GETTING REAL - ICMA
40
INSIDE 2 FROM PINK FLOYD TO PLATO 6 THE PERFORMANCE IMPERATIVE 30 IMPROVING GRIEVANCE POLICIES 36 TRACKING SERVICE DATA DECEMBER 2015 | icma.org/pm ADVANCING PROFESSIONAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT WORLDWIDE GETTING REAL ABOUT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Transcript of GETTING REAL - ICMA
INSIDE
2 FROM PINK FLOYD TO PLATO
6 THE PERFORMANCE IMPERATIVE
30 IMPROVING GRIEVANCE POLICIES
36 TRACKING SERVICE DATA
DECEMBER 2015 | icma.org/pm
ADVANCI NG PROFE SS IONAL LOCAL GOVE R N M E NT MANAG E M E NT WOR LDWI DE
GETTING REAL ABOUT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
World-class performance management software for local governments, now starting at $795.
When you benchmark with more than 140 communities,
YOU GAIN INSIGHTS
Alameda County, CAAlbany, ORAlgonquin, ILAnn Arbor, MI Ardsley Village, NYAsheville, NCAuburn, ALAustin, TXBainbridge Island, WABayside, WIBellevue, WABernalillo County, NMBettendorf, IABoulder, COBowling Green, KYBranson, MOBrownsburg, INCarlsbad, CACartersville, GACedar Rapids, IAChamblee, GACharlotte, NC Chemung County, NYCincinnati, OH Clayton, MOClearwater, FLColumbia, MOCoppell, TXCoral Springs, FLCreve Coeur, MODallas, TXDecatur, GADeLand, FLDelta, CODenison, TXDestin, FL Dover, NH
Dublin, OHDurham, NCEden Prairie, MN Edina, MNFairfax County, VAFarmers Branch, TXFort Collins, COFort Lauderdale, FLFort Worth, TXGahanna, OHGermantown, TNGlendale, CAGoodyear, AZGrand Rapids, MIGrandview, MOGreensboro, NCGreer, SCHarrisonville, MOHermosa Beach, CAHooksett, NHHopkinton, MAHutto, TXJohnson City, TNKansas City, MOKennesaw, GAKing County, WALa Vista, NELake County, ILLake Forest, ILLakewood, WALas Vegas, NVLeawood, KSLexington-Fayette Urban County Government, KYLivermore, CALynnwood, WAMadison Heights, MI
Mankato, MNMansfield, CTMaplewood, MOMcAllen, TXMcHenry County, IL McKinney, TXMesa, AZMiami, FL Miami-Dade County, FLMidland, MIMilton, GAMilwaukee County, WIModesto, CAMooresville, NCNavajo County, AZ New Albany, OHNew Lenox, ILNew Orleans, LANewton, IANovi, MIOklahoma City, OKOlathe, KSOrland Park, ILOshkosh, WIPalm Coast, FL Palo Alto, CAPark City, UTPeachtree Corners, GAPeoria, AZPeoria, IL Phoenix, AZPiqua, OHPittsburg, KSQueen Creek, AZRaleigh, NCRichmond Heights, MORio Rancho, NM
Rock Hill, SCRockingham County, NCSacramento, CASan Antonio, TXSan Jose, CA Santa Fe County, NMSarasota County, FLSavannah, GASchertz, TXScottsdale, AZShawnee, KSShelton, WASierra Vista, AZSt. Augustine, FL St. Cloud, MNState College, PASurprise, AZSuwanee, GATacoma, WATampa, FLThousand Oaks, CATulsa, OKTyler, TXUkiah, CAUpper Dublin, PAVacaville, CA Virginia Beach, VAWest Carrollton, OHWesterville, OHWichita, KSWilliamsburg, VAWindsor, CTWoodbury, MNWorthington, OH
For an updated list of participants, see icma.org/icmainsightsparticipants
Become part of this growing community. Schedule an online demo today at icma.org/insightsdemo.
Compare your spending and performance with our growing list of jurisdictions from across the country. That’s just one of the advantages of the new cutting-edge performance management and analytics software ICMA Insights.
16-083 Insights Ad PM Magazine.indd 3 10/28/15 10:02 AM
icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 1
contentsDecember 2015 | Vol. 97 No. 11
features departments
2 Ethics Matter! From Pink Floyd to Plato
4 On Point How Well Is Your Local Government Delivering Public Services?
5 @icma.org
18 Commentary – A Call to Action – Better. Stronger. Faster.
19 Calendar of Events
22 International Promoting Performance
Measurement in Mexico
24 Council Relations Aligning Governance and
Management Performance
25 Management Minute – 2015 Leaders in Performance Management – Excellence in Performance
Management
30 Innovation Edge Improving Grievance Policies
33 Professional Services Directory
36 By the Numbers Tracking Service Data
This issue of PM is available online and mobile at icma.org/pm November 27, 2015.
icma.org/pm
6 INTRODUCTIONThe Performance Imperative
Bob O’Neill, WASHINGTON, D.C.
8 GETTING REAL ABOUT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTUsing performance information to improve services.
David Ammons, CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
12 JOINING FORCESEleven local governments collaborate to improve performance.
Brent Stockwell, SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA, AND David Swindell, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
15 DECADES OF LEADERSHIPICMA has kept a performance management commitment for 80 years.
Gerald Young, WASHINGTON, D.C.
5Advice for New Assistant
2 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 3
icma.org | icma.org/pm
2015–2016ICMA EXECUTIVE BOARD
PRESIDENT
Pat Martel* City Manager, Daly City, California
PRESIDENT-ELECT
Lee Feldman* City Manager, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
PAST PRESIDENT
James Bennett* City Manager, Biddeford, Maine
VICE PRESIDENTS
WEST COAST REGION
Robert Harrison City Administrator, Issaquah, Washington
Jeffrey Towery* Assistant City Manager, Springfield, Oregon
Bruce Channing City Manager, Laguna Hills, California
MOUNTAIN PLAINS REGION
Jane Brautigam* City Manager, Boulder, Colorado
Susan Sherman* Assistant City Manager, Olathe, Kansas
Bert Lumbreras* Assistant City Manager, Austin, Texas
MIDWEST REGION
Tanya Ange Deputy City Manager, Mankato, Minnesota
Daryl Delabbio* County Administrator/Controller, Kent County, Michigan
Lon Pluckhahn*City Manager, Marion, Iowa
SOUTHEAST REGION
Alan Ours* County Manager, Glynn County, Georgia
G. William Hammon* Assistant City Manager, Alcoa, Tennessee
Carl Harness* Chief Human Services Administrator, Hillsborough County, Florida
NORTHEAST REGION
Meredith Stengel Robson* Village Manager, Ardsley, New York
James Malloy* Town Manager, Westborough, Massachusetts
Carlos Baia Deputy City Manager, Concord, New Hampshire
INTERNATIONAL REGION
Lars Wilms Chief Executive Officer, Egedal Kommune Denmark
Marc Landry* Chief Administrative Officer, Beaumont, Alberta, Canada
Dennis Hovenden* Chief Executive Officer Frankston City Council, Victoria, Australia
*ICMA Credentialed Manager (ICMA-CM)
Public Management (PM) aims to inspire innovation, inform decision making, connect leading-edge thinking to everyday challenges, and serve ICMA members and local governments worldwide in the pursuit of excellence in local governance.
ICMA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Robert O’Neill, Jr.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLISHING
Ann Mahoney
EDITOR
Beth Payne
DESIGN Thor Design Studio www.thor-studio.com
Public Management (PM) (USPS: 449-300) is published monthly except February by ICMA (the International City/County Management Association) at 777 North Capitol Street. N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002-4201. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, D.C., and at additional mailing offices. The opinions expressed in the magazine are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of ICMA.
COPYRIGHT 2015 by the International City/County Management Association. All rights reserved. Material may not be reproduced or translated without written permission.
REPRINTS: Apply to the editor for permission to reprint any part of the magazine.
SUBSCRIPTIONS: U.S. subscription rate, $46 per year; other countries subscription rate, $155 per year. Printed in the United States. Contact: 202/289-4262; [email protected].
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Public Management, ICMA, 777 N. Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201.
ARTICLE PROPOSALS: Visit icma.org/pm to see
“Editorial Guidelines” for contributors.
EDITORIAL INFORMATION
202/962-3619 [email protected]
ADVERTISING SALES
Ben Harmon The Townsend Group, Inc. Tel: 301/215-6710 x106 Fax: 301/215-7704 [email protected]
PRINTING
Westland Printers Laurel, Maryland
ethics matter! | professional conduct
BY MARTHA PEREGO
FROM PINK FLOYD TO PLATOInspiration and practical advice
T he ICMA Committee on Profes-sional Conduct stepped out of the shadows and into the limelight
at ICMA’s Seattle conference this fall to share its perspective on why the ICMA Code of Ethics is a valued source of guidance and inspiration. Given the sensitive and confidential nature of the committee’s work, to some members the committee has the allure of a clandestine “Special Ops” team.
To be clear, it is not. Yes, the com-mittee’s work does happen in private so that the confidentiality of the process is maintained. But without breaching that confidentiality, the results of the com-mittee’s work is reported to the ICMA Executive Board and to ICMA members.
Annual reports also outline the cases, and the results are posted on ICMA’s website. Notices of private and public
censures—details only, no names—are shared with members.
But it’s a rare moment when the committee members are front and center with ICMA members to share their thoughts and field questions. What better source to hear from than your peers? City and county managers and assistants, working in and outside the United States, sit on the committee. They adjudicate ethics cases, opine on unusual dilemmas, and work to ensure that the tenets and guidelines are clear and relevant to the members.
Here are some great takeaways from the conference session conversation.
Ideals that Deliver on Democracy. For Jane Brautigam, city manager of Boulder, Colorado, and current chair of the committee, the Code is about the idea of
delivering on democracy. Jane observed that frequently individuals have specific ethics questions and want to know, can I do this under the Code or not? It’s understandable that the urgency of the moment narrows the focus.
Taking a more expansive view, the focus for Jane is on the ideals of the Code and the ideals of democracy. As she shared with the audience, “I love the phrase ‘delivering on democracy.’ I honestly think about this every day.
Because every day I try to send an e-mail thanking someone for making a positive difference in the community that I serve. I get my inspiration from the ICMA Code of Ethics, which says above all else, we are serving the public, and that is one of the highest callings we can possibly have.”
Protecting the Democracy. Challenging work with high stakes and an abundance of power frame the ethical obligation for Rod Gould, who recently retired after serving as city manager in four California cities. As Rod noted, there are a lot of different professions and ways to make a living in this world. Those who choose local government aim a little bit higher in their aspirations. They want to build safe, livable, and sustainable communities. And the stakes are high for those who aspire to do this work.
From Rod’s perspective, what is at stake is far more than just building com-munities. It is about safeguarding and protecting democracy. While not often talked about, managers and assistants are afforded an abundance of power in their positions. As they wield that power to achieve results, Rod reminded the audience of the words of wisdom from Plato, the first city manager of Greece:
“In a republic that honors the core of democracy—the greatest amount of power is given to those called guardians. Only those with the most impeccable character are chosen to bear the respon-sibility of protecting the democracy.”
The ICMA Code of Ethics is our com-mon commitment to do just that.
The Pink Floyd Factor. Lofty ideals and aspirations often brush up against the reality of managing one’s choices. Why do some well-intentioned people make unethical choices? Why do others ignore the ethical standard laid out in ICMA’s Code?
For Stephen Parry, chief executive for the Gore District Council, New Zealand, the succinct answer can be found in the title of Pink Floyd’s thirteenth album: “A Momentary Lapse of Reason.” As Stephen shared with the audience, the committee often deals with situations “where someone has had a brain explo-sion and taken some regretful action that has had long-term consequences to their reputation that the person now has to try to manage.”
Absent the “brain explosion,” others may simply find following the ICMA Code of Ethics inconvenient. Stephen reminded attendees: “If it is inconve-nient, it is only for the short term. It has long-term positive consequences. The Code has a noble history, and it exudes wisdom. The Code of Ethics has your best interests at heart. If you stick by the code you will be a trusted professional, you will sleep well at night.”
In closing, he also encouraged members to seek advice. “The committee is impressed by the number of members who elect to confer in confidence with staff. That is a service you should use. And there is the old saying: If in doubt, you probably shouldn’t do it.”
Next: Committee AdviceThis is part one of a two-part series. To learn more about the committee’s advice on how best to follow the Code and members’ responses to questions posed by the audience, read next month’s Ethics Matter! department.
MARTHA PEREGO Ethics Director, ICMA Washington, D.C. [email protected]
2 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 3
icma.org | icma.org/pm
2015–2016ICMA EXECUTIVE BOARD
PRESIDENT
Pat Martel* City Manager, Daly City, California
PRESIDENT-ELECT
Lee Feldman* City Manager, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
PAST PRESIDENT
James Bennett* City Manager, Biddeford, Maine
VICE PRESIDENTS
WEST COAST REGION
Robert Harrison City Administrator, Issaquah, Washington
Jeffrey Towery* Assistant City Manager, Springfield, Oregon
Bruce Channing City Manager, Laguna Hills, California
MOUNTAIN PLAINS REGION
Jane Brautigam* City Manager, Boulder, Colorado
Susan Sherman* Assistant City Manager, Olathe, Kansas
Bert Lumbreras* Assistant City Manager, Austin, Texas
MIDWEST REGION
Tanya Ange Deputy City Manager, Mankato, Minnesota
Daryl Delabbio* County Administrator/Controller, Kent County, Michigan
Lon Pluckhahn*City Manager, Marion, Iowa
SOUTHEAST REGION
Alan Ours* County Manager, Glynn County, Georgia
G. William Hammon* Assistant City Manager, Alcoa, Tennessee
Carl Harness* Chief Human Services Administrator, Hillsborough County, Florida
NORTHEAST REGION
Meredith Stengel Robson* Village Manager, Ardsley, New York
James Malloy* Town Manager, Westborough, Massachusetts
Carlos Baia Deputy City Manager, Concord, New Hampshire
INTERNATIONAL REGION
Lars Wilms Chief Executive Officer, Egedal Kommune Denmark
Marc Landry* Chief Administrative Officer, Beaumont, Alberta, Canada
Dennis Hovenden* Chief Executive Officer Frankston City Council, Victoria, Australia
*ICMA Credentialed Manager (ICMA-CM)
Public Management (PM) aims to inspire innovation, inform decision making, connect leading-edge thinking to everyday challenges, and serve ICMA members and local governments worldwide in the pursuit of excellence in local governance.
ICMA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Robert O’Neill, Jr.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLISHING
Ann Mahoney
EDITOR
Beth Payne
DESIGN Thor Design Studio www.thor-studio.com
Public Management (PM) (USPS: 449-300) is published monthly except February by ICMA (the International City/County Management Association) at 777 North Capitol Street. N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002-4201. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, D.C., and at additional mailing offices. The opinions expressed in the magazine are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of ICMA.
COPYRIGHT 2015 by the International City/County Management Association. All rights reserved. Material may not be reproduced or translated without written permission.
REPRINTS: Apply to the editor for permission to reprint any part of the magazine.
SUBSCRIPTIONS: U.S. subscription rate, $46 per year; other countries subscription rate, $155 per year. Printed in the United States. Contact: 202/289-4262; [email protected].
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Public Management, ICMA, 777 N. Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201.
ARTICLE PROPOSALS: Visit icma.org/pm to see
“Editorial Guidelines” for contributors.
