnomah County, OR: Portland-VancouverBeaverton MSA; Salt Lake County, UT: Salt Lake City MSA; San Diego County, CA: San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA; Santa Clara County, CA: San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA; King County, WA: Seattle-Bellevue-Everett MSA; Clark County, NV: Las Vegas-Paradise MSA; and Los Angeles County, CA: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale MSA. For more information on the Uniform Crime Report go to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm 2. The County conducts a general population survey via telephone using random-digit dialing from telephone subscriber lists. The study targets households in Maricopa County with at least one adult (age 18 or older) in residence who is a permanent resident of the County. The 2006 survey was conducted in July-August 2006. For more information about the survey go to http://www.maricopa.gov/mfr/CSS.aspx 3. Healthy People 2010 is a comprehensive, nationwide health promotion and disease prevention agenda. Healthy Arizona 2010 is the statewide prevention agenda based on the national agenda. The targets listed in the leading causes of death are those adopted by Healthy Arizona 2010. For more information about Healthy Arizona 2010, go to http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/healthyaz2010/ 4. Visitation numbers reported by Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department reflect all visitors—residents and non-residents. For more about regional park activities, go to http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/ 5. The data on travel time to work were derived from answers to American Community Survey questionnaire item #28. Travel time to work refers to the total number of minutes that it usually took the worker to get from home to work during the reference week. The elapsed time includes time spent waiting for public transportation, picking up passengers in carpools, and time spent in other activities related to getting to work. Mean travel time to work (in minutes) is the average travel time that workers usually took to get from home to work (one way) during the reference week. For more information on the American Community Survey, go to http://www.census.gov/acs. 6. The data on means of transportation to work were derived from answers to American Community Survey questionnaire item #25, which was addressed to people who indicated that they worked at some time during the reference week. Means of transportation to work refers to the principal mode of travel or type of conveyance that the worker used to get from home to work during the reference week. 7. Data are derived based on responses to American Community Survey question #17, “Is this house, apartment or mobile home….Owned by you or someone in this household with a mortgage or loan, owned by you or someone in this household free and clear, rented for cash rent, or occupied without payment of cash rent?” 8. Each year Maricopa County Research and Reporting conducts an Employee Satisfaction Survey. Analysis considered in this report considered only data from “appointed” departments (i.e., departments whose directors were appointed by the County Manager) to allow for comparison over time. Departments headed by elected officials participate in the survey at their own discretion and their participation varies over time. Notes and References 47 For more about Managing for Results in Maricopa County, go to www.maricopa.gov/mfr