|News from PPMRN - July 2010|
|National Performance Management Advisory Commission Releases Framework for Public Sector Performance Management|
Three weeks ago, the National Performance Management Advisory Commission, a collaborative effort of 11 leading public sector management organizations, released its final report, A Performance Management Framework for State and Local Government: From Measurement and Reporting to Management and Improving.
The commission developed the framework to help state, provincial, and local governments, many of which are operating under severe resource constraints, to continually improve the results they provide to the public. In announcing the framework's release, Commission Chair M. Jacqueline Nytes (Councillor, City of Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana), said, "Business as usual will not work in the future. Given scarce resources, we need performance management to provide information to help make difficult choices."
The framework identifies seven performance management principles and describes how incorporating these principles into governmental processes and decision making in planning, budgeting, management, and evaluation can lead to learning and improvement, enhanced accountability, and, ultimately, better results for the public.
To download the report and view the complete press release please click here
Please send your comments, suggestions, story ideas, information about upcoming conferences and workshops, publications you would like to share, etc. to:
|King County Selected As Case Study On Innovative Use Of Regional Indicators and Performance Measures|
Performance management tracking systems developed in King County government could help governments nationwide improve how they track the condition of a community and measure the success of services being provided to their residents.|
King County has been selected to take part in a new study on the use of community-level indicators by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO has been asked to assess how public agencies, private organizations, and other countries have developed comprehensive indicator systems and how their experiences could help inform the development and use of an indicator system for the United States.
King County has a public performance management Web site called AIMs High: Annual Indicators and Measures (www.kingcounty.gov/aimshigh) where residents can see how the county's doing in a number of areas. King County has been recognized previously for its outstanding efforts at reporting performance results to the public using the site. The Web site presents both community level indicators, like crime rate, along with King County agency performance measures, like response time.
The GAO team will be in Seattle during July to conduct interviews with King County leaders and staff to better understand the connections between indicators, performance measures, strategic planning, and budgeting.
For more information and to see the full press release visit the King County Executive's website
Should We Create A
Performance Management Framework?
This article is reprinted with permission and is a recent blog entry by John Kamensky from the IBM Center for the Business of Government. |
OMB chief performance officer Jeff Zients has periodically said he wants to create a "performance management framework" for the federal government. Some are asking where is the framework? Others are asking do we really need a framework?
OMB last month released a memo on its next steps on improving agency performance. Rather than defining a government-wide, all-encompassing framework, it focuses on defining a framework for agency "high priority performance goals" and tracking their progress. Interestingly, at about the same time, a coalition of state and local groups released a different vision of how to improve performance, but with the same intent as OMB's - how to move from a system focused on measurement and reporting to once focused on management and improving.
The National Performance Management Advisory Commission released "A Performance Management Framework for State and Local Government," culminating a two-year effort (see article above for a link to the full report). Sponsoring organizations include the Council of State Governments, the International City/County Management Association, the National Center for State Courts, the National League of Cities, and others.
Their framework describes seven performance management principles and how to incorporate them into governmental processes and decision-making:
* Ensure a results focus permeates strategies, processes, organizational culture, and decisions.
* Ensure information, measures, goals, priorities, and activities are relevant.
* Information collected should be easy to access, use, and understand.
* Goals, programs, activities, and resources should be aligned around priorities and desired results
* Decisions and processes should be driven by timely, meaningful, and accurate data.
* Performance practices should be sustainable over time, and across political leaders.
* The performance management framework should transform the organization, its management, and its policy decision-making process from a focus on process and inputs, to a focus on organization-wide results.
While these seven principles seem fairly intuitive and simple, they are not. The majority of the report is on how to implement them. The most interesting part is a series of case studies of states and localities that have incorporated these principles into how they work. These initiatives include:
* Florida Performs
* Maryland StateStat
* Virginia Performs
* Washington State Government Management Accountability and Performance
* Results Minneapolis
* Maricopa County, Arizona - Managing for Results
* Rock Hill, South Carolina - Dashboard
* New York City's NYCStat
These are all worth browsing because they are inspiring (at least to us performance geeks).
But back to OMB. . . . It says it wants to create a "performance portal" dashboard for the federal government. Canada has created a "planning and performance gateway." It is based, in part, on its Management Accountability Framework, which seems to be a variation of former president Bush's management scorecard.
It'll be interesting to see how the US version compares, especially since the Canadian version seems to focus at two levels: broad, cross-government outcomes and agency-by-agency performance reports.
Will the US version be more like our states and localities, or more like the framework used by the Canadians?
|Recent Publications |
Beyond e-Government-Measuring Performance: A Global Perspective|
Alan R. Shark D.P.A (Author), Sylviane Toporkoff (Contributor)
To help local governments navigate the path through eGovernment implementation towards enhanced citizen engagement, Public Technology Institute (PTI) and ITEMS International introduce Beyond eGovernment - Measuring Performance: A Global Perspective.
The book's 40 contributors from 17 nations demonstrate how eGovernment initiatives - to include Web 2.0 and social media tools and multi-channel public contact services - can benefit from performance measurement.
Click here to read more and for information on how to obtain the book.
Shared Services And Municipal Consolidation: Pursuing Careful Assumptions And Grounded Studies
by Marc Holzer and John Fry
From the introduction:
"This paper addresses shared services and consolidation in the context of a range
of forms of municipal collaboration and alternative mechanisms for the delivery of public
services. We do not begin with any preconceived determination of the best answers for local
government in New Jersey; rather, starting from the goals of local government service delivery
and the results we need to achieve, we focus on how to craft a solution to specific circumstances
and problems. We also reflect on what knowledge might assist local governments to better serve
To read more from this report or to download a full-copy please click here