EDITORIAL INFORMATION
202/962-3619 [email protected]
ADVERTISING SALES
Ben Harmon The Townsend Group, Inc. Tel: 301/215-6710 x106 Fax: 301/215-7704 [email protected]
PRINTING
Westland Printers Laurel, Maryland
ethics matter! | professional conduct
BY MARTHA PEREGO
FROM PINK FLOYD TO PLATOInspiration and practical advice
T he ICMA Committee on Profes-sional Conduct stepped out of the shadows and into the limelight
at ICMA’s Seattle conference this fall to share its perspective on why the ICMA Code of Ethics is a valued source of guidance and inspiration. Given the sensitive and confidential nature of the committee’s work, to some members the committee has the allure of a clandestine “Special Ops” team.
To be clear, it is not. Yes, the com-mittee’s work does happen in private so that the confidentiality of the process is maintained. But without breaching that confidentiality, the results of the com-mittee’s work is reported to the ICMA Executive Board and to ICMA members.
Annual reports also outline the cases, and the results are posted on ICMA’s website. Notices of private and public
censures—details only, no names—are shared with members.
But it’s a rare moment when the committee members are front and center with ICMA members to share their thoughts and field questions. What better source to hear from than your peers? City and county managers and assistants, working in and outside the United States, sit on the committee. They adjudicate ethics cases, opine on unusual dilemmas, and work to ensure that the tenets and guidelines are clear and relevant to the members.
Here are some great takeaways from the conference session conversation.
Ideals that Deliver on Democracy. For Jane Brautigam, city manager of Boulder, Colorado, and current chair of the committee, the Code is about the idea of
delivering on democracy. Jane observed that frequently individuals have specific ethics questions and want to know, can I do this under the Code or not? It’s understandable that the urgency of the moment narrows the focus.
Taking a more expansive view, the focus for Jane is on the ideals of the Code and the ideals of democracy. As she shared with the audience, “I love the phrase ‘delivering on democracy.’ I honestly think about this every day.
Because every day I try to send an e-mail thanking someone for making a positive difference in the community that I serve. I get my inspiration from the ICMA Code of Ethics, which says above all else, we are serving the public, and that is one of the highest callings we can possibly have.”
Protecting the Democracy. Challenging work with high stakes and an abundance of power frame the ethical obligation for Rod Gould, who recently retired after serving as city manager in four California cities. As Rod noted, there are a lot of different professions and ways to make a living in this world. Those who choose local government aim a little bit higher in their aspirations. They want to build safe, livable, and sustainable communities. And the stakes are high for those who aspire to do this work.
From Rod’s perspective, what is at stake is far more than just building com-munities. It is about safeguarding and protecting democracy. While not often talked about, managers and assistants are afforded an abundance of power in their positions. As they wield that power to achieve results, Rod reminded the audience of the words of wisdom from Plato, the first city manager of Greece:
“In a republic that honors the core of democracy—the greatest amount of power is given to those called guardians. Only those with the most impeccable character are chosen to bear the respon-sibility of protecting the democracy.”
The ICMA Code of Ethics is our com-mon commitment to do just that.
The Pink Floyd Factor. Lofty ideals and aspirations often brush up against the reality of managing one’s choices. Why do some well-intentioned people make unethical choices? Why do others ignore the ethical standard laid out in ICMA’s Code?
For Stephen Parry, chief executive for the Gore District Council, New Zealand, the succinct answer can be found in the title of Pink Floyd’s thirteenth album: “A Momentary Lapse of Reason.” As Stephen shared with the audience, the committee often deals with situations “where someone has had a brain explo-sion and taken some regretful action that has had long-term consequences to their reputation that the person now has to try to manage.”
Absent the “brain explosion,” others may simply find following the ICMA Code of Ethics inconvenient. Stephen reminded attendees: “If it is inconve-nient, it is only for the short term. It has long-term positive consequences. The Code has a noble history, and it exudes wisdom. The Code of Ethics has your best interests at heart. If you stick by the code you will be a trusted professional, you will sleep well at night.”
In closing, he also encouraged members to seek advice. “The committee is impressed by the number of members who elect to confer in confidence with staff. That is a service you should use. And there is the old saying: If in doubt, you probably shouldn’t do it.”
Next: Committee AdviceThis is part one of a two-part series. To learn more about the committee’s advice on how best to follow the Code and members’ responses to questions posed by the audience, read next month’s Ethics Matter! department.
MARTHA PEREGO Ethics Director, ICMA Washington, D.C. [email protected]
4 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 5
on point | service delivery
HOW DO YOU ASSESS HOW WELL YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS DELIVERING PUBLIC SERVICES?
LAURA GILL
City ManagerElk Grove, [email protected]
I tour neighborhoods as part of National Night Out, and I pose the same question that New York Mayor Ed Koch used to ask: “How’m I do-ing?” While it may not be the most scientific assessment, it leads to candid conversations that help me better manage our city.
Some variation of that question is included in our outreach efforts and in the biannual National Citizen Sur-vey. It is also used to develop long-term, strategic goals and imperatives that connect to a broader vision statement.
We use performance mea-sures to track our progress as well as Ask Elk Grove, our citywide customer service tool to respond to residents, track trends, and ensure city hall is open and accessible to residents.
Both the matrix of per-formance measures and the man-on-the-street approach help me gauge our success in delivering services. I have learned the value of both.
JEFFREY MOON
City ManagerWoodstock, [email protected]
In this modern age of performance measurement and data analytics, it is easy to reduce everything to numbers and percentages and lose sight of the actual impact that we have on the lives of the residents of the communities we, as manag-ers, serve on a daily basis.
I feel that there is an old-fashioned way to assess how well we are deliver-ing public services that is equally important: simple observation. The smile on a kid’s face playing on a new playground. The joy in the eyes of a senior citizen en-gaging with other seniors in their new center. The relief on the face of a homeowner when the fire department saves his or her house from burning down.
Statistics are important. Performance measure-ment is critical. Improving the quality of life of our residents is priceless.
WILLIAM JOHNSON III
City ManagerPetersburg, [email protected]
It is my job to make sure the city is always perform-ing at an optimum lev-el. Public services provide the most common interface between people and their local government, and their daily operations shape people’s sense of trust and expectations.
I know my city is doing well through various tools like the software program Government Outreach, which we use daily to monitor the number of service requests, com-plaints, or calls we receive, and then the responsiveness in following up on these concerns.
I also take a drive around the city each month to see how the city looks on a firsthand basis. It is a collaborative approach with city employees and myself understanding that eyes are always on the city, and each of us has a responsibility to report anything we see. This is important to establishing trust and making sure the services we provide are top-notch.
STEPHEN PARRY
Chief ExecutiveGore District Council New [email protected]
It is tempting to become intoxicated with an array of performance measures and isolate a favorite few to provide indelible evidence of a high-performing council. Such indicators as debt per taxpayer, revenue per taxpayer, or average cost per employee are all relevant to a degree; in reality, they are only a piece of the puzzle.
As managers, we need to think beyond the confines of these internal measures and consider the value and qual-ity of the services delivered and how that resonates with the public we serve. To focus on a select few indices can have the distorted effect of a “race to the bottom.”
Resident satisfaction surveys are a useful indicator of performance, but I believe the overall performance of a council can be viewed through the ballot box. Elected members and staff working together can achieve a great deal.
@icma.org Visit icma.org to learn more about these topics.
TOP RESOURCESCheck out this new collection of tips, case studies, and other resources for successful local government performance management programs from ICMA’s Center for Performance Analytics.
icma.org/pmresources
RESIDENTS AS VOLUNTEERSHow do you reach out and engage residents to volunteer? Three communities have their own successful methods.
icma.org/volunteersuccess
1
3NOVEMBER PM COPY CORRECTIONSource information cited in three graphics included in the November 2015 PM article “Retirement Security: A Moving Target” were reported incor-rectly by the magazine.
The correct source line for Figure 1: Distribution of State and Local Pension Plan Funded Ratios is: The Funding of State and Local Pensions: 2014–2018 (written by Alicia Munnell and Jean-Pierre Aubry).
Authors of the publication State and Local Government Workforce: 2015 Trends, cited in Figure 2: Health Care Plan Changes and in Figure 3: Retirement Preparedness, are Elizabeth Kellar, president, and Joshua Franzel, vice president, Center for State and Local Government Excellence, Washington, D.C.
Links to the publications are available at the November PM website icma.org/moving_target.
ADVICE FOR A NEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERWhen a new assistant city manager asked for advice on handling her new position, she received some insightful advice.
icma.org/assistantadvice
2
4 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 5
on point | service delivery
HOW DO YOU ASSESS HOW WELL YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS DELIVERING PUBLIC SERVICES?
LAURA GILL
City ManagerElk Grove, [email protected]
I tour neighborhoods as part of National Night Out, and I pose the same question that New York Mayor Ed Koch used to ask: “How’m I do-ing?” While it may not be the most scientific assessment, it leads to candid conversations that help me better manage our city.
Some variation of that question is included in our outreach efforts and in the biannual National Citizen Sur-vey. It is also used to develop long-term, strategic goals and imperatives that connect to a broader vision statement.
We use performance mea-sures to track our progress as well as Ask Elk Grove, our citywide customer service tool to respond to residents, track trends, and ensure city hall is open and accessible to residents.
Both the matrix of per-formance measures and the man-on-the-street approach help me gauge our success in delivering services. I have learned the value of both.
JEFFREY MOON
City ManagerWoodstock, [email protected]
In this modern age of performance measurement and data analytics, it is easy to reduce everything to numbers and percentages and lose sight of the actual impact that we have on the lives of the residents of the communities we, as manag-ers, serve on a daily basis.
I feel that there is an old-fashioned way to assess how well we are deliver-ing public services that is equally important: simple observation. The smile on a kid’s face playing on a new playground. The joy in the eyes of a senior citizen en-gaging with other seniors in their new center. The relief on the face of a homeowner when the fire department saves his or her house from burning down.
Statistics are important. Performance measure-ment is critical. Improving the quality of life of our residents is priceless.
WILLIAM JOHNSON III
City ManagerPetersburg, [email protected]
It is my job to make sure the city is always perform-ing at an optimum lev-el. Public services provide the most common interface between people and their local government, and their daily operations shape people’s sense of trust and expectations.
I know my city is doing well through various tools like the software program Government Outreach, which we use daily to monitor the number of service requests, com-plaints, or calls we receive, and then the responsiveness in following up on these concerns.
I also take a drive around the city each month to see how the city looks on a firsthand basis. It is a collaborative approach with city employees and myself understanding that eyes are always on the city, and each of us has a responsibility to report anything we see. This is important to establishing trust and making sure the services we provide are top-notch.
STEPHEN PARRY
Chief ExecutiveGore District Council New [email protected]
It is tempting to become intoxicated with an array of performance measures and isolate a favorite few to provide indelible evidence of a high-performing council. Such indicators as debt per taxpayer, revenue per taxpayer, or average cost per employee are all relevant to a degree; in reality, they are only a piece of the puzzle.
As managers, we need to think beyond the confines of these internal measures and consider the value and qual-ity of the services delivered and how that resonates with the public we serve. To focus on a select few indices can have the distorted effect of a “race to the bottom.”
Resident satisfaction surveys are a useful indicator of performance, but I believe the overall performance of a council can be viewed through the ballot box. Elected members and staff working together can achieve a great deal.
@icma.org Visit icma.org to learn more about these topics.
TOP RESOURCESCheck out this new collection of tips, case studies, and other resources for successful local government performance management programs from ICMA’s Center for Performance Analytics.
icma.org/pmresources
RESIDENTS AS VOLUNTEERSHow do you reach out and engage residents to volunteer? Three communities have their own successful methods.
icma.org/volunteersuccess
1
3NOVEMBER PM COPY CORRECTIONSource information cited in three graphics included in the November 2015 PM article “Retirement Security: A Moving Target” were reported incor-rectly by the magazine.
The correct source line for Figure 1: Distribution of State and Local Pension Plan Funded Ratios is: The Funding of State and Local Pensions: 2014–2018 (written by Alicia Munnell and Jean-Pierre Aubry).
Authors of the publication State and Local Government Workforce: 2015 Trends, cited in Figure 2: Health Care Plan Changes and in Figure 3: Retirement Preparedness, are Elizabeth Kellar, president, and Joshua Franzel, vice president, Center for State and Local Government Excellence, Washington, D.C.
Links to the publications are available at the November PM website icma.org/moving_target.
ADVICE FOR A NEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERWhen a new assistant city manager asked for advice on handling her new position, she received some insightful advice.
icma.org/assistantadvice
2
icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 7
The organization’s approach has evolved and advanced with emerging trends in local govern-ment and management. Most recently, technological advances have ushered in an era of big
data, transparency, and visual analytics.While the environment and tech-
niques of performance management have changed a great deal over time, these principles have changed very little:
• Efficiency and effectiveness are the foundations of sound management, sustainability, and civic health.
• Ensuring that local government services are efficient and effective, they must first be measured to establish a baseline.
• Performance management takes measurement to the next level, where the metrics are put to use by decisionmakers.
• Benchmarking and comparison with peer jurisdictions help communities establish and monitor performance targets, identify best practices, and share innovations.
• An ethical imperative to keep a com-munity informed requires transparen-cy—making performance information publicly available.
In ICMA’s history, performance management stands side by side with the Code of Ethics as a bedrock principle of the local government management profession. As Gerald Young writes in this issue, ICMA’s first inroads came in the 1930s and 1940s.
Since then, ICMA has demonstrated that performance metrics and manage-ment are fundamental to each “new” management trend that comes along: continuous improvement, Six Sigma, citizen participation, evidence-based management, data-driven decision making, performance budgeting, and big data, to name a few.
Performance management begins with measurement—the thoughtful development of metrics. What outcomes are we trying to achieve? What are we
doing to achieve them? How can we measure our efforts? And how do we define “success”?
The prospect can be daunting, but the effort is worth it for jurisdictions of any size. And it’s possible to start small—with a few key measures such as financial data, crime incident reports, citizen satisfaction ratings—and build from there.
In his feature article, David Ammons explains how performance measurement lays the foundation for performance management, which involves much more than measuring inputs and outputs. We need to collect data that will demonstrate that what we do makes a difference—or that it doesn’t—so that we can make strategic decisions about what to continue, what to discontinue, and what new things to try in order to achieve positive outcomes.
Sharing and Comparing DataThe next level is benchmarking and comparison. Although there’s significant value in tracking performance from month to month or year to year in your own organization, the true power of performance management comes in shar-ing and comparing data with similar cities or counties.
Comparison can be another daunting prospect, but tremendous value lies in learning from the success of a similar jurisdiction—or discovering that you’ve developed successful practices that can help others do a better job.
To avoid the danger of ad hoc, apples-to-oranges comparisons, ICMA’s performance management and analytics initiatives have emphasized the need for precise definitions of metrics. And we are committed to maintaining a national comparative performance database so that participating jurisdictions can compare their results reliably with others that share geographic, demographic, or other characteristics.
Some regional comparative groups have sprung up as well. In this issue, Brent Stockwell and David Swindell describe the creation and evolution of a
systematic approach by the Valley Bench-mark Cities, a group of 11 Phoenix-area jurisdictions that seek to compare their performance and learn from each other.
Transparency Is KeyA final responsibility in the performance management cycle is accurate report-ing. Performance information should be available to staff and employees, to elected officials, to the media, and to the public. Transparency builds trust.
And if some metrics don’t meet expectations, it’s far better for the local government to provide them along with a plan for improvement than to wait for unfavorable information to be discovered and reported by the local media or an inquiring resident.
