{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027754415475189236, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023549201009251473, 'mean_word_length': 5.502732240437158, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Probing the Limits of County Reform in an Era of Scarcity: A National Survey of County Administrators and Executives

Modern county government is beginning to display the achievements of a reform movement that began a century ago.* While municipal reform progressed rapidly, spurred on by the missionary zeal of a few dedicated reformers, change in county government has been sluggish, apparently ensnared in confusion over the nature of county government and indifference concerning its importance. In recent times, however, the increased complexity of local government generally, suburban growth, and the need for service consolidation have generated renewed interest in county reform (Snider, 1952; Duncombe, 1966; Cape, 1967; Murphy, 1970; ACIR, 1982; Jeffery, Salant, and Boroshok, 1989; DeSantis, 1989). This research effort seeks to update county reform efforts by examining the current status of county government management and evaluating the prospects for further reform. The primary method is a mail survey of county administrators and executives. While the study can only be considered exploratory, it offers some insight into an area where scholarly attention has been sparse.