The Adoption, Use and Impacts of Performance Measures in Medium- Size Cities: Progress Toward Performance Management David H. Folz, Ph.D. Professor The University of Tennessee Department of Political Science 1001 McClung Tower Knoxville, TN 37996-0410 [email protected]Ms. Reem Abdelrazek, MPA Research Associate Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) [email protected]Yeonsoo Chung, Ph.D. Managing Director North American Operations Knowledge Source, Inc. [email protected]
51
Embed
Adoption and Use of Performance Measures in Medium-Sized Cities
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Adoption, Use and Impacts of Performance Measures in Medium-Size Cities: Progress Toward Performance Management
David H. Folz, Ph.D.Professor
The University of TennesseeDepartment of Political Science
Type Measure Number Percent UsingWorkload or Output 156 57.4Efficiency or Unit Cost 108 40.4Outcome or Effectiveness 128 48.1Service Quality 135 50.6Citizen Satisfaction 136 50.9
Table 5. Use of Various Performance Measures and CEO Agreement with Selected Organizational Features
Organizational FeaturesManagement willing to implement organizational change
Management views performance measurement as an important basis for making decisions
Non-management employees are receptive to organizational change
Elected officials generally support innovative improvements
City has a reward/incentive system that encourages risk-taking
Figure 1. Chief Executives’ Reasons for Adoption of Performance Measures
Figure 2. Chief Executives’ Expectations from Using Performance Measures
21
Table 6. Applications of Types of Performance Measures (N = 168)
Application
Type Measure Workload or Output
Efficiency/ Unit Cost
Outcomes/ Effectiveness
Service Quality
Citizen Satisfaction
N % N % N % N % N %Managing/ Evaluating Programs
75 44.6 87 51.8 96 57.1 82 48.8 68 40.5
Resource Allocations/Budgeting
99 58.9 89 53.0 92 54.8 55 32.7 43 25.6
Reports to Citizens/Media
55 32.7 45 26.8 87 51.8 60 35.7 77 45.8
Table 7. Chief Executives Perceptions of the Impacts of Performance Measures on Selected Dimensions
Helpfulness Level (in percents)
Possible impacts/results N Not helpful Somewhat helpful
Very helpful
Don’t know/ not
sureManaging/ Evaluating ProgramsImproved performance among employees
177 14.7 52.0 23.2 10.2
Supported personnel performance appraisals
175 28.0 33.1 24.0 14.9
Improved quality of decisions & decision capacity
176 5.1 33.5 53.4 8.0
Resource Allocations/ Budget RequestsMade positive changes in program emphasis
177 4.5 50.3 39.0 6.2
Realized some cost savings for city service(s)
177 15.8 50.8 24.9 8.5
Focused program priorities 176 13.6 31.8 49.4 5.1Increased service quality level 176 9.1 46.0 36.9 8.0Improved CommunicationImproved relations with community groups
174 17.8 41.4 25.3 15.5
Better communication between administrators & elected officials
177 6.2 39.5 45.2 9.0
22
Table 8. Perceived Impact of Performance Information on the Overall Quality of Decisions by City Officials
Frequency Valid PercentNo impact 12 7.4Slight positive impact 96 59.3
Significant positive impact 48 29.6
Don't know/not sure 6 3.7Total 162 100.0
Table 9. Associations Between Helpfulness Level of Performance Measures in DecisionApplications and Perceived Impact of Performance Measures on Overall Quality of Decisions
Helpfulness Level (none, somewhat, very) of Performance Measures for:
Resource Allocation and Budget Requests
(N =157)
Managing & Evaluating Programs
(N = 160)
Improved Communications
(N = 157)Perceived Impact on Quality of Decisions by Local Officials(none, slight, significant) .565* .457* .444*
* Significant at the .05 level
Table 10. Chief Executives Ratings of Performance Measures: Expectations v. Actual Experience
Rating N PercentFell short of expectations 33 18.8Met expectations 106 60.2Exceeded expectations 15 8.5Don’t know/ not sure 22 12.5Total 176 100.0
23
Table 11. Factors Influencing Chief Executive Perceptions of the Success of Performance Measures
Unstandardized
CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients t Sig.
BStd.
Error Beta (Constant) -.209 .194 -1.077 .284Years of experience with performance measurement .106 .035 .250 2.980 .004
Disagree (0) Agree (1) that non-managerial employees are receptive to changes in organizational policies
.107 .056 .163 1.914 .058
Disagree (0) Agree (1) that most administrators support the use of performance measures
.228 .058 .339 3.966 .000
Percent municipal workforce unionized -.003 .001 -.253 -3.028 .003
R SquareAdjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate.279 .252 .37167
24
AppendixSelected Questions from a National Survey of
Municipal Performance Measurement PracticesA. ADOPTION/ DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES Cities may employ one or more of these types of measures:Workload or Output Measures - Amount of work or service provided or performed. Examples: tons of trash collected, number of calls answered.