Performance management is a lot of work, and staff may complain, particularly at a time of budgetary and staff reductions, until they come to see its value. Measure-ment and comparison present the risk of revealing shortcomings that managers would secretly prefer not to face.
Elected officials may show only periodic interest. And the public—when it shows an interest at all—may focus on the shortcomings and not the successes. So why is it important and worth the effort?
Performance management is sound management. It demonstrates a commit-ment to gathering data, learning from it, tapping the experience of others, and making changes that ensure the highest possible level of efficiency and effective-ness on behalf of the organization and the public. That’s the commitment we make together as members of the local government management profession.
This issue of PM recognizes 48 jurisdictions whose hard work has earned Certificates in Performance Management from the ICMA Center for Performance Analytics. Each of them has demonstrated a commitment to collecting, using, and sharing performance data.
BOB O’NEILL, ICMA-CM, is executive director, ICMA, Washington, D.C. ([email protected]).
I NTROD UCTION
6 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
By Bob O’Neill , ICMA-CM
THE PERFORMANCE IMPERATIVE
Ensuring the highest possible level of efficiency and effectiveness
It is timely and appropriate for the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) to focus this issue of PM magazine on performance
management. The roots of performance management are solidly established in the profession and in ICMA’s history. »
icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 7
The organization’s approach has evolved and advanced with emerging trends in local govern-ment and management. Most recently, technological advances have ushered in an era of big
data, transparency, and visual analytics.While the environment and tech-
niques of performance management have changed a great deal over time, these principles have changed very little:
• Efficiency and effectiveness are the foundations of sound management, sustainability, and civic health.
• Ensuring that local government services are efficient and effective, they must first be measured to establish a baseline.
• Performance management takes measurement to the next level, where the metrics are put to use by decisionmakers.
• Benchmarking and comparison with peer jurisdictions help communities establish and monitor performance targets, identify best practices, and share innovations.
• An ethical imperative to keep a com-munity informed requires transparen-cy—making performance information publicly available.
In ICMA’s history, performance management stands side by side with the Code of Ethics as a bedrock principle of the local government management profession. As Gerald Young writes in this issue, ICMA’s first inroads came in the 1930s and 1940s.
Since then, ICMA has demonstrated that performance metrics and manage-ment are fundamental to each “new” management trend that comes along: continuous improvement, Six Sigma, citizen participation, evidence-based management, data-driven decision making, performance budgeting, and big data, to name a few.
Performance management begins with measurement—the thoughtful development of metrics. What outcomes are we trying to achieve? What are we
doing to achieve them? How can we measure our efforts? And how do we define “success”?
The prospect can be daunting, but the effort is worth it for jurisdictions of any size. And it’s possible to start small—with a few key measures such as financial data, crime incident reports, citizen satisfaction ratings—and build from there.
In his feature article, David Ammons explains how performance measurement lays the foundation for performance management, which involves much more than measuring inputs and outputs. We need to collect data that will demonstrate that what we do makes a difference—or that it doesn’t—so that we can make strategic decisions about what to continue, what to discontinue, and what new things to try in order to achieve positive outcomes.
Sharing and Comparing DataThe next level is benchmarking and comparison. Although there’s significant value in tracking performance from month to month or year to year in your own organization, the true power of performance management comes in shar-ing and comparing data with similar cities or counties.
Comparison can be another daunting prospect, but tremendous value lies in learning from the success of a similar jurisdiction—or discovering that you’ve developed successful practices that can help others do a better job.
To avoid the danger of ad hoc, apples-to-oranges comparisons, ICMA’s performance management and analytics initiatives have emphasized the need for precise definitions of metrics. And we are committed to maintaining a national comparative performance database so that participating jurisdictions can compare their results reliably with others that share geographic, demographic, or other characteristics.
Some regional comparative groups have sprung up as well. In this issue, Brent Stockwell and David Swindell describe the creation and evolution of a
systematic approach by the Valley Bench-mark Cities, a group of 11 Phoenix-area jurisdictions that seek to compare their performance and learn from each other.
Transparency Is KeyA final responsibility in the performance management cycle is accurate report-ing. Performance information should be available to staff and employees, to elected officials, to the media, and to the public. Transparency builds trust.
And if some metrics don’t meet expectations, it’s far better for the local government to provide them along with a plan for improvement than to wait for unfavorable information to be discovered and reported by the local media or an inquiring resident.
Performance management is a lot of work, and staff may complain, particularly at a time of budgetary and staff reductions, until they come to see its value. Measure-ment and comparison present the risk of revealing shortcomings that managers would secretly prefer not to face.
Elected officials may show only periodic interest. And the public—when it shows an interest at all—may focus on the shortcomings and not the successes. So why is it important and worth the effort?
Performance management is sound management. It demonstrates a commit-ment to gathering data, learning from it, tapping the experience of others, and making changes that ensure the highest possible level of efficiency and effective-ness on behalf of the organization and the public. That’s the commitment we make together as members of the local government management profession.
This issue of PM recognizes 48 jurisdictions whose hard work has earned Certificates in Performance Management from the ICMA Center for Performance Analytics. Each of them has demonstrated a commitment to collecting, using, and sharing performance data.
BOB O’NEILL, ICMA-CM, is executive director, ICMA, Washington, D.C. ([email protected]).
I NTROD UCTION
6 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
By Bob O’Neill , ICMA-CM
THE PERFORMANCE IMPERATIVE
Ensuring the highest possible level of efficiency and effectiveness
It is timely and appropriate for the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) to focus this issue of PM magazine on performance
management. The roots of performance management are solidly established in the profession and in ICMA’s history. »
8 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 9
thing a department head or supervisor can choose to refine or not; something he or she can choose to use or fail to use. It would be naïve to assume that all sets of performance measures are equally useful and versatile. Some sets are limited in ways that minimize their value for performance improvement, perhaps by a decision to measure what is easiest (e.g., a tally of all fire calls) rather than most important (e.g., statistics on the various components of emergency response time and the effectiveness of firefighting personnel on the scene).
In contrast to a set of performance measures, performance management is not a tool, it is an act—an act of manage-ment. Managers at various levels of an organization can choose to engage in the act of performance management.
When they do so, their actions begin with observing the current state of performance, proceed to committing to the pursuit of a more favorable level of performance, and culminate in taking steps to achieve the targeted level. Only by reaching the third step do managers engage in performance management.
An assertion that one’s city or county engages in performance management, if true, is a declaration that the act of performance management is occurring somewhere, perhaps everywhere, in the organization—not simply that the symbols and trappings of performance management are present.
Those truly engaged in the act of performance management can point proudly to changes in the organization and improvements in services made in response to performance information.
What It TakesPerformance management doctrine de-clares the rules governing the optimum practice of performance management. Among the key rules are these: goals must be clear; performance measures must be relevant, actionable, and used for management purposes, not just for reporting; and executives must engage
in responsible oversight while granting important decision authority to program managers and supervisors.
Performance management propo-nents argue that devolved decision authority is important because managers and supervisors at the program level know their operations and problems best and are well-situated to prescribe solu-tions to bring improved results. Officials at the top of the organization, however, may be reluctant to grant discretion to lower levels carte blanche.
This is where performance manage-ment doctrine calls for a trade-off: devolved decision authority in exchange for accountability. In return for the authority to make important operating decisions at the departmental or even front-line level, performance information is forwarded to senior management and the governing body to provide assur-ance that service expectations are being met and progress is being made toward important objectives.
The RealityConsiderable progress has been made in measuring performance in local government and in reporting these measures for the purpose of account-ability. Many local governments publish performance measures in their budget documents and some produce special performance reports for the governing body and public.
Less progress has been made in the use of performance information for deci-sion making and improved operations and services.
Celebrated examples of performance management—for instance, Compstat in the New York City Police Department and CitiStat in Baltimore—contrast sharply with the practice in many local governments, where performance infor-mation is considered only once a year at budget time, if even then.
Few local governments routinely en-gage program managers in meetings with top executives, nor do program managers and supervisors themselves meet with one another regularly to discuss perfor-mance information, to identify trends, to brainstorm ideas for improvement, and to commit to a chosen strategy in what might be called performance strategy sessions—or what the University of Wisconsin’s Donald Moynihan calls “learning forums.”1
Many local governments collect and report measures; relatively few take the next steps of analyzing, discussing, and improving.
Even among cities and counties regarded as good examples of perfor-mance management, there is reason to suspect that some reputations have been based more on the strength of strategic planning and good sets of performance measures than on the actual use of performance information to improve services.
A research study that a colleague and I conducted in 2012 found generally good performance measures and strategic planning among a set of local govern-ments enjoying reputations for excellent performance management. Only rarely, however, did we find the combination of
TAKEAWAYS
› Performance management is much more than just measure-ment. It is a series of acts of management.
› Successful performance manage-ment systems require executive commitment, but are less reliant on executive decision making than most people think.
› People who assume that perfor-mance information is channeled upward to city managers, county managers, or elected officials so that top officials can make all the decisions are missing where the real action is. Most decisions improving operations and services are made at the program level.
By David Ammons
GETTING REAL ABOUT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTUsing performance information to improve services is key
All local government manag-ers want to claim that their government is engaged in performance management. No one wants to admit that they might not be.
The truth, however, is that most managers have discounted the meaning of the term, underestimated the commit-ment required to engage in performance management, and overstated its presence in their city or county government.
In this article we will face the facts about performance management—what it means, what it offers to an organization and to service recipients, and what being engaged in it requires. In short, we will get real about performance management.
Distinguishing Management from MeasurementIf only we could assume that per-formance measurement would lead automatically to performance improve-ment, then we might reason that anyone engaged in measuring performance was
also engaged in managing it.Experience shows, however, that
little about performance improvement is automatic. Improvement rarely flows from measurement alone. Most change requires stimulation or direct interven-tion by management personnel at some level of an organization.
It is helpful to think of two distinct uses of performance measures: account-ability and performance improvement. Many local governments use their measures for the first purpose, but not for the second.
Programs issue reports about their performance or include measures in their budgets for greater account-ability, but these efforts do little to influence changes in the results they are achieving. Only when performance information is used in a serious effort to improve results is a program, depart-ment, or organization engaging in performance management.
A set of performance measures is a tool—a sharp tool or a dull one; some-
IN MANY RESPECTS, THE EXECUTIVE’S SYMBOLIC CONTRIBUTIONS TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ARE AS IMPORTANT AS HIS OR HER SUBSTANTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS.
8 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 9
thing a department head or supervisor can choose to refine or not; something he or she can choose to use or fail to use. It would be naïve to assume that all sets of performance measures are equally useful and versatile. Some sets are limited in ways that minimize their value for performance improvement, perhaps by a decision to measure what is easiest (e.g., a tally of all fire calls) rather than most important (e.g., statistics on the various components of emergency response time and the effectiveness of firefighting personnel on the scene).
In contrast to a set of performance measures, performance management is not a tool, it is an act—an act of manage-ment. Managers at various levels of an organization can choose to engage in the act of performance management.
When they do so, their actions begin with observing the current state of performance, proceed to committing to the pursuit of a more favorable level of performance, and culminate in taking steps to achieve the targeted level. Only by reaching the third step do managers engage in performance management.
An assertion that one’s city or county engages in performance management, if true, is a declaration that the act of performance management is occurring somewhere, perhaps everywhere, in the organization—not simply that the symbols and trappings of performance management are present.
Those truly engaged in the act of performance management can point proudly to changes in the organization and improvements in services made in response to performance information.
What It TakesPerformance management doctrine de-clares the rules governing the optimum practice of performance management. Among the key rules are these: goals must be clear; performance measures must be relevant, actionable, and used for management purposes, not just for reporting; and executives must engage
in responsible oversight while granting important decision authority to program managers and supervisors.
Performance management propo-nents argue that devolved decision authority is important because managers and supervisors at the program level know their operations and problems best and are well-situated to prescribe solu-tions to bring improved results. Officials at the top of the organization, however, may be reluctant to grant discretion to lower levels carte blanche.
This is where performance manage-ment doctrine calls for a trade-off: devolved decision authority in exchange for accountability. In return for the authority to make important operating decisions at the departmental or even front-line level, performance information is forwarded to senior management and the governing body to provide assur-ance that service expectations are being met and progress is being made toward important objectives.
The RealityConsiderable progress has been made in measuring performance in local government and in reporting these measures for the purpose of account-ability. Many local governments publish performance measures in their budget documents and some produce special performance reports for the governing body and public.
Less progress has been made in the use of performance information for deci-sion making and improved operations and services.
Celebrated examples of performance management—for instance, Compstat in the New York City Police Department and CitiStat in Baltimore—contrast sharply with the practice in many local governments, where performance infor-mation is considered only once a year at budget time, if even then.
Few local governments routinely en-gage program managers in meetings with top executives, nor do program managers and supervisors themselves meet with one another regularly to discuss perfor-mance information, to identify trends, to brainstorm ideas for improvement, and to commit to a chosen strategy in what might be called performance strategy sessions—or what the University of Wisconsin’s Donald Moynihan calls “learning forums.”1
Many local governments collect and report measures; relatively few take the next steps of analyzing, discussing, and improving.
Even among cities and counties regarded as good examples of perfor-mance management, there is reason to suspect that some reputations have been based more on the strength of strategic planning and good sets of performance measures than on the actual use of performance information to improve services.
A research study that a colleague and I conducted in 2012 found generally good performance measures and strategic planning among a set of local govern-ments enjoying reputations for excellent performance management. Only rarely, however, did we find the combination of
TAKEAWAYS
› Performance management is much more than just measure-ment. It is a series of acts of management.
› Successful performance manage-ment systems require executive commitment, but are less reliant on executive decision making than most people think.
› People who assume that perfor-mance information is channeled upward to city managers, county managers, or elected officials so that top officials can make all the decisions are missing where the real action is. Most decisions improving operations and services are made at the program level.
By David Ammons
GETTING REAL ABOUT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTUsing performance information to improve services is key
All local government manag-ers want to claim that their government is engaged in performance management. No one wants to admit that they might not be.
The truth, however, is that most managers have discounted the meaning of the term, underestimated the commit-ment required to engage in performance management, and overstated its presence in their city or county government.
In this article we will face the facts about performance management—what it means, what it offers to an organization and to service recipients, and what being engaged in it requires. In short, we will get real about performance management.
Distinguishing Management from MeasurementIf only we could assume that per-formance measurement would lead automatically to performance improve-ment, then we might reason that anyone engaged in measuring performance was
also engaged in managing it.Experience shows, however, that
little about performance improvement is automatic. Improvement rarely flows from measurement alone. Most change requires stimulation or direct interven-tion by management personnel at some level of an organization.
It is helpful to think of two distinct uses of performance measures: account-ability and performance improvement. Many local governments use their measures for the first purpose, but not for the second.
Programs issue reports about their performance or include measures in their budgets for greater account-ability, but these efforts do little to influence changes in the results they are achieving. Only when performance information is used in a serious effort to improve results is a program, depart-ment, or organization engaging in performance management.
A set of performance measures is a tool—a sharp tool or a dull one; some-
IN MANY RESPECTS, THE EXECUTIVE’S SYMBOLIC CONTRIBUTIONS TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ARE AS IMPORTANT AS HIS OR HER SUBSTANTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS.
10 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible
regular executive review of performance information and devolved decision authority prescribed by the rules of performance management.2 This is too bad because managers in these rare cases—regular executive review and devolved decision authority—reported gaining more of the benefits they had anticipated at the outset of their per-formance management efforts than did their counterparts.
