Benchmarking As Strategy for Change in King County, Washington

1

• Benchmarking As Strategy for Change in King
  County, Washington

2
King County a Metropolitan Region

• Total Population 1.8 million
• 14th Largest County in U.S.
• 40 Jurisdictions
• Seattle with nearly 600,000
• Unincorporated King County with 360,000
• Bellevue with 115,000
• 12 More Cities over 20,000 -
• 25 Towns ranging from 200 - 20,000 population
• Cities are subject to state laws, but largely
  independent of County.
• Very little regional governance.

3
A Bit of History

• 1990 - Washington State Growth Management Act
• King County Growth Management Planning Council
  (GMPC) - (15 elected city and county officials)
  develops Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)
• 1994 - Countywide Planning Policies adopted by
  King County Council and ratified by the cities -
  need for a benchmark monitoring program cited
• 1995 - Benchmark Task Force develops Indicators
  linked to CPP outcomes.
• over 100 Indicators considered, narrowed to 75,
  then to 45
• decision not to include targets for most
  indicators
• 1996 - first annual King County Benchmark Report
  published.
• Task Force included elected officials, citizen
  stakeholders, technical experts, and County staff

4
Objectives of the King County Benchmark Program

• The purpose of the Benchmark Program is to
  provide the Growth Management Planning Council
  and other users with a method for
• evaluating the progress of the County and its
  jurisdictions in
• implementing the goals outlined in the
  Countywide Planning Policies.
• The Benchmark Indicators are high-level quality
  of life indicators which are influenced
• by County and City strategic planning, programs,
  and services, and
• by other factors outside our control.

5
Objectives of the King County Benchmark Program

• System for Benchmark Report was established by
• stating the desired outcomes of the CPPs
• selecting relevant indicators for each outcome
• identifying quantifiable levels of achievement
  targets for some indicators.
• Intended audience is
• Growth Management Planning Council
• County and City policy-makers and staff
• The public, including news media.

6
From Policy to Program Implementation to
Information to Revision
Countywide Planning Policies Intended Outcomes
External Factors
Revision of Policies
Implementation County and City Programs and
Services
Benchmark Indicators
Revision of Indicators
Benchmark Data Trends Over Time
Departmental Goals and Performance Measures
New Initiatives or Revision of Programs
Data Sources
7
THE INDICATORS

• Five to Twelve Indicators for Each Area
• Economic Development
• Environment
• Housing Affordability
• Land Use
• Transportation

8
Economic Development

• 1 Real Wages Per Worker
• 2 Personal and Median Household Income
• 3 Percentage of Population Below Poverty Level
• 4 New Businesses Created
• 5 New Jobs Created by Industry Sector
• 6 Employment in industries that Export from the
  Region
• 7 Educational Background of Adult Population
• 8 High School Graduation Rate

9
Environmental

• 9 Land Cover Changes over Time
• 10 Air Quality
• 11 Energy Consumption
• 12 Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Year
• 13 Surface Water Quality
• 14 Water Consumption

• 15 Change in Groundwater Quality and Quantity
• 16 Change in Wetland Acreage Function
• 17 Continuity of Habitat Networks
• 18 Change in Number of Salmon
• 19 Increase in Noise
• 20 Pounds of Waste Disposed and Recycled

10
Housing Affordability

• 21 Supply and Demand for Affordable Housing
• 22 Percent of Income Paid for Housing
• 23 Homeless Rate
• 24 Home Purchase Affordability Gap for Buyers
• 25 Home Ownership Rate
• 26 Apartment Vacancy Rate
• 27 Trend of Housing Costs vs. Income
• 28 Public Dollars Spent for Low Income Housing
• 29 Percent of Housing Affordable to Low-Income
  Households

11
Land Use
34 Achieved Density of Residential Devlpmt.
35 Land Capacity 36 Infrastructure
Capacity 37 Acres of Urban Parks Open
Space 38 Jobs-Housing Ratio 39 Acres in Forest
Farm Land 40 Number and Size of Farms
30 New Housing in Urban vs. Rural Areas
and Urban Centers 31 Employment in Urban
Centers 32 Residential Redevelopment 33 Ratio
of Land Consumption to Population Growth
12
Transportation

• 41 Percent of Residents with Less than a
  30-Minute Commute
• 42 Transit Trips Per Person
• 43 Mode Split Percent Who Use Alternatives to
  Single Occupancy Vehicle
• 44 Ability of Goods and Services to Move
  Efficiently Through the Region
• 45 Number of Lane Miles of Roads in Need of
  Repair and Preservation

