There is no commonly accepted criteria by all stakeholders to evaluate the performance of the COGs, and in identifying areas needed for improvement. There is a range of public perspectives on what COGs do, what they could do under current law, and what they should do with and without new legislation.

These differences are illustrated by a level of antagonism between the COG directors and the Pennsylvania Economy League based on the tone of their reports on COGs in 1994 and updated to 2000. The PEL has its perspective on the above issues and its reports convey the attitude that the COGs need to come into line. The implication is that the COGs are creatures of the County or at least are so dependent on it that the County can determine the future whereas the COG directors point out that their responsibility is to their member municipalities. There is much "talking past each other". There is no consensus on values, visions, goals, and strategies.

COGs are often viewed as a vehicle to deal with the failure of the state to exercise its responsibility to rationalize local government. However, COGs do not have the legal responsibility or the independence of funding base to be this vehicle since they are tied to their member municipalities. The state has failed to act to rationalize local government and it has failed to provide the means for other mechanisms to do so. COGs are unable to deal with fiscal disparities between themselves and to assist distressed municipalities. Local government failure and rationalization along with re-distribution of wealth is a state responsibility.

Lack of sustainability is most clearly seen in the fact that municipalities are permitted to opt in or out annually. Although the core of most COGs has remained stable, the uncertainty does not support long-range thinking and strategy.

Lack of sustainability is illustrated in the lack of a dependable funding base. Member dues represent a minority of annual budgets. County funds for CDBG administration have been relatively stable but are not guaranteed. Fees for service depend on the voluntary use of the goods and services offered by the COGs. Finally, some additional funds are obtained through periodic grants, but these are not the foundation for fiscal sustainability.

The COGs do not engage in long range planning. There is no area-wide needs analysis or priority setting.

Some COGs are more entrepreneurial than others.

Programs that are more extensive are more likely in less affluent areas. Wealthier areas are better able to provide a broad range of services for themselves.

There is no formal evaluation of programs. Initiation, modification or elimination of programs appears to be based on the opinions of board members, COG staff and municipal staff.

Programs have been started either in an ad-hoc manner based on an expressed need or in response to the County’s desire to delegate some portions of the management of the CDBG program.

Joint planning and zoning

Additional opportunities for County contracts for service

More dependable funding options including full cost recovery for services

Representation on County or regional forums dealing with issues like transportation or economic development

Incentives for integration and coordination with other local inter-governmental organizations

Membership and structure alternatives.

The use of service districts could catapult Allegheny County into the forefront of efficient local governance.

In its most ambitious form, the service district approach would determine for every locally provided public good and service the most cost-effective geography for its delivery. With the use of geographic information systems this approach is technically feasible.

Municipal and even county boundaries would be ignored.

It must be determined who could provide the service most efficiently – the county, a group of municipalities or a private sector contractor.

What is the means by which citizen participation, access and provider accountability will be provided?

The process must require articulation of stakeholders’ values, vision and goals before proceeding to strategies and implementation.