Other studies have found widespread willingness to complete only one-half of the accountability-for-devolved-decision-authority trade-off prescribed by performance management doctrine. Many public sector organizations establish requirements for program managers to compile performance measures and report their performance to senior executives, to the governing body, and to residents. Few, however, are willing to grant meaningful discretion to operating personnel at lower levels of the organization—in particular, flexibility in the management of budget, equipment, and human resources.
This reluctance to allow devolved decision authority for program manag-ers is present not only among legisla-tive and top executive officials, but also among central staff agencies of budget, finance, and human resources, each having its own set of rules restricting the discretion of operating managers and supervisors.
The Route to Performance ManagementToday, various performance management “systems” are pitched to local govern-ments. Managers who assume that by adopting or installing such a system they can somehow guarantee better decisions and better services without expanding the commitment of their own and sub-ordinate managers’ time to the endeavor are only fooling themselves.
As Harvard’s Robert Behn has observed, no major management system of importance—including performance budgeting systems, pay-for-performance systems, performance measurement systems, and performance management systems—is designed to run on autopilot.3 Each system is simply a framework for making decisions and managing.
Under the control of a capable manager, the framework clarifies the task and, with the energy of management personnel, makes the desired outcome more likely. It does not reduce skill requirements or the need for capable managers. Each system will fall far short of promise without the commitment of capable managers.
Committing oneself and an entire organization to serious performance management is not for everyone. Compet-ing priorities are a fact of life in local government. Some managers will weigh other pressing issues and find themselves unable to make the personal commitment
necessary for performance management on an organizationwide scale.
This does not rule out performance management altogether; it simply means that, if performance management is to occur, it will happen only in those programs where subordinates have decided or been persuaded to manage in this way.
But some local government man-agers will decide that performance improvement is one of their top two or three priorities and will make the com-mitment of time and energy required by a serious organizationwide perfor-mance management initiative. Some of these, especially initiatives modeled on Compstat and CitiStat, will make heavy demands on the executive’s time and will not tolerate frequent absences from performance strategy meetings, at least not at the beginning.
Executives who regard improved performance as their top priority and who desperately seek a performance cul-ture transfusion for their organizations are especially good candidates for this approach and are more likely to view the required commitment of time and energy as a good investment.
Others, who perhaps regard performance improvement as a “top three” issue in their communities but not a consistent No. 1, might opt for a less-demanding version of performance management that they deem more compatible with the performance culture already present in their organization. Even then, however, a substantial com-mitment will be necessary if success is to be achieved.
For an organizationwide performance management system to yield acts of performance management that bring actual improvements, the executive must demonstrate that performance informa-tion and performance improvement are important to him or her.
In many respects, the executive’s symbolic contributions to performance management are as important as his or
Last year more Americans went to their public library than to fast food chains. Libraries are the go-to place
and reliable resource for:
• Information, ideas, and innovation• Education and entrepreneurship• Technology, this century’s must-have tool
Edge is a performance-management system to evaluate your library’s
technology programs and resources. Edge helps public libraries better
align technology resources and measure their capacity to meet community goals.
Supported with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
Edge enables stronger decision-making and partnerships between your office
and the public library leader.
Learn more at libraryedge.org
Facebook and Twitter icons - REV
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 3258
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 3258
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 158
Facebook and Twitter icons - REV
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 3258
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 3258
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 158
Follow us:
The Most Trusted
Institution in America – Your Public
Library
Edge_Most Trusted_PM_third vert_final.indd 1 6/9/15 5:13 PM
her substantive contributions. After all, devolved decision authority is a key principle of performance management, and actions usurping the authority of program managers should be rare. An executive who makes all the decisions from the top destroys, rather than nurtures, the willingness of program managers to analyze and improve their own operations.
The executive demonstrates the importance of performance manage-ment by frequent pronouncements praising data-driven decision making, by taking the time to review perfor-mance information regularly, and by letting subordinates know that he or she is doing so. The executive also does this by congratulating programs for performance gains, by asking program managers what they intend to do about lagging performance, and by insisting on follow-through. Subor-dinates, watching the executive for signals about what is truly important and what is not, will receive the mes-sage loud and clear.
The truth is, acts of performance management are found more often at the program level than at the upper levels of the organization.4 A depart-ment head discovers that results can be improved by adjusting work schedules to better match service demand, or a battalion chief finds a better strategy for deploying emer-gency vehicles.
Even systems based on the cel-ebrated Compstat and CitiStat models often yield their greatest gains at what have come to be called AgencyStat meetings, where program managers conducting dress rehearsals for their turns in the Compstat/CitiStat spotlight ask themselves the tough questions and develop new strategies for service delivery, discovering in the process a better way to manage their programs.
The words attributed to New York City Police Commissioner William Brat-ton regarding the workings of Compstat
reinforce the importance of devolved decision authority and the executive’s insistence upon it: “No one ever got in trouble if the crime rate went up. They got in trouble if they did not know why it had gone up and did not have a plan for dealing with it.”
Those who see performance management as a system of channel-ing performance information to the top of the organization for centralized decision making are misreading what actually happens when performance management works.
The centralized elements consum-mate the performance management trade-off, raise the profile of program-level action, and provide a venue for executive engagement, coordination of support, and insistence on perfor-mance improvement.
When it works well, rarely does performance management take data-driven decision making out of the hands of program managers. More often, when performance management is happening, program managers have a major role—perhaps the major role—in actually doing it.
ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES
1 Moynihan, Donald P. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2008.2 Ammons, David N., and Dale J. Roenigk, “Performance Management in Local Government: Is Practice Influenced by Doctrine?” Public Performance and Management Review 38, No. 3 (March 2015): 514–41.3 Behn, Robert D. “The Psychological Barriers to Performance Management,” Public Performance & Management Review 26, No. 1 (September 2002): 5–25.4 Sanger, Mary Bryna, “From Measurement to Management: Breaking through the Barriers to State and Local Performance,” Public Administration Review 68 (Special Issue) (2008): S70–S85.
THOSE WHO SEE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AS A SYSTEM OF CHANNELING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION TO THE TOP OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR CENTRALIZED DECISION MAKING ARE MISREADING WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WHEN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT WORKS.
DAVID AMMONS is the Albert Coates Professor of Public Administration and Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ([email protected]).
10 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible
regular executive review of performance information and devolved decision authority prescribed by the rules of performance management.2 This is too bad because managers in these rare cases—regular executive review and devolved decision authority—reported gaining more of the benefits they had anticipated at the outset of their per-formance management efforts than did their counterparts.
Other studies have found widespread willingness to complete only one-half of the accountability-for-devolved-decision-authority trade-off prescribed by performance management doctrine. Many public sector organizations establish requirements for program managers to compile performance measures and report their performance to senior executives, to the governing body, and to residents. Few, however, are willing to grant meaningful discretion to operating personnel at lower levels of the organization—in particular, flexibility in the management of budget, equipment, and human resources.
This reluctance to allow devolved decision authority for program manag-ers is present not only among legisla-tive and top executive officials, but also among central staff agencies of budget, finance, and human resources, each having its own set of rules restricting the discretion of operating managers and supervisors.
The Route to Performance ManagementToday, various performance management “systems” are pitched to local govern-ments. Managers who assume that by adopting or installing such a system they can somehow guarantee better decisions and better services without expanding the commitment of their own and sub-ordinate managers’ time to the endeavor are only fooling themselves.
As Harvard’s Robert Behn has observed, no major management system of importance—including performance budgeting systems, pay-for-performance systems, performance measurement systems, and performance management systems—is designed to run on autopilot.3 Each system is simply a framework for making decisions and managing.
Under the control of a capable manager, the framework clarifies the task and, with the energy of management personnel, makes the desired outcome more likely. It does not reduce skill requirements or the need for capable managers. Each system will fall far short of promise without the commitment of capable managers.
Committing oneself and an entire organization to serious performance management is not for everyone. Compet-ing priorities are a fact of life in local government. Some managers will weigh other pressing issues and find themselves unable to make the personal commitment
necessary for performance management on an organizationwide scale.
This does not rule out performance management altogether; it simply means that, if performance management is to occur, it will happen only in those programs where subordinates have decided or been persuaded to manage in this way.
But some local government man-agers will decide that performance improvement is one of their top two or three priorities and will make the com-mitment of time and energy required by a serious organizationwide perfor-mance management initiative. Some of these, especially initiatives modeled on Compstat and CitiStat, will make heavy demands on the executive’s time and will not tolerate frequent absences from performance strategy meetings, at least not at the beginning.
Executives who regard improved performance as their top priority and who desperately seek a performance cul-ture transfusion for their organizations are especially good candidates for this approach and are more likely to view the required commitment of time and energy as a good investment.
Others, who perhaps regard performance improvement as a “top three” issue in their communities but not a consistent No. 1, might opt for a less-demanding version of performance management that they deem more compatible with the performance culture already present in their organization. Even then, however, a substantial com-mitment will be necessary if success is to be achieved.
For an organizationwide performance management system to yield acts of performance management that bring actual improvements, the executive must demonstrate that performance informa-tion and performance improvement are important to him or her.
In many respects, the executive’s symbolic contributions to performance management are as important as his or
Last year more Americans went to their public library than to fast food chains. Libraries are the go-to place
and reliable resource for:
• Information, ideas, and innovation• Education and entrepreneurship• Technology, this century’s must-have tool
Edge is a performance-management system to evaluate your library’s
technology programs and resources. Edge helps public libraries better
align technology resources and measure their capacity to meet community goals.
Supported with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
Edge enables stronger decision-making and partnerships between your office
and the public library leader.
Learn more at libraryedge.org
Facebook and Twitter icons - REV
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 3258
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 3258
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 158
Facebook and Twitter icons - REV
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 3258
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 3258
Facebook and Twitter icons - PMS 158
Follow us:
The Most Trusted
Institution in America – Your Public
Library
Edge_Most Trusted_PM_third vert_final.indd 1 6/9/15 5:13 PM
her substantive contributions. After all, devolved decision authority is a key principle of performance management, and actions usurping the authority of program managers should be rare. An executive who makes all the decisions from the top destroys, rather than nurtures, the willingness of program managers to analyze and improve their own operations.
The executive demonstrates the importance of performance manage-ment by frequent pronouncements praising data-driven decision making, by taking the time to review perfor-mance information regularly, and by letting subordinates know that he or she is doing so. The executive also does this by congratulating programs for performance gains, by asking program managers what they intend to do about lagging performance, and by insisting on follow-through. Subor-dinates, watching the executive for signals about what is truly important and what is not, will receive the mes-sage loud and clear.
The truth is, acts of performance management are found more often at the program level than at the upper levels of the organization.4 A depart-ment head discovers that results can be improved by adjusting work schedules to better match service demand, or a battalion chief finds a better strategy for deploying emer-gency vehicles.
Even systems based on the cel-ebrated Compstat and CitiStat models often yield their greatest gains at what have come to be called AgencyStat meetings, where program managers conducting dress rehearsals for their turns in the Compstat/CitiStat spotlight ask themselves the tough questions and develop new strategies for service delivery, discovering in the process a better way to manage their programs.
The words attributed to New York City Police Commissioner William Brat-ton regarding the workings of Compstat
reinforce the importance of devolved decision authority and the executive’s insistence upon it: “No one ever got in trouble if the crime rate went up. They got in trouble if they did not know why it had gone up and did not have a plan for dealing with it.”
Those who see performance management as a system of channel-ing performance information to the top of the organization for centralized decision making are misreading what actually happens when performance management works.
The centralized elements consum-mate the performance management trade-off, raise the profile of program-level action, and provide a venue for executive engagement, coordination of support, and insistence on perfor-mance improvement.
When it works well, rarely does performance management take data-driven decision making out of the hands of program managers. More often, when performance management is happening, program managers have a major role—perhaps the major role—in actually doing it.
ENDNOTES AND REFERENCES
1 Moynihan, Donald P. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2008.2 Ammons, David N., and Dale J. Roenigk, “Performance Management in Local Government: Is Practice Influenced by Doctrine?” Public Performance and Management Review 38, No. 3 (March 2015): 514–41.3 Behn, Robert D. “The Psychological Barriers to Performance Management,” Public Performance & Management Review 26, No. 1 (September 2002): 5–25.4 Sanger, Mary Bryna, “From Measurement to Management: Breaking through the Barriers to State and Local Performance,” Public Administration Review 68 (Special Issue) (2008): S70–S85.
THOSE WHO SEE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AS A SYSTEM OF CHANNELING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION TO THE TOP OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR CENTRALIZED DECISION MAKING ARE MISREADING WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS WHEN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT WORKS.
DAVID AMMONS is the Albert Coates Professor of Public Administration and Government, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ([email protected]).
12 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 13
Eleven Phoenix-area jurisdictions have been working together since 2011 with the Alliance for Innova-tion (AFI), the Center for Urban In-novation at Arizona State University (ASU), and the International City/
County Management Association (ICMA) to improve local government performance. The Valley Benchmark Cities group tracks de-mographic, financial, and performance data to enhance reporting and understanding, uncovers best practices, and collaborates on new approaches to service delivery.
This article makes the case for compara-tive performance management and shares lessons learned for starting a similar col-laboration in other metropolitan areas.
The Case for ComparisonLocal government professionals, elected offi-cials, and the media have an ongoing interest in how their communities compare with one another. Because of the complexity of each of our organizations, however, it is often difficult to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
Sometimes the differences seem over-whelming, too difficult, or too time-consum-ing to research and explain, so we give up. But the truth is that we learn by comparing. Comparisons are helpful because they give us context for decision making.
Have you ever had to decide in the grocery store which brand or quantity of a product was the best deal? Groceries and drugstores now provide a unit cost for each item, so consumers can more easily compare brands and quantities.
And yet, we often ask our residents to trust us and have confidence in the work we do—what they pay and receive for services—with-out similar information. As humans, we are interested in comparisons to better understand ourselves and the world around us.
So it’s only natural that others compel us to do the same. Our councils, local newspapers, and residents are seeking com-parative information to better understand what we do, why we do it, and how well we do it. It’s clear that if we don’t compare, others will . . . and they do.
With reliable comparative data that we share with our publics, we can validate our performance claims, track progress toward community goals, and help rebuild confi-dence in government.
A proactive comparison effort lets you frame the discussion, rather than having to react to questions pushed upon you by oth-ers. The effort can also help build a sense of collegiality among jurisdictions in the region.
In our case, the effort has helped some of our member communities establish new benchmarks for their services, while others are integrating the comparative data into their performance management programs.
Creating a ConsortiumThe Valley Benchmark Cities group began in October 2011 as a consortium of staff from the 11 largest cities in the Phoenix metro-politan area: Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Surprise, and Tempe. Popula-tions ranged from 72,300 (Goodyear) to 1.5 million (Phoenix).
The initial impetus was a number of information requests and articles online and in print in the regional newspaper. The media were reporting inaccurate and incomplete comparisons, which were then repeated in letters to the editor and at city council meetings.
TAKEAWAYS
› Comparing our per-formance with peer jurisdictions helps us understand what we do, track our progress, and provide elected officials, the media, and the public with accurate information about service delivery.
› Keys to success for a regional consortium include commitment on the part of each jurisdic-tion, mutual trust and data sharing among par-ticipants, and partnership with a university or other research organization that can provide neutral facili-tation for the group.
One of the local communities requested a meeting with the regional communities that were being compared to each other, and the 11 communities agreed to work collaboratively. We agreed to identify common information to share and discuss so we could better understand the similarities and differ-ences among our operations.
The ultimate aim was to improve lo-cal government performance and to pro-vide accurate responses to the media and the public. Each community had at least one consistently involved representative, though some had as many as three. Formal rules governing the number of participants were not an issue.