Efficiency or unit cost Measures - Dollar cost per unit of output or workload. Examples: cost per police car dispatched, cost per refuse collection account served.
Outcome or Effectiveness Measures - Extent to which objectives, needs or desired impacts are achieved, met or produced. Examples: reduction in the number of commercial burglaries, reduction in substandard housing units.
Service Quality Measures - A value-based assessment of services. Examples: convenience level, response time, accuracy rate, safety level, turn-around time, courtesy rating.
Client or Citizen Satisfaction Measures - Extent to which clients think their needs are met; citizen ratings of programs. Examples: total complaints received, percent positive rating on a measure of service satisfaction; (information usually derived from surveys).
1. Considering these descriptions, please indicate whether your city has “Not adopted,” “Adopted but not used currently,” or “Currently use” each type of measure. (Please circle the number that applies to each type of measure).
Type of Measure Not adopted Adopted, not used Currently useWorkload or Output measures 1 2 3
Efficiency or Unit Cost measures 1 2 3
Outcome or Effectiveness measures 1 2 3
Service Quality measures 1 2 3
Client or Citizen Satisfaction measures 1 2 3
2. Cities adopt service measures for different reasons, some of which are listed below. In thinking about why your city adopted the measures you circled, please rank order the three most important reasons with “1” being most important.
Rank_____ To improve management decisions
_____ To respond to citizen demands for greater accountability
_____ To comply with wishes of elected city officials
_____ To respond to pressure from various community groups
_____ To support budget recommendations/decisions
_____ To comply with state or federal reporting requirements
_____ Other (please specify):
3. In your opinion, which results did city officials really expect to see after using the service or performance measures adopted by your city? (Please circle the numbers of all that apply).
1 Stronger justification for management decisions (e.g. personnel or resource deployment)
2 Improved communication with citizens about service performance
3 Enhanced understanding of service performance by council members
4 Stronger justification for budget requests
5 Improved employee morale
6 Improvement in employee performance
7 Other: (please specify):
4. In thinking about the above expectations city officials may have had for the impact of service performance measures, would you say your city’s actual experience with these measures generally “fell short,” “met,” or “exceeded” these expectations? (Please circle one number).
1 Fell short of the expectations 2 Met expectations3 Exceeded expectations4 Don’t know/ not sure
B. USE & APPLICATIONS OF SERVICE/ PERFORMANCE MEASURES7. Please circle the number of each type of measure city officials may use for each activity. Just skip any activity not
relevant to your city or that is not supported by any type of performance measure.
Type of MeasureActivity Workload Efficiency Outcomes Quality Citizen sat. surveys
Strategic Planning 1 2 3 4 5
Resource Allocation (Budgeting)
1 2 3 4 5
Managing/ Evaluating Programs
1 2 3 4 5
Internal Management Reports
1 2 3 4 5
Reports to Elected Officials
1 2 3 4 5
Reports to Citizens/ Media
1 2 3 4 5
2
C. IMPACTS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT9. How would you rate the overall helpfulness of the performance measures used in your city with respect to each of these possible impacts? (Please circle one number for each possible impact).
Enhanced employees’ understanding of goals 1 2 3 4
Improved relations with community groups 1 2 3 4
Realized some cost savings for city service(s) 1 2 3 4
Better communication between administrators & elected officials
1 2 3 4
Enhanced accountability of individual managers 1 2 3 4
11. Overall, what impact has the information derived from performance measures had on the quality of decision making by the city officials that use this information? (Please circle one).
1 No impact2 Slight positive impact3 Significant positive impact4 Don’t know/ not sure
13. What do city administrators think about the performance measures employed? (Circle the number that best fits your opinion).
City Administrators’ Stake Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree Don’t know/ not
applicable
The CEO supports the use of performance measures
1 2 3 4
Most department heads support the use of performance measures
1 2 3 4
Most staff administrators support the use of performance measures
1 2 3 4
Most line supervisors support the use of performance measures
1 2 3 4
Most city employees support the use of performance measures
1 2 3 4
F. ORGANIZATIONAL FEATURES15. About how long has your city used performance measures? __________years
3
16. Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each of these statements.
Organizational FeatureStrongly Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Don’t Know
Management is willing to implement organizational change whenever appropriate.