13
Growth Management Planning CouncilConsists of
King County Executive and Representatives from
KC Council, Seattle, Bellevue, and Suburban Cities
State Growth Mgmt. Act
Countywide Planning Policies - (CPPs)
Interjurisdictional Team (Staff)
King County Govt.
Other Agencies that Affect Outcomes
Other Jurisdictions

• King County
• Council
• Executive Office
• Budget Office
• Natural Resources
• and Parks
• Transportation
• Land Use
• /Permitting
• Housing
• Human Services

• Federal - Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
• State Gov. - D.O.T.
• Puget Sd. Regional Council
• School Districts
• Public Utilities
• Non-profit Hsg. Groups
• Market Economic Forces

• Seattle
• Bellevue
• 37 Suburban
• Cities

14
What We Are Doing This new section added to
Benchmark Indicators three years ago calls
attention to programs that are currently in place
that relate to each indicator
Big Outcome (e.g. Improved Air Quality)
Goals and Programs
Promote Proximity of Housing and Jobs
Convert from Diesel to Alternative-Fueled Buses
Reduce outdoor burning and wood stove use
Transit-Oriented Development
Transformation of Metro Bus Fleet
No-burning days
Public education
Promoting Urban Centers
Accelerate intro of low-sulphur fuels

• Benchmark Report doesnt attempt to measure the
  performance of these programs
• Does recognize progress or regression at the
  outcome level

15
From Policy to MeasurementAn Example Indicator
30
Measures
Policy Rationale The land use pattern for King
County shall protect the natural environment by
reducing the consumption of land and
concentrating development . Urban Centers are
expected to account for one quarter of the
household growth over the next 20 years.
Outcome Create a greater share of growth in
Urban Areas and Urban Centers limit growth in
Rural / Resource Areas Indicator 30 Amount of
New Housing in Urban Centers and Other Urban Areas
Percent of New Housing in Urban Centers
Percent of New Housing in Urban vs. Rural Areas

16
Success Generates Success

• Reporting positive trend encourages continued
  effort

17
Bad News Makes Us Take Notice

• 1999 King County gets low grade for amount of
  toxins in air
• Initiated Diesel Solutions, a public / private
  program that will accelerate the transition to
  low-sulphur fuels in region
• Retrofitting all KC Metro buses and vehicles to
  reduce diesel emissions.

18
Comparison Stimulates Efforts and Shows How

• King County cities report that they like to see
  how they compare to other cities and the County
  as a whole

19
Comparison Helps Identify the Problem

20
Issues Identified

• The map shows inequitable distribution of
  affordable housing impacts
• Quality of public schools
• Commute distances and times for service workers
  which in turn impacts traffic, air quality, and
  energy consumption
• Teachers cant afford to live where they teach
• Inequitable costs of government and human
  services to the cities
• Inequitable revenue sources
• Inequity arises from many factors outside an
  individual citys control

21
Targets, Trends, and Like Organizations

• Three ways to compare how we are doing
• Compare to a target
• 25 of all new housing will be in an Urban
  Center
• Compare to ourselves over time - trend analysis

Compare to similar jurisdictions or regions
22
Comparing Upwards King County to State and
U.S.
Advantage Good for a pat on the back or a
wake-up call
Caution Many of the differences are due to
demographic and geographic influences - not
public policy decisions
23
King County Benchmarks What weve done well

• Benchmarks has become established part of Growth
  Management in King County
• Issues are directly tied to policies to remind us
  of long-term goals
• Credibility of objective measurement
• Reliable database of quality indicators
• After nine years, meaningful trends have emerged
  that raise policy issues.

24
What we need to do

• Gain wider recognition
• Work more closely with cities and interest groups
• Follow through on examination of challenging
  issues
• Translate measurement into policy change

25
Lessons Learned

• Enlist and maintain wide involvement
• Choose best indicators
• Be creative in collecting data
• Have patience
• Maintain ongoing commitment of resources

26
Benchmarks and Performance Measures Support Each
Other
Countywide Planning Policies Intended Outcomes
External Factors
Revision of Policies
Implementation County and City Programs and
Services
Benchmark Indicators
Revision of Indicators
Benchmark Data Trends Over Time
Departmental Goals and Performance Measures
New Initiatives or Revision of Programs
Data Sources