ASU’s Center for Urban Innovation and AFI agreed to host and staff the effort. ASU’s downtown Phoenix campus provided a central and neutral location for the group to meet.
The effort was slow-going in the beginning. For the first two years, the representatives met primarily in the fall, and everything was put on hold in the spring during budget season. To build rapport and understanding of each other’s operations, the group initially focused on presentations about research efforts under way in each community and national research into performance management.
This led to presentations on property taxes, building permit fees, and utility comparisons, as well as other bench-marking and performance measurement efforts elsewhere in the nation.
Repeatedly, the group found that we were not limited by what could be measured, but by a lack of consensus about what should be measured and how. A key moment occurred when the group began focusing on measures from the perspective of a typical resident as opposed to the perspective of city staff. When a resident calls 911, for example, the person is fundamentally interested in how long it will take the police or fire department to arrive.
Not surprisingly, with every additional point of data, staff members were curious
to find differences among communities, and reasons for those differences. Why does this community issue building permits more quickly than the average? Why is that community’s cost so low? What difference does that make?
Answering “why?” is exactly the point of comparative benchmarking exer-cises. Exploring the differences helped us recognize many aspects of the services we produce that residents might not see.
Assembling and Reporting Comparative DataAfter two years of building rapport and trust, and learning about the value of comparative measures, we were finally prepared to begin real work on an initial project of our own, with the intent of collecting comparative data and publish-ing it in a report.
We began by bringing city manag-ers from the member communities together to help identify key topics to include in the report. We selected seven major service areas for compari-son: fire; police; libraries; parks and recreation; streets and transportation; water, sewer, and trash; and finance and administration.
The next nine months were spent doing the work: constructing measures, compiling data, and discussing and analyzing it across the seven service areas with the specific intent of presenting information in a way residents could eas-ily understand. The group completed and released the comparative report in August 2015 (icma.org/valley-benchmark).
Several tasks were completed between the time of the initial meeting with the managers and publication of the final product. Each month, outside of the monthly meetings, a rotating team collaborated on a service-related topic area to highlight a range of measures of value to residents.
Then, at the monthly meetings, the group as a whole reviewed and discussed the work and made sugges-tions for improving the information.
The overall group also used the monthly meetings to review reports from other benchmarking efforts, ultimately settling on a format similar to the one used by the Ontario (Canada) Municipal Bench-marking Initiative.1
Representatives from individual cities volunteered to be the primary organizers of the initial drafts of each section of the report based on service area. This process typically involved collecting data from specific departments within each participating community and performing an initial comparative analysis.
This allowed team members to engage with others in their own organi-zations as well as in other communities, creating a great learning experience and relationship-building opportunity. The teams then presented this preliminary analysis to the whole group, who then had the opportunity to ask questions and raise issues regarding the validity of the comparisons. Often, subject matter experts from the service-related depart-ments attended a specific meeting cover-ing their area of expertise in addition to the usual municipal representative.
For each of the service areas, the report has a section with three components:
• A descriptive overview of the service to help residents understand what is included under the umbrella of that service.
• The common factors that may poten-tially influence the quantity and/or quality of that service in a jurisdiction.
• A presentation of the comparative performance measures, listing each community.
In addition to service measures, the report includes demographic informa-tion about each of the communities, including phase of current physical development, age and condition of ex-isting infrastructure, services provided, and service delivery methods—impor-tant and often unique factors that can affect comparability.
By Brent Stockwell and David Swindell
JOINING FORCESArizona cities collaborate to improve performance
12 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 13
Eleven Phoenix-area jurisdictions have been working together since 2011 with the Alliance for Innova-tion (AFI), the Center for Urban In-novation at Arizona State University (ASU), and the International City/
County Management Association (ICMA) to improve local government performance. The Valley Benchmark Cities group tracks de-mographic, financial, and performance data to enhance reporting and understanding, uncovers best practices, and collaborates on new approaches to service delivery.
This article makes the case for compara-tive performance management and shares lessons learned for starting a similar col-laboration in other metropolitan areas.
The Case for ComparisonLocal government professionals, elected offi-cials, and the media have an ongoing interest in how their communities compare with one another. Because of the complexity of each of our organizations, however, it is often difficult to make apples-to-apples comparisons.
Sometimes the differences seem over-whelming, too difficult, or too time-consum-ing to research and explain, so we give up. But the truth is that we learn by comparing. Comparisons are helpful because they give us context for decision making.
Have you ever had to decide in the grocery store which brand or quantity of a product was the best deal? Groceries and drugstores now provide a unit cost for each item, so consumers can more easily compare brands and quantities.
And yet, we often ask our residents to trust us and have confidence in the work we do—what they pay and receive for services—with-out similar information. As humans, we are interested in comparisons to better understand ourselves and the world around us.
So it’s only natural that others compel us to do the same. Our councils, local newspapers, and residents are seeking com-parative information to better understand what we do, why we do it, and how well we do it. It’s clear that if we don’t compare, others will . . . and they do.
With reliable comparative data that we share with our publics, we can validate our performance claims, track progress toward community goals, and help rebuild confi-dence in government.
A proactive comparison effort lets you frame the discussion, rather than having to react to questions pushed upon you by oth-ers. The effort can also help build a sense of collegiality among jurisdictions in the region.
In our case, the effort has helped some of our member communities establish new benchmarks for their services, while others are integrating the comparative data into their performance management programs.
Creating a ConsortiumThe Valley Benchmark Cities group began in October 2011 as a consortium of staff from the 11 largest cities in the Phoenix metro-politan area: Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Surprise, and Tempe. Popula-tions ranged from 72,300 (Goodyear) to 1.5 million (Phoenix).
The initial impetus was a number of information requests and articles online and in print in the regional newspaper. The media were reporting inaccurate and incomplete comparisons, which were then repeated in letters to the editor and at city council meetings.
TAKEAWAYS
› Comparing our per-formance with peer jurisdictions helps us understand what we do, track our progress, and provide elected officials, the media, and the public with accurate information about service delivery.
› Keys to success for a regional consortium include commitment on the part of each jurisdic-tion, mutual trust and data sharing among par-ticipants, and partnership with a university or other research organization that can provide neutral facili-tation for the group.
One of the local communities requested a meeting with the regional communities that were being compared to each other, and the 11 communities agreed to work collaboratively. We agreed to identify common information to share and discuss so we could better understand the similarities and differ-ences among our operations.
The ultimate aim was to improve lo-cal government performance and to pro-vide accurate responses to the media and the public. Each community had at least one consistently involved representative, though some had as many as three. Formal rules governing the number of participants were not an issue.
ASU’s Center for Urban Innovation and AFI agreed to host and staff the effort. ASU’s downtown Phoenix campus provided a central and neutral location for the group to meet.
The effort was slow-going in the beginning. For the first two years, the representatives met primarily in the fall, and everything was put on hold in the spring during budget season. To build rapport and understanding of each other’s operations, the group initially focused on presentations about research efforts under way in each community and national research into performance management.
This led to presentations on property taxes, building permit fees, and utility comparisons, as well as other bench-marking and performance measurement efforts elsewhere in the nation.
Repeatedly, the group found that we were not limited by what could be measured, but by a lack of consensus about what should be measured and how. A key moment occurred when the group began focusing on measures from the perspective of a typical resident as opposed to the perspective of city staff. When a resident calls 911, for example, the person is fundamentally interested in how long it will take the police or fire department to arrive.
Not surprisingly, with every additional point of data, staff members were curious
to find differences among communities, and reasons for those differences. Why does this community issue building permits more quickly than the average? Why is that community’s cost so low? What difference does that make?
Answering “why?” is exactly the point of comparative benchmarking exer-cises. Exploring the differences helped us recognize many aspects of the services we produce that residents might not see.
Assembling and Reporting Comparative DataAfter two years of building rapport and trust, and learning about the value of comparative measures, we were finally prepared to begin real work on an initial project of our own, with the intent of collecting comparative data and publish-ing it in a report.
We began by bringing city manag-ers from the member communities together to help identify key topics to include in the report. We selected seven major service areas for compari-son: fire; police; libraries; parks and recreation; streets and transportation; water, sewer, and trash; and finance and administration.
The next nine months were spent doing the work: constructing measures, compiling data, and discussing and analyzing it across the seven service areas with the specific intent of presenting information in a way residents could eas-ily understand. The group completed and released the comparative report in August 2015 (icma.org/valley-benchmark).
Several tasks were completed between the time of the initial meeting with the managers and publication of the final product. Each month, outside of the monthly meetings, a rotating team collaborated on a service-related topic area to highlight a range of measures of value to residents.
Then, at the monthly meetings, the group as a whole reviewed and discussed the work and made sugges-tions for improving the information.
The overall group also used the monthly meetings to review reports from other benchmarking efforts, ultimately settling on a format similar to the one used by the Ontario (Canada) Municipal Bench-marking Initiative.1
Representatives from individual cities volunteered to be the primary organizers of the initial drafts of each section of the report based on service area. This process typically involved collecting data from specific departments within each participating community and performing an initial comparative analysis.
This allowed team members to engage with others in their own organi-zations as well as in other communities, creating a great learning experience and relationship-building opportunity. The teams then presented this preliminary analysis to the whole group, who then had the opportunity to ask questions and raise issues regarding the validity of the comparisons. Often, subject matter experts from the service-related depart-ments attended a specific meeting cover-ing their area of expertise in addition to the usual municipal representative.
For each of the service areas, the report has a section with three components:
• A descriptive overview of the service to help residents understand what is included under the umbrella of that service.
• The common factors that may poten-tially influence the quantity and/or quality of that service in a jurisdiction.
• A presentation of the comparative performance measures, listing each community.
In addition to service measures, the report includes demographic informa-tion about each of the communities, including phase of current physical development, age and condition of ex-isting infrastructure, services provided, and service delivery methods—impor-tant and often unique factors that can affect comparability.
By Brent Stockwell and David Swindell
JOINING FORCESArizona cities collaborate to improve performance
14 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 15
The end of the report includes a glossary of terms as well as an appendix of additional measures that we discussed in the monthly meetings, but decided not to include in the body of the report.
Success Factors Several factors were key to the success of this endeavor. A safe work environment with technological support helped the flow of information. Several facilitative leaders emerged within the group; these individuals helped maintain an agenda and momentum, and enabled the group to collaborate productively.
On the technology side, the group used a private group site on the Knowl-edge Network hosted by ICMA to col-laborate across organizations and share information and discussion threads. This ensured that draft information could be shared privately until it had been reviewed, verified, and released.
Creating this forum for discussing drafts greatly increased participants’ willingness to share information. Although data held by individual communities is public information, the group wanted to ensure that it did not publish comparisons that failed to take account of institutional, geographic, or other factors that can explain differ-ences across cities.
This online structure ensured that early comparisons were not publicly re-leased if they did not adequately address the differences across local governments. No formal privacy requirements or nondisclosure agreements were signed by any participants in the group.
The group is also coordinating with the ICMA Insights™ program to collect and analyze performance data, both on measures in common with that national benchmarking effort and on custom measures of specific interest to Phoenix-area communities.
The partnership with ASU’s Center for Urban Innovation provided the communities with a central and neutral location to meet so that each participant
had equal standing in the discussions. It also allowed for academic researchers to participate in the development of the benchmarking effort.
The Center, along with AFI, provided a Marvin Andrews Fellow from ASU’s Graduate Program in Urban Management to support the group. Together with the technology, this partnership created a safe space for the various participants to discuss and refine the comparisons.
The “X factor” in such a comparative performance effort as this is the participa-tion of a key individual playing a critical role in bringing the group together, driving it forward, and participating in the analyses every step of the way. Such an individual needs to enjoy learning about other communities and be comfortable with the “wonky” side of data.
This is tricky, but identifying such individuals across the staff of multiple jurisdictions is not impossible. Similar efforts have failed because no one was willing to play this role. Finally, it is criti-cal that this role be filled by one of the community representatives rather than an outside party.
Creating Your Own ConsortiumThis approach to developing comparative data can be replicated in other metro-politan areas. A key requirement is for interested communities to reach out to a local university or research organization, or vice versa, to explore the level of in-terest and initiate a research partnership.
For our efforts, the partnership was essential because it provided the neutral third party that facilitated trust and co-operation among the participants. It also provided a forum where the participants could discuss and revise comparisons in relative privacy.
While some of the conditions that prompted the formation of the Valley Benchmark Cities are unique, the value of undertaking comparative benchmark-ing is clear, and many of our efforts can be duplicated elsewhere.
We encourage communities to commit to identifying potential com-parative jurisdictions within their region or nationally with whom they can explore joint measurement interests. We recommend trying to focus regionally because going outside a shared region can introduce factors that could affect service performance, including climate, geography, demand levels, political environment, and funding constraints.
Beyond this, communities must identify leadership willing to engage and to meet regularly where they can share and identify common data, discuss possible differences and simi-larities, and commit to publicly report information. These key steps could be used by other organizations:
• Identify and invite key leaders from
each target organization with which you want to compare.
• Identify potential partners among local universities or research organizations with a commitment to their local communities and broad community outreach.
• Build trust and rapport through discus-sions and presentations from outside the region about the value of compara-tive measures.
• Dialogue about efforts already under way to understand what each com-munity is doing.
• Begin collecting and sharing information.• Consolidate key findings and results
into a report that can be shared with others, including the public.
ENDNOTE
1 Ontario Municipal CAO’s Benchmarking Initiative: http://www.ombi.ca.
Inspiration can be unexpected and come like a lightning bolt. Most often, however, it comes after reflec-tion and critical analysis because the important work of organizing, tracking, and interpreting relevant
data has been conducted first. Local governments sit on a wealth of informa-tion about their operations, but they don’t always take the time to ensure that it is organized and ready to use.
For 80 years, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) has encouraged and as-sisted local governments in collecting, organizing, and using that information. ICMA’s earliest forays into the field re-
sulted in a series of articles in the 1930s. And then in 1943 came a book by its executive director, Clarence Ridley, and ICMA staff member and future Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon entitled Measuring Municipal Services.
Fiscal data remained a key resource for managers in the years that followed, but the focus was often solely inward looking: “How did we perform this year?” Where some found value in collecting benchmark information from other jurisdictions, collection was idio-syncratic at best, with each jurisdiction deciding for itself which measures were important and which other jurisdictions to select for comparison.
For the identified comparable communities, either the data were lifted from their budget documents with or without their knowledge, or the measures were communicated in a brief survey, with the recipients doing their best to interpret how those measures should be defined.
Standardizing the ProcessICMA recognized both the value of performance data and the hazards of col-lecting it without some standardization.
In the mid-1990s, an idea for a standard-ized, systematic—and comparative—per-formance measurement program began to gel and take root among participants in the Large Cities Executive Forum, a group of managers in cities with popula-tions of 250,000 or more.
At the time, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) was proposing to establish measures on which local governments would be required to report, and these managers sought to take the initiative rather than waiting for a mandate by some external body.
ICMA provided an institutional home for a pilot performance measure-ment consortium of 44 jurisdictions. Participants decided on the service areas they would focus on, agreed on the ap-propriate indicators, and hammered out precise definitions. ICMA joined with the Urban Institute to obtain a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to help fund the startup.
In the years that followed, local government managers, budget staff, department heads, and other subject matter experts tackled the detailed questions underlying the seemingly simple. “What did you spend?” became “What was the actual (not budgeted or estimated) expenditure, excluding overhead or encumbrances?”
