Service Profile, UF - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

• i Of the 27 services yet to have service profiles, 16 do not have an appropriate current or disbanded committee. The issue remains: how do we get meaningful citizen review for these profiles? Over the last six months, the service team and SIT facilitator have tried a number of methods to solicit citizen review of profiles when a committee does not exist. We sent a survey to Site Council members at schools to get input on the Youth & School Enrichment profile. We distributed a similar survey to past art exhibit jury members to review the Community Arts service. Gathering stakeholders or customers together is another way to get feedback. But the SISC has concerns that such feedback is biased and may not represent the public interest at large. This echos comments Howie Bonnett made during the pilot project with the Building Permit /Plan Check service. That profile was reviewed by the PIC Advisory Committee, a group made up predominantly of local builders and contractors. To better achieve the public interest perspective, the SISC suggested staff try a different approach with Urban Forestry. For that profile, we asked the Neighborhood Leaders to do the citizen review. We found that several conditions must be met for this approach to be successful. First, the group must be briefed on the Service Profile purpose and product. Second, the group must have or achieve a working knowledge of the service it is reviewing. Otherwise the group does not feel comfortable discussing the policy elements of the profile. Third, the group must consider it part of their charge to do the review. These conditions add at least two meetings to the service profile process (and usually two to four weeks to the completion time). Another option is to form a community -based focus group, using the department advisory committee (DAC) model, for each of the sixteen services (or combinations thereof). This would extend the process and time line further, to account for the time to recruit, select, and educate committee members. On average, it has taken approximately 30 hours of staff time to form a DAC (two months elapsed time). In the past, the Budget Committee provided the citizen review if another committee did not exist to fill this role. In light of our experience to date and M47, Budget Committee members may wish to continue this practice. Template The Service Improvement Team developed a template to summarize the citizen review for the Budget Committee. It is Attachment B. (We used this template to present the citizen review of the Eugene Celebration, Community Arts, and Investigations profiles.) SERVICE PROFILE PROCESS. PRODUCT. QUEUE Background If the Budget Committee adopts the Service Profiles presented to it in January and February, the FY98 Proposed Budget will contain 21 services in the new format (44% of the existing 48 services). The time it takes service teams to complete a profile depends on the size and complexity of the service. A "small" service (8 or less FTE or budget under $500,000) can be completed in approximately 24 hours of service team time. A "large" service (over 50 FTE or $5,000,000 budget) can take 50 hours of service team time. As a general rule of thumb, we estimate 2 to 3 hours of SIT facilitator time for every hour of team time. SIT staff also produce the Service Profile product. We now complete five to six Service Profiles a quarter. II -2