1 2 3 4 5
Management views performance measurement as an important basis for making decisions.
1 2 3 4 5
Non-management employees generally are receptive to change in organizational policies.
1 2 3 4 5
Elected officials generally support innovative ideas for improvement. 1 2 3 4 5
We have a reward/incentive system that encourages risk-taking. 1 2 3 4 5
G. CITY CHARACTERISTICS17. Please indicate whether your city has any of the following features. Feature No YesMayor is directly elected by citizens 1 2
Mayor is selected by council 1 2
Most council members are elected by district 1 2
Most council members are elected at-large 1 2
Council members elected by a mixed district & at-large system 1 2
City has a Chief Administrative Office (CAO) position 1 2
Mayor presides over council meetings 1 2
Department heads report to the Mayor 1 2
Department heads report to a CAO 1 2
Mayor appoints and terminates CAO without consent of council 1 2
Mayor appoints and terminates CAO with consent of council 1 2
Council appoints and may terminate city manager 1 2
Statutory charter form is “Mayor-Council” form of government 1 2
Statutory charter form is “Council-Manger” form of government 1 2
Statutory charter form is “Commission” (without administrator) 1 2
18. What was your city’s total operating budget for FY 2004? $___________________________19. About how many full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) are employed in your city? _________ 20. About what percent, if any, of all FTEs are unionized? ___________%
4
References
Ammons, David N. 1992. Productivity Barriers in the Public Sector. In Public Productivity Handbook, edited by Marc Holzer, 117-36. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Ammons, David N. 2001. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Ammons, David N. and William C. Rivenbark. 2008. Factors Influencing the Use of Performance Data to Improve Municipal Services: Evidence from the North Carolina Benchmarking Project. 68(2): 304-318.
Bouckaert, Geert. 1992. Public Productivity in Retrospective. In The Public Productivity Handbook, ed. Mark Holzer, 5-46. New York: Marcel Dekker.
de Lancer Julnes, Patria and Marc Holzer. 2001. Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation. Public Administration Review 6(6): 693-703.
Folz, David and P. Edward French. 2005. Managing America’s Small Communities: People, Politics and Performance. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Frank, Howard. and Jayesh D’Souza. 2004. “Twelve Years in the Performance Measurement Revolution: Where We Need to Go in Implementation Research.” International Journal of Public Administration. 27(8&9): 701-718.
Frederickson, George H., Gary Alan Johnson, and Curtis H. Wood. 2004. The Changing Structure of American Cities: A Study of the Diffusion of Innovation. Public Administration Review 64(3): 320-30.
Hatry, Harry P. 2002. Performance Measurement: Fashions and Fallacies. Public Performance and Management Review 25(4): 353-358.
Hatry, Harry P., J. R. Fountain, J. M. Sullivan, L. Kremer. 1990. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time has Come. Norwalk, CT.: Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
Ho, Alfred Tat-Kei. 2005. Accounting for the Value of Performance Measurement from the Perspective of Midwestern Mayors. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 217-237.
Keene, James; John Nalbandian, Robert O’Neill, Shannon Portillo, & James Svara. 2007. “How Professionals Can Add Value to Their Communities and Organizations,” Public Management 89, no. 2: 32-39.
Melkers, Julia and Katherine Willoughby. 2005. Models of Performance-Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects. Public Administration Review 65(2): 180-190.
Poister, Theodore H. and Gregory Streib. 1999. Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice. Public Administration Review 59(4): 325-35.
Poister, Theodore H. and Gregory Streib. 2005. Elements of Strategic Planning and Management in Municipal Government: Status after Two Decades. Public Administration Review 65(1): 45-56.
Rivenbark, William C. and Janet M. Kelly. 2003. Management Innovation in Smaller Municipal Government. State and Local Government Review. 35, 3: 196-205.
Smith, Peter. 1995. On the Unintended Consequences of Publishing Performance Data in the Public Sector. International Journal of Public Administration. 18, 2/3: 277-310.
Streib, Gregory D. and Theodore H. Poister. 2002. The Use of Strategic Planning in Municipal Governments. In The Municipal Year Book, 2002, 18-25. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
Wechsler, Barton and Bruce Clary. 2000. Implementing Performance Government: A Symposium Introduction. Public Productivity and Management Review 23(3): 264-66.
Wholey, Joseph S. 1999. Performance-Based Management: Responding to the Challenges. Public Productivity and Management Review 22(4): 288-307.
Yang, Kaifeng and Marc Holzer. 2006. The Performance-Trust Link: Implications for Performance Measurement. Public Administration Review 66(1): 114-126.