Such key terms as overhead, full-time equivalent, hours paid, sworn staff, and completed repairs were spelled out as well. In some cases, each item in the data collection instrument might be accompanied by half a page or more of instructions.
With ICMA serving as the clear-inghouse for an annual data collection effort, the communities participating could rely on a consistent source of data from an entity independent of their local media, unions, or other interests, and one that did not rely on an ad hoc inquiry to another jurisdiction.
While apples-to-apples inputs were a key consideration, so, too, was data verification. Each jurisdiction’s submit-
TAKEAWAYS
› ICMA has been the pioneer and thought leader in performance management for more than 80 years.
› Performance management remains a fundamental professional practice that evolves with the times and the needs of local government.
BRENT STOCKWELL is assistant city manager, Scottsdale, Arizona ([email protected]).
DAVID SWINDELL is associate professor and director of Arizona State University’s Center for Urban Innovation, Phoenix, Arizona ([email protected]).
w
By Gerald Young
DECADES OF LEADERSHIPICMA and performance management
14 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 15
The end of the report includes a glossary of terms as well as an appendix of additional measures that we discussed in the monthly meetings, but decided not to include in the body of the report.
Success Factors Several factors were key to the success of this endeavor. A safe work environment with technological support helped the flow of information. Several facilitative leaders emerged within the group; these individuals helped maintain an agenda and momentum, and enabled the group to collaborate productively.
On the technology side, the group used a private group site on the Knowl-edge Network hosted by ICMA to col-laborate across organizations and share information and discussion threads. This ensured that draft information could be shared privately until it had been reviewed, verified, and released.
Creating this forum for discussing drafts greatly increased participants’ willingness to share information. Although data held by individual communities is public information, the group wanted to ensure that it did not publish comparisons that failed to take account of institutional, geographic, or other factors that can explain differ-ences across cities.
This online structure ensured that early comparisons were not publicly re-leased if they did not adequately address the differences across local governments. No formal privacy requirements or nondisclosure agreements were signed by any participants in the group.
The group is also coordinating with the ICMA Insights™ program to collect and analyze performance data, both on measures in common with that national benchmarking effort and on custom measures of specific interest to Phoenix-area communities.
The partnership with ASU’s Center for Urban Innovation provided the communities with a central and neutral location to meet so that each participant
had equal standing in the discussions. It also allowed for academic researchers to participate in the development of the benchmarking effort.
The Center, along with AFI, provided a Marvin Andrews Fellow from ASU’s Graduate Program in Urban Management to support the group. Together with the technology, this partnership created a safe space for the various participants to discuss and refine the comparisons.
The “X factor” in such a comparative performance effort as this is the participa-tion of a key individual playing a critical role in bringing the group together, driving it forward, and participating in the analyses every step of the way. Such an individual needs to enjoy learning about other communities and be comfortable with the “wonky” side of data.
This is tricky, but identifying such individuals across the staff of multiple jurisdictions is not impossible. Similar efforts have failed because no one was willing to play this role. Finally, it is criti-cal that this role be filled by one of the community representatives rather than an outside party.
Creating Your Own ConsortiumThis approach to developing comparative data can be replicated in other metro-politan areas. A key requirement is for interested communities to reach out to a local university or research organization, or vice versa, to explore the level of in-terest and initiate a research partnership.
For our efforts, the partnership was essential because it provided the neutral third party that facilitated trust and co-operation among the participants. It also provided a forum where the participants could discuss and revise comparisons in relative privacy.
While some of the conditions that prompted the formation of the Valley Benchmark Cities are unique, the value of undertaking comparative benchmark-ing is clear, and many of our efforts can be duplicated elsewhere.
We encourage communities to commit to identifying potential com-parative jurisdictions within their region or nationally with whom they can explore joint measurement interests. We recommend trying to focus regionally because going outside a shared region can introduce factors that could affect service performance, including climate, geography, demand levels, political environment, and funding constraints.
Beyond this, communities must identify leadership willing to engage and to meet regularly where they can share and identify common data, discuss possible differences and simi-larities, and commit to publicly report information. These key steps could be used by other organizations:
• Identify and invite key leaders from
each target organization with which you want to compare.
• Identify potential partners among local universities or research organizations with a commitment to their local communities and broad community outreach.
• Build trust and rapport through discus-sions and presentations from outside the region about the value of compara-tive measures.
• Dialogue about efforts already under way to understand what each com-munity is doing.
• Begin collecting and sharing information.• Consolidate key findings and results
into a report that can be shared with others, including the public.
ENDNOTE
1 Ontario Municipal CAO’s Benchmarking Initiative: http://www.ombi.ca.
Inspiration can be unexpected and come like a lightning bolt. Most often, however, it comes after reflec-tion and critical analysis because the important work of organizing, tracking, and interpreting relevant
data has been conducted first. Local governments sit on a wealth of informa-tion about their operations, but they don’t always take the time to ensure that it is organized and ready to use.
For 80 years, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) has encouraged and as-sisted local governments in collecting, organizing, and using that information. ICMA’s earliest forays into the field re-
sulted in a series of articles in the 1930s. And then in 1943 came a book by its executive director, Clarence Ridley, and ICMA staff member and future Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon entitled Measuring Municipal Services.
Fiscal data remained a key resource for managers in the years that followed, but the focus was often solely inward looking: “How did we perform this year?” Where some found value in collecting benchmark information from other jurisdictions, collection was idio-syncratic at best, with each jurisdiction deciding for itself which measures were important and which other jurisdictions to select for comparison.
For the identified comparable communities, either the data were lifted from their budget documents with or without their knowledge, or the measures were communicated in a brief survey, with the recipients doing their best to interpret how those measures should be defined.
Standardizing the ProcessICMA recognized both the value of performance data and the hazards of col-lecting it without some standardization.
In the mid-1990s, an idea for a standard-ized, systematic—and comparative—per-formance measurement program began to gel and take root among participants in the Large Cities Executive Forum, a group of managers in cities with popula-tions of 250,000 or more.
At the time, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) was proposing to establish measures on which local governments would be required to report, and these managers sought to take the initiative rather than waiting for a mandate by some external body.
ICMA provided an institutional home for a pilot performance measure-ment consortium of 44 jurisdictions. Participants decided on the service areas they would focus on, agreed on the ap-propriate indicators, and hammered out precise definitions. ICMA joined with the Urban Institute to obtain a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to help fund the startup.
In the years that followed, local government managers, budget staff, department heads, and other subject matter experts tackled the detailed questions underlying the seemingly simple. “What did you spend?” became “What was the actual (not budgeted or estimated) expenditure, excluding overhead or encumbrances?”
Such key terms as overhead, full-time equivalent, hours paid, sworn staff, and completed repairs were spelled out as well. In some cases, each item in the data collection instrument might be accompanied by half a page or more of instructions.
With ICMA serving as the clear-inghouse for an annual data collection effort, the communities participating could rely on a consistent source of data from an entity independent of their local media, unions, or other interests, and one that did not rely on an ad hoc inquiry to another jurisdiction.
While apples-to-apples inputs were a key consideration, so, too, was data verification. Each jurisdiction’s submit-
TAKEAWAYS
› ICMA has been the pioneer and thought leader in performance management for more than 80 years.
› Performance management remains a fundamental professional practice that evolves with the times and the needs of local government.
BRENT STOCKWELL is assistant city manager, Scottsdale, Arizona ([email protected]).
DAVID SWINDELL is associate professor and director of Arizona State University’s Center for Urban Innovation, Phoenix, Arizona ([email protected]).
w
By Gerald Young
DECADES OF LEADERSHIPICMA and performance management
16 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 17
tals were subject to statistical formulas and staff review to identify outliers that needed to be verified or inconsistencies that needed to be corrected.
The cleaned databases were then provided to the participating jurisdic-tions and published in an annual report, which provided summary statistics and also jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction graphs showing the performance on key measures. By then, dubbed the ICMA Center for Performance Measurement or CPM, the consortium grew in both participation and scope.
Remaining focused on such core local government services as public safety, road maintenance, parks and recreation, libraries, and support services, it also expanded to include risk management, planning and permitting, and sustain-ability. It also expanded to include cities, counties, and other local governments, both large and small.
From Measurement to ManagementThe next challenge facing ICMA was how the data would be used. Would each jurisdiction simply incorporate selected graphs into its budgets or presentations to elected officials?
Would that be the end of the discus-sion or just the beginning? Or would the data be a source for additional research into best practices that lead to improved performance?
To help local governments move from measurement to management, ICMA published What Works: Management Ap-
plications of Performance Measurement in
Local Government, starting in 2001. What
Works presented case studies demonstrat-ing how performance information had resulted in cost savings and management and policy changes, and enhanced dialogue among staff, elected officials, and the public concerning strategic goals, actual performance, and action plans for improvement. Updated editions followed in 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2010.
From FY2005 to FY2006, for example, the city of Dallas, Texas, reduced the
average time from initiation of a code complaint to voluntary compliance for all violation types from 28 days to 11 days by:
• Implementing a new customer relationship management system that improved the ability to monitor cases at every point in the inspection and resolution process.
• Establishing time standards for resolving cases.
• Introducing a civil adjudication process that reduced the time required to resolve some cases.
To help participants interpret the data, ICMA also looked beyond individual measures at how multiple components in-terrelate through correlations among sets of metrics. Response time, for example, from dispatch to arrival in public safety emergencies can be affected by the square mileage served per station; topography; population density; dispatch technol-ogy; call volume per apparatus per day; turnout time; and differences in practices for recording arrival time.
Networking and ConsortiaWhere data analysis has led to proce-dural or organizational change, ICMA has fostered networking among the jurisdictions by participant-led webinars. Examples include exploring efforts in Albany, Oregon, to track and reduce sick leave usage and encouraging departmen-tal business planning in Austin, Texas.
Subgroups also emerged within the larger program, especially among those with a particular policy or geographic connection. This led to the formation of state and regional consortia to encourage ongoing dialogue on relevant perfor-mance issues.
Tackling Continuing ChallengesStill, some key challenges remained: technology and time. Technology: Technology has continued to evolve throughout the program, as
ICMA has shared surveys and data through CD-ROM, association-hosted websites, off-the-shelf databases, print and PDF documents, and now cloud-based applications.
Performance dashboards for each jurisdiction were introduced in 2008, but these initial reports had limited options for altering the pre-set display. User customization also took a leap that year with an online reporting tool that enabled jurisdictions to identify specific jurisdictions, states, or popula-tion cohorts with which to compare their performance and view multiyear trends.
This early online application and sub-sequent upgrades enabled jurisdictions to identify key measures, fiscal years, and relevant filters to create and save their own graphs. But since the data col-lection and online reporting tools were not integrated, a lag remained between the release of the cleaned database and the upload to the reporting tool.
Time: Lag time was an issue in other ways as well. Each jurisdiction reported data only once a year, typically about two months after its fiscal year close. Once the data verification process took place and the database was shared, the jurisdictions would already be several months into their next fiscal year.
And since some participants had dif-ferent fiscal year-ends, those with a June 30 fiscal year close would have to wait until the next spring to see data from the jurisdictions with a December 31 close. By that time, they would already be well into the approval process of their follow-ing year’s budget.
Relatedly, time was an issue in completing the annual surveys. With more than 5,000 individual measures, jurisdictions faced a considerable invest-ment of staff time in responding to the surveys each year, let alone analyzing the results.
Reimagining the ProgramFocusing on those challenges, ICMA
embarked on a reimagining of the program in 2013. Over the course of 18 months, staff conducted market research on a wholly revised suite of services, issued an RFP for an integrated software platform, and convened focus groups to help rethink the “core” outcomes and other measures collected.
The result, rolled out at ICMA’s 100th annual conference in Charlotte, is ICMA Insights™, a partnership between ICMA and SAS®, the industry leader in busi-ness analytics software.
Based on feedback from partici-pants, the new software provides the flexibility that was previously lacking, quick turnaround time, and a more streamlined set of measures, but with the ability to add custom measures. It also has extensive graphing, reporting and trend analysis tools, and built-in forecasting capabilities that are hosted on the latest technology.
A significant contribution of the focus groups was a careful consideration of the measures to be incorporated into Insights. The program had grown to include more than 5,000 measures—an unsustainable number. Each focus group included rep-resentatives from varying levels of local government—city and county managers, budget directors, other department heads, and line staff—as well as members of the academic community.
Feedback was also provided by other professional associations, includ-ing the American Library Associa-tion, American Association of Code Enforcement, and International Public Management Association for Human Resources. Measures were aligned as appropriate with existing industry standards, including both Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the Na-tional Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for crime reporting, and the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) for fire incident data.
Rather than trying to measure every-thing a local government undertakes, the goal was to track only those key items
that jurisdictions were most likely to compare with others.
In facilities management, for example, where prior surveys tracked breakout categories relating to a wide range of facility types, the new ICMA Insights system is focused on custodial, repair, and utility measures in adminis-trative and office facilities.
Where policy or procedural consider-ations may impact the cost or structure of service delivery, an array of descrip-tive questions also remain to enable participants to filter the data to include those most like their own jurisdiction.
Particular attention was given to the larger outcomes to be achieved by a service (such as minimizing the number of fleet vehicles requiring repeat main-tenance within 30 days), rather than just tracking input and output measures (such as the number of staff or number of work orders processed).
Those measures deemed “nice to know” but not of particular analyti-cal value were dropped to minimize the data collection burden on local government staff.
But while the resulting list of 950 measures available in ICMA’s compara-tive database may fit the needs of most jurisdictions, there are always potential exceptions and localized priorities. What if a jurisdiction also operates an airport, convention center, cemetery, or other specialized program or facility?
To better meet the needs of those jurisdictions without cluttering the sys-tem for the more general-purpose local governments, Insights offers the option of adding custom measures, which can be used either in inter-jurisdictional com-parisons (e.g., percentage of performing arts center days booked) or in an indi-vidual local government’s goal tracking (e.g., “percentage of Fourth Avenue business incubator space occupied”).
Regional consortia or nationwide groups with similar concerns can also establish custom measures that address their key priorities. The Valley Benchmark
Cities consortium, for example, described elsewhere in this issue of PM, is using Insights to help facilitate its comparisons among 11 Phoenix-area governments.
Moving forward, annual scrutiny of the standard set of performance measures will remain a routine part of the program, particularly as fields like information technology and its related metrics continue to evolve.
All in all, ICMA Insights represents the newest offering in ICMA’s performance management toolkit as it evolves to take advantage of new technologies that pro-vide real-time information and analysis and carefully vetted metrics to help jurisdictions of all sizes better understand their own operations and learn from the successful practices of their peers.
Through Insights and the new ICMA Center for Performance Analytics, ICMA is positioned to provide both the soft-ware and the strategic advice to facilitate data-driven decision making.
As ICMA Executive Director Bob O’Neill has observed, “Through services such as ICMA Insights, which combines industry-leading analytics with one of the largest repositories of U.S. local government performance metrics, we can apply comparative performance tools across vast numbers of local govern-ments and apply predictive analytics to some of the more complex service delivery issues of our time.”
ICMA’s historical commitment to performance management will carry forward as a priority. Performance management not only promises better-managed individual communities, but also represents a fundamental professional practice that will endure even as local governments evolve to address whatever challenges they may face in the future.
GERALD YOUNG is technology, analysis, and user support coordina-tor, ICMA Center for Performance Analytics, ICMA, Washington, D.C. ([email protected]).
16 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm : online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 17
tals were subject to statistical formulas and staff review to identify outliers that needed to be verified or inconsistencies that needed to be corrected.
The cleaned databases were then provided to the participating jurisdic-tions and published in an annual report, which provided summary statistics and also jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction graphs showing the performance on key measures. By then, dubbed the ICMA Center for Performance Measurement or CPM, the consortium grew in both participation and scope.
Remaining focused on such core local government services as public safety, road maintenance, parks and recreation, libraries, and support services, it also expanded to include risk management, planning and permitting, and sustain-ability. It also expanded to include cities, counties, and other local governments, both large and small.
From Measurement to ManagementThe next challenge facing ICMA was how the data would be used. Would each jurisdiction simply incorporate selected graphs into its budgets or presentations to elected officials?
Would that be the end of the discus-sion or just the beginning? Or would the data be a source for additional research into best practices that lead to improved performance?
To help local governments move from measurement to management, ICMA published What Works: Management Ap-
plications of Performance Measurement in
Local Government, starting in 2001. What
Works presented case studies demonstrat-ing how performance information had resulted in cost savings and management and policy changes, and enhanced dialogue among staff, elected officials, and the public concerning strategic goals, actual performance, and action plans for improvement. Updated editions followed in 2002, 2003, 2008, and 2010.
From FY2005 to FY2006, for example, the city of Dallas, Texas, reduced the
average time from initiation of a code complaint to voluntary compliance for all violation types from 28 days to 11 days by:
• Implementing a new customer relationship management system that improved the ability to monitor cases at every point in the inspection and resolution process.
• Establishing time standards for resolving cases.
• Introducing a civil adjudication process that reduced the time required to resolve some cases.
To help participants interpret the data, ICMA also looked beyond individual measures at how multiple components in-terrelate through correlations among sets of metrics. Response time, for example, from dispatch to arrival in public safety emergencies can be affected by the square mileage served per station; topography; population density; dispatch technol-ogy; call volume per apparatus per day; turnout time; and differences in practices for recording arrival time.
Networking and ConsortiaWhere data analysis has led to proce-dural or organizational change, ICMA has fostered networking among the jurisdictions by participant-led webinars. Examples include exploring efforts in Albany, Oregon, to track and reduce sick leave usage and encouraging departmen-tal business planning in Austin, Texas.
Subgroups also emerged within the larger program, especially among those with a particular policy or geographic connection. This led to the formation of state and regional consortia to encourage ongoing dialogue on relevant perfor-mance issues.
Tackling Continuing ChallengesStill, some key challenges remained: technology and time. Technology: Technology has continued to evolve throughout the program, as
ICMA has shared surveys and data through CD-ROM, association-hosted websites, off-the-shelf databases, print and PDF documents, and now cloud-based applications.
Performance dashboards for each jurisdiction were introduced in 2008, but these initial reports had limited options for altering the pre-set display. User customization also took a leap that year with an online reporting tool that enabled jurisdictions to identify specific jurisdictions, states, or popula-tion cohorts with which to compare their performance and view multiyear trends.
This early online application and sub-sequent upgrades enabled jurisdictions to identify key measures, fiscal years, and relevant filters to create and save their own graphs. But since the data col-lection and online reporting tools were not integrated, a lag remained between the release of the cleaned database and the upload to the reporting tool.
Time: Lag time was an issue in other ways as well. Each jurisdiction reported data only once a year, typically about two months after its fiscal year close. Once the data verification process took place and the database was shared, the jurisdictions would already be several months into their next fiscal year.
And since some participants had dif-ferent fiscal year-ends, those with a June 30 fiscal year close would have to wait until the next spring to see data from the jurisdictions with a December 31 close. By that time, they would already be well into the approval process of their follow-ing year’s budget.
Relatedly, time was an issue in completing the annual surveys. With more than 5,000 individual measures, jurisdictions faced a considerable invest-ment of staff time in responding to the surveys each year, let alone analyzing the results.
Reimagining the ProgramFocusing on those challenges, ICMA
embarked on a reimagining of the program in 2013. Over the course of 18 months, staff conducted market research on a wholly revised suite of services, issued an RFP for an integrated software platform, and convened focus groups to help rethink the “core” outcomes and other measures collected.
The result, rolled out at ICMA’s 100th annual conference in Charlotte, is ICMA Insights™, a partnership between ICMA and SAS®, the industry leader in busi-ness analytics software.
Based on feedback from partici-pants, the new software provides the flexibility that was previously lacking, quick turnaround time, and a more streamlined set of measures, but with the ability to add custom measures. It also has extensive graphing, reporting and trend analysis tools, and built-in forecasting capabilities that are hosted on the latest technology.
A significant contribution of the focus groups was a careful consideration of the measures to be incorporated into Insights. The program had grown to include more than 5,000 measures—an unsustainable number. Each focus group included rep-resentatives from varying levels of local government—city and county managers, budget directors, other department heads, and line staff—as well as members of the academic community.
Feedback was also provided by other professional associations, includ-ing the American Library Associa-tion, American Association of Code Enforcement, and International Public Management Association for Human Resources. Measures were aligned as appropriate with existing industry standards, including both Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the Na-tional Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for crime reporting, and the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) for fire incident data.
Rather than trying to measure every-thing a local government undertakes, the goal was to track only those key items
that jurisdictions were most likely to compare with others.
In facilities management, for example, where prior surveys tracked breakout categories relating to a wide range of facility types, the new ICMA Insights system is focused on custodial, repair, and utility measures in adminis-trative and office facilities.
Where policy or procedural consider-ations may impact the cost or structure of service delivery, an array of descrip-tive questions also remain to enable participants to filter the data to include those most like their own jurisdiction.
Particular attention was given to the larger outcomes to be achieved by a service (such as minimizing the number of fleet vehicles requiring repeat main-tenance within 30 days), rather than just tracking input and output measures (such as the number of staff or number of work orders processed).
Those measures deemed “nice to know” but not of particular analyti-cal value were dropped to minimize the data collection burden on local government staff.
But while the resulting list of 950 measures available in ICMA’s compara-tive database may fit the needs of most jurisdictions, there are always potential exceptions and localized priorities. What if a jurisdiction also operates an airport, convention center, cemetery, or other specialized program or facility?
To better meet the needs of those jurisdictions without cluttering the sys-tem for the more general-purpose local governments, Insights offers the option of adding custom measures, which can be used either in inter-jurisdictional com-parisons (e.g., percentage of performing arts center days booked) or in an indi-vidual local government’s goal tracking (e.g., “percentage of Fourth Avenue business incubator space occupied”).
Regional consortia or nationwide groups with similar concerns can also establish custom measures that address their key priorities. The Valley Benchmark
Cities consortium, for example, described elsewhere in this issue of PM, is using Insights to help facilitate its comparisons among 11 Phoenix-area governments.
Moving forward, annual scrutiny of the standard set of performance measures will remain a routine part of the program, particularly as fields like information technology and its related metrics continue to evolve.
All in all, ICMA Insights represents the newest offering in ICMA’s performance management toolkit as it evolves to take advantage of new technologies that pro-vide real-time information and analysis and carefully vetted metrics to help jurisdictions of all sizes better understand their own operations and learn from the successful practices of their peers.
Through Insights and the new ICMA Center for Performance Analytics, ICMA is positioned to provide both the soft-ware and the strategic advice to facilitate data-driven decision making.
As ICMA Executive Director Bob O’Neill has observed, “Through services such as ICMA Insights, which combines industry-leading analytics with one of the largest repositories of U.S. local government performance metrics, we can apply comparative performance tools across vast numbers of local govern-ments and apply predictive analytics to some of the more complex service delivery issues of our time.”
ICMA’s historical commitment to performance management will carry forward as a priority. Performance management not only promises better-managed individual communities, but also represents a fundamental professional practice that will endure even as local governments evolve to address whatever challenges they may face in the future.
GERALD YOUNG is technology, analysis, and user support coordina-tor, ICMA Center for Performance Analytics, ICMA, Washington, D.C. ([email protected]).
18 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible
commentary | australia
L ocal government performance and productivity worldwide could be improved by more than $10
billion by establishing a Global Local Government Standards and Performance Council focused specifically on that goal. This proposal is based on my ex-perience and observations in Australia, where I have worked for 25 years.
In Australia, some states have shown leadership in performance measurement. Victoria, for example, recently legislated key performance indicators (KPIs), and the New South Wales Treasury Corpora-tion has done some excellent work on productivity. At the council and shire level there also is great work occurring regarding historical local data that needs to be noted.
With further review and not too much effort, the results could be turned into some great national and global performance indicators.
Local government in Australia, however, has shown little interest in the
development of agreed-upon national measures of efficiency and productivity for the local government sector. The only standout exception is the world-class work being done by the Institute of Pub-lic Works and Engineering Australasia, which has a model for local governments to report on their assets such as roads, buildings, fleets, and other infrastructure.
Sadly, due to a lack of public performance data, the public and those who govern and work in Australian councils and shires do not know if we are productive or efficient compared with others, as we don’t consistently measure or report nationally. And it seems this is a global opportunity.
Financial SavingsThe financial benefits of an improved performance approach are significant. My personal review of performance indica-tors and benchmarks for my previous $30 million regional council was that it realized productivity improvements or
savings of more than 4.5 percent by doing some relatively simple internal review, benchmarking, and performance work.
Taking less than half of this figure, or 2 percent, as a crude measure and extrapolating it to the $30 billion sector in Australia, we could generate at least $600 million per year in improved productivity by embracing and apply-ing national (and as relevant, global) performance standards.
And if we apply an even more conser-vative 1 percent productivity improvement to the United States, the figure would be approximately $12 billion, based on the $1.2 trillion revenue “guesstimated” by usgovernmentrevenue.com.
The multibillion dollar question is how do we get local government leaders to embrace and buy into national and global performance information that can deliver significant savings that can be reinvested into their communities. Various bodies, including ICMA, are well placed to lead the discussion globally, which could, in turn, gain national attention and local commitment.
Unfortunately, in Australia, the elected members who often have a mandate of improving community value or ensuring savings, or boosting productivity are working against a system and culture that is not open to national benchmarks and national simple performance measures.
If every one of the 560 or so councils in Australia spent $10,000 on ensuring a focus on national performance data and reporting, we would have a $5.6 million budget that could generate sector savings 100 times that amount.
Benefits of a Global EffortThe creation of a Global Local Govern-ment Standards and Performance Council would further build on the efforts of ICMA and other national and state organizations. The council can encourage local governments to learn from each other, to reduce duplication, and to improve productivity as the result of greater sharing and use of templates,
reports, policies, procedures, indica-tors, service measures, and documents.
Participants would benefit from:
• Improved knowledge of standards and performance criteria.
• Access to a performance model and associated support for initial self-assessment.
• Use of support materials, practical templates, and documents to sup-port quality and productive practice.
• Opportunity to compare and bench-mark results.
• Opportunity to participate in forums to exchange information and share innovations.
• Use of performance and key indica-tor data that is industry-led, tested, and used.
Moving AheadOne Australian performance develop-ment in which I am proud to have played a role last year is the passage of a motion to develop Australian national standards for local govern-ment, which would include national performance indicators.
The motion was supported by attending mayors at the National General Assembly of the Australian Local Government Association. So the seed was planted and is just waiting for some more soil and water.
The idea also was presented at two national Australian forums run by the Local Government Managers Associa-tion and also at the ICMA International Regional Summit in China in 2014.
I propose that the best starting point is performance measures in the
governance space, as well as financial, workload efficiency, and end-user satisfaction measures, which will be of no surprise to any agency that would be focused on these areas already.
One area where Australia and the U.S. local government sector are particularly well placed to take a leadership role is anticorruption. Both countries rank high and favourably on the anticorruption index developed by Transparency International.
Our good work in governance, procurement, transparency, and free media position us to lead global efforts to reduce corruption, which the World Bank Institute has estimated is the world’s third largest industry at more than $1 trillion per year1 (and from my research, double Apple revenue).
In addition to the global perfor-mance picture, I particularly welcome further interest and would be pleased to share progressive work on gover-nance and anticorruption self-assess-ment tools and associated performance information that can help make a difference for all.
ENDNOTE
1 The World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report 2005–2006, Chapter 2.1. Daniel Kaufmann, World Bank Institute. September 2005.
Master the fundamentals and gain a competitive
edge in your field.
5 courses live or on demand:
• Effective Local Government Manager
• Human Resources and Staff Effectiveness
• Understanding and Creating a Municipal Budget
• Managing Local Government Services
• Becoming an Effective Leader
Classes begin in December. For information and
registration, visit icma.org/LG101certificate
INTRODUCING
A new online professional certificate
in local government management
IF EVERY ONE OF THE 560 OR SO COUNCILS IN AUSTRALIA SPENT $10,000 ON ENSURING A FOCUS ON NATIONAL PERFORMANCE DATA AND REPORTING, WE WOULD HAVE A $5.6 MILLION BUDGET THAT COULD GENERATE SECTOR SAVINGS 100 TIMES THAT AMOUNT.
EDWARD FRASER is chief executive, Australian Institute of Medical Scientists, and a board member, Central Australian Health Service. He also is former director
and acting chief executive officer, Central Desert Regional Council, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia and a consultant ([email protected]).
BY EDWARD FRASER
A CALL TO ACTIONFor $10 billion in productivity savings
18 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible
commentary | australia
L ocal government performance and productivity worldwide could be improved by more than $10
billion by establishing a Global Local Government Standards and Performance Council focused specifically on that goal. This proposal is based on my ex-perience and observations in Australia, where I have worked for 25 years.
In Australia, some states have shown leadership in performance measurement. Victoria, for example, recently legislated key performance indicators (KPIs), and the New South Wales Treasury Corpora-tion has done some excellent work on productivity. At the council and shire level there also is great work occurring regarding historical local data that needs to be noted.
With further review and not too much effort, the results could be turned into some great national and global performance indicators.
Local government in Australia, however, has shown little interest in the
development of agreed-upon national measures of efficiency and productivity for the local government sector. The only standout exception is the world-class work being done by the Institute of Pub-lic Works and Engineering Australasia, which has a model for local governments to report on their assets such as roads, buildings, fleets, and other infrastructure.
Sadly, due to a lack of public performance data, the public and those who govern and work in Australian councils and shires do not know if we are productive or efficient compared with others, as we don’t consistently measure or report nationally. And it seems this is a global opportunity.
Financial SavingsThe financial benefits of an improved performance approach are significant. My personal review of performance indica-tors and benchmarks for my previous $30 million regional council was that it realized productivity improvements or
savings of more than 4.5 percent by doing some relatively simple internal review, benchmarking, and performance work.
Taking less than half of this figure, or 2 percent, as a crude measure and extrapolating it to the $30 billion sector in Australia, we could generate at least $600 million per year in improved productivity by embracing and apply-ing national (and as relevant, global) performance standards.
And if we apply an even more conser-vative 1 percent productivity improvement to the United States, the figure would be approximately $12 billion, based on the $1.2 trillion revenue “guesstimated” by usgovernmentrevenue.com.
The multibillion dollar question is how do we get local government leaders to embrace and buy into national and global performance information that can deliver significant savings that can be reinvested into their communities. Various bodies, including ICMA, are well placed to lead the discussion globally, which could, in turn, gain national attention and local commitment.
Unfortunately, in Australia, the elected members who often have a mandate of improving community value or ensuring savings, or boosting productivity are working against a system and culture that is not open to national benchmarks and national simple performance measures.
If every one of the 560 or so councils in Australia spent $10,000 on ensuring a focus on national performance data and reporting, we would have a $5.6 million budget that could generate sector savings 100 times that amount.
Benefits of a Global EffortThe creation of a Global Local Govern-ment Standards and Performance Council would further build on the efforts of ICMA and other national and state organizations. The council can encourage local governments to learn from each other, to reduce duplication, and to improve productivity as the result of greater sharing and use of templates,
reports, policies, procedures, indica-tors, service measures, and documents.
Participants would benefit from:
• Improved knowledge of standards and performance criteria.
• Access to a performance model and associated support for initial self-assessment.
• Use of support materials, practical templates, and documents to sup-port quality and productive practice.
• Opportunity to compare and bench-mark results.
• Opportunity to participate in forums to exchange information and share innovations.
• Use of performance and key indica-tor data that is industry-led, tested, and used.
Moving AheadOne Australian performance develop-ment in which I am proud to have played a role last year is the passage of a motion to develop Australian national standards for local govern-ment, which would include national performance indicators.
The motion was supported by attending mayors at the National General Assembly of the Australian Local Government Association. So the seed was planted and is just waiting for some more soil and water.
The idea also was presented at two national Australian forums run by the Local Government Managers Associa-tion and also at the ICMA International Regional Summit in China in 2014.
I propose that the best starting point is performance measures in the
governance space, as well as financial, workload efficiency, and end-user satisfaction measures, which will be of no surprise to any agency that would be focused on these areas already.
One area where Australia and the U.S. local government sector are particularly well placed to take a leadership role is anticorruption. Both countries rank high and favourably on the anticorruption index developed by Transparency International.
Our good work in governance, procurement, transparency, and free media position us to lead global efforts to reduce corruption, which the World Bank Institute has estimated is the world’s third largest industry at more than $1 trillion per year1 (and from my research, double Apple revenue).
In addition to the global perfor-mance picture, I particularly welcome further interest and would be pleased to share progressive work on gover-nance and anticorruption self-assess-ment tools and associated performance information that can help make a difference for all.
ENDNOTE
1 The World Economic Forum, Global Competitiveness Report 2005–2006, Chapter 2.1. Daniel Kaufmann, World Bank Institute. September 2005.
Master the fundamentals and gain a competitive
edge in your field.
5 courses live or on demand:
• Effective Local Government Manager
• Human Resources and Staff Effectiveness
• Understanding and Creating a Municipal Budget
• Managing Local Government Services
• Becoming an Effective Leader
Classes begin in December. For information and
registration, visit icma.org/LG101certificate
INTRODUCING
A new online professional certificate
in local government management
IF EVERY ONE OF THE 560 OR SO COUNCILS IN AUSTRALIA SPENT $10,000 ON ENSURING A FOCUS ON NATIONAL PERFORMANCE DATA AND REPORTING, WE WOULD HAVE A $5.6 MILLION BUDGET THAT COULD GENERATE SECTOR SAVINGS 100 TIMES THAT AMOUNT.
EDWARD FRASER is chief executive, Australian Institute of Medical Scientists, and a board member, Central Australian Health Service. He also is former director
and acting chief executive officer, Central Desert Regional Council, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia and a consultant ([email protected]).
BY EDWARD FRASER
A CALL TO ACTIONFor $10 billion in productivity savings
20 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 21
commentary | power of analytics
BY JENNIFER ROBINSON
BETTER. STRONGER. FASTER.Analytics show us the way
Before we knew about fictional cy-borgs by the name of Darth Vader, Terminator, or RoboCop, there
was the granddaddy of technological marvels on our television screens: Steve Austin. In the Six Million Dollar Man television series, Austin was an astronaut (what could be cooler in the year 1973?) who had been injured in the crash of an experimental aircraft.
During the series, when U.S. government official Oscar Goldman received news of the crash, he—without hesitation—replied, “We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better, stronger, faster.”
How could Goldman be so bold? He didn’t even stop to think about his proclamation. Why? Because he had been waiting for this day to arrive. He knew he had the technology and now, it was just a matter of finding the right subject on which to use it.
The bionic implants enhanced Austin’s strength, speed, and vision. He became better, stronger, faster, and America loved him—so much so that, in 1978, a bionic woman was created. Girls across America cheered.
Today, we are in Goldman’s shoes in real life. Our communities are coming out of a recession. Not severely injured, but many are crippled or at least challenged by growing expenditures that can’t be met with stagnant or diminishing revenues.
Like Goldman, we know we have the technology to create better, stronger, faster local governments and make them better than they were. How? By using technology referred to as analytics.
Data CollectionWhile budgets may be constrained and staffs stretched thin, there is one
resource in which local governments are wealthy: data. Cities, towns, and coun-ties have been collecting data for years.
Police reports tell us which apart-ment buildings receive the most officer visits. Testing data reveals the schools that perform the best. Case workers document the children that have been placed in foster care.
To add to all of the data being entered and stored manually, new technologies are rapidly contributing to our databases. The automation of objects that collect data and communicate with other devices through the Internet has created the Internet of Things (IoT).
IoT is a network of everyday, once-inert objects that now share information and complete tasks. Automated water meters, traffic signals, and sensors on electrical devices all collect and communicate data.
You might not have any idea how much water is consumed at 6 a.m. when you take a shower, but your water meter knows. By the time you arrive at work, that data has been logged into your community’s water meter database.
Strength in FactsAll of this data collection can add up to a management challenge that some people refer to as Big Data. What is Big Data?
You have Big Data when you have collected more information than you can
reasonably sift through. You have Big Data when you know there is informa-tion in your data, but you don’t know exactly where it is or how to use it.
Data is facts and figures. Without con-text, these numbers, addresses, names, amounts, or dates mean nothing. Without context, your data does not inform you and, therefore, it is not information.
Data becomes information when it is merged with other data, put into context, and analyzed. Once your data is harnessed, it becomes an asset.
Like Steve Austin, local governments have the material needed to become bigger, stronger, faster. Now, add technol-ogy. But how? Most organizations find that using data is easier once they have integrated or merged their databases. Pull-ing data together enhances your ability to compare data and find correlations.
Once data is integrated, it is ready to have analytics applied. Analytics is
more than just a serious noun that can be used to impress friends at dinner parties. Analytics is the use of statistics, forecasting, and business logic to find insightful information so that your local government can make the right decisions at the right time. Since not all data is useful, the trick is to cull through all of this Big Data to find the information that reveals correlations. This is the “aha!”
When you identify the right data and find correlations between it and other data, you put the data into context and get useful revelations, perhaps in the form of surprising and previously unknown facts. You might find yourself saying things like, “Aha! When students receive these services, they perform
better.” Or, “Aha! When permits are issued in this way, customers are happier,” and “Aha! When officers respond to a situation with this approach, more cases are closed.”
Through the use of analytics, your community can gain insight into how it is operating. Better yet, analytics can provide forecasts that help managers anticipate the opportunities of making changes to their organization.
ExcellenceAn excellent first step in using analytics is to put your existing performance data to work. If analyzed, your organization’s performance data will be a treasure trove for identifying opportunities to innovate. It is a relatively easy to use software program that provides for collec-tion, comparison, and analysis of performance measurements.
These tools allow a local government to compare itself to other jurisdictions using gener-ally collected data. The findings that the performance measure-ments reveal guide an organiza-tion to making operational and service improvements.
We’re in an exciting age of cyborgs, the Internet of Things, Big Data, and Analytics. Let’s use the technology available to us to be more knowledgeable, more intelligent, more nimble, more responsive, and more fiscally responsible. In other words, let’s be like Steve Austin: better, stronger, faster.
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND CIRCULATION
1. Publication title: Public Management (PM).
2. USPS number: 449-300.
3. Filing date: October 1, 2015.
4. Issue frequency: Published monthly except February.
5. Number of issues published annually: 11.
6. Annual subscription price: $46 (Domestic); $155 (Other countries).
7. Complete mailing address of known office of publication (not printer): 777 North Capitol
Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201.
8. Complete mailing address of headquarters or general business office of publisher (not
printer): 777 North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201.
9. Full names and complete mailing addresses of publisher, editor, and managing editor.
Publisher: International City/County Management Association (ICMA), 777 North Capitol
Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201. Editor: Beth Payne, ICMA, 777
North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201.
10. Owner: International City/County Management Association (ICMA), 777 North Capitol
Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201.
11. Known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1
percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities: None.
12. Tax status: The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt
status for federal income-tax purposes have not changed during the preceding 12 months.
13. Publication title: Public Management (PM).
14. Issue date for circulation data below: October 2015.
15. Extent and Nature of Publication. Average no. copies each issue during preceding 12
months: A. Total no. copies (net press run): 8,678. B. Paid circulation (by mail and outside
the mail): (1) Mailed outside-county paid subscriptions stated on PS Form 3541: 7,942;
(2) Mailed in-county paid subscriptions stated on PS Form 3541: 0; (3) Paid distribution
outside the mails including sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, counter
sales, and other paid distribution outside USPS®: 0; (4) Paid distribution by other classes
of mail through the USPS: 0. C. Total paid distribution: 7,942. D. Free or nominal rate
distribution (by mail and outside the mail): (1) Free or nominal rate outside-county copies
included on PS Form 3541: 0; (2) Free or nominal rate in-county copies included on PS
Form 3541: 0; (3) Free or nominal rate copies mailed at other classes through the USPS
(e.g., First-Class Mail): 65. (4) Free or nominal rate distribution outside the mail (carriers or
other means): 0. E. Total free or nominal rate distribution: 65. F. Total distribution: 8,007. G.
Copies not distributed: 671. I. Total: 8,678. Percent paid: 99.19.
16. No. copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: A. Total no. copies (net press
run): 8,800. B. Paid circulation (by mail and outside the mail): (1) Mailed outside-county
paid subscriptions stated on PS Form 3541: 7,950; (2) Mailed in-county paid subscrip-
tions stated on PS Form 3541: 0; (3) Paid distribution outside the mails including sales
through dealers and carriers, street vendors, counter sales, and other paid distribution
outside USPS: 0; (4) Paid distribution by other classes of mail through the USPS: 0. C.
Total paid circulation: 7,950. D. Free or nominal rate distribution by mail and outside the
mail): (1) Free or nominal rate outside-county copies included on PS Form 3541: 0; (2)
Free or nominal rate in-county copies included on PS Form 3541: 0; (3) Free or nominal
rate copies mailed at other classes through the USPS (e.g., First-Class Mail): 49. (4) E.
Free or nominal rate distribution outside the mail (carriers or other means): 0. F. Total free
or nominal rate distribution: 49. G. Total distribution: 7,999. H. Copies not distributed:
801. I. Total: 8,800. Percent paid: 98.39. Not claiming electronic copies.
17. This statement of ownership will be printed in the December 2015 issue of this publication.
Signed: Beth Payne, Editor
WHILE BUDGETS MAY BE CONSTRAINED AND STAFFS STRETCHED THIN, THERE IS ONE RESOURCE IN WHICH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE WEALTHY: DATA. CITIES, TOWNS, AND COUNTIES HAVE BEEN COLLECTING DATA FOR YEARS.
JENNIFER ROBINSON is director, local government solutions, SAS, Cary, North Carolina ([email protected]). ICMA partnered
with the analytics company SAS in 2014 to launch ICMA InsightsTM, a cloud-based performance management solution.
20 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 21
commentary | power of analytics
BY JENNIFER ROBINSON
BETTER. STRONGER. FASTER.Analytics show us the way
Before we knew about fictional cy-borgs by the name of Darth Vader, Terminator, or RoboCop, there
was the granddaddy of technological marvels on our television screens: Steve Austin. In the Six Million Dollar Man television series, Austin was an astronaut (what could be cooler in the year 1973?) who had been injured in the crash of an experimental aircraft.
During the series, when U.S. government official Oscar Goldman received news of the crash, he—without hesitation—replied, “We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better, stronger, faster.”
How could Goldman be so bold? He didn’t even stop to think about his proclamation. Why? Because he had been waiting for this day to arrive. He knew he had the technology and now, it was just a matter of finding the right subject on which to use it.
The bionic implants enhanced Austin’s strength, speed, and vision. He became better, stronger, faster, and America loved him—so much so that, in 1978, a bionic woman was created. Girls across America cheered.
Today, we are in Goldman’s shoes in real life. Our communities are coming out of a recession. Not severely injured, but many are crippled or at least challenged by growing expenditures that can’t be met with stagnant or diminishing revenues.
Like Goldman, we know we have the technology to create better, stronger, faster local governments and make them better than they were. How? By using technology referred to as analytics.
Data CollectionWhile budgets may be constrained and staffs stretched thin, there is one
resource in which local governments are wealthy: data. Cities, towns, and coun-ties have been collecting data for years.
Police reports tell us which apart-ment buildings receive the most officer visits. Testing data reveals the schools that perform the best. Case workers document the children that have been placed in foster care.
To add to all of the data being entered and stored manually, new technologies are rapidly contributing to our databases. The automation of objects that collect data and communicate with other devices through the Internet has created the Internet of Things (IoT).
IoT is a network of everyday, once-inert objects that now share information and complete tasks. Automated water meters, traffic signals, and sensors on electrical devices all collect and communicate data.
You might not have any idea how much water is consumed at 6 a.m. when you take a shower, but your water meter knows. By the time you arrive at work, that data has been logged into your community’s water meter database.
Strength in FactsAll of this data collection can add up to a management challenge that some people refer to as Big Data. What is Big Data?
You have Big Data when you have collected more information than you can
reasonably sift through. You have Big Data when you know there is informa-tion in your data, but you don’t know exactly where it is or how to use it.
Data is facts and figures. Without con-text, these numbers, addresses, names, amounts, or dates mean nothing. Without context, your data does not inform you and, therefore, it is not information.
Data becomes information when it is merged with other data, put into context, and analyzed. Once your data is harnessed, it becomes an asset.
Like Steve Austin, local governments have the material needed to become bigger, stronger, faster. Now, add technol-ogy. But how? Most organizations find that using data is easier once they have integrated or merged their databases. Pull-ing data together enhances your ability to compare data and find correlations.
Once data is integrated, it is ready to have analytics applied. Analytics is
more than just a serious noun that can be used to impress friends at dinner parties. Analytics is the use of statistics, forecasting, and business logic to find insightful information so that your local government can make the right decisions at the right time. Since not all data is useful, the trick is to cull through all of this Big Data to find the information that reveals correlations. This is the “aha!”
When you identify the right data and find correlations between it and other data, you put the data into context and get useful revelations, perhaps in the form of surprising and previously unknown facts. You might find yourself saying things like, “Aha! When students receive these services, they perform
better.” Or, “Aha! When permits are issued in this way, customers are happier,” and “Aha! When officers respond to a situation with this approach, more cases are closed.”
Through the use of analytics, your community can gain insight into how it is operating. Better yet, analytics can provide forecasts that help managers anticipate the opportunities of making changes to their organization.
ExcellenceAn excellent first step in using analytics is to put your existing performance data to work. If analyzed, your organization’s performance data will be a treasure trove for identifying opportunities to innovate. It is a relatively easy to use software program that provides for collec-tion, comparison, and analysis of performance measurements.
These tools allow a local government to compare itself to other jurisdictions using gener-ally collected data. The findings that the performance measure-ments reveal guide an organiza-tion to making operational and service improvements.
We’re in an exciting age of cyborgs, the Internet of Things, Big Data, and Analytics. Let’s use the technology available to us to be more knowledgeable, more intelligent, more nimble, more responsive, and more fiscally responsible. In other words, let’s be like Steve Austin: better, stronger, faster.
STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND CIRCULATION
1. Publication title: Public Management (PM).
2. USPS number: 449-300.
3. Filing date: October 1, 2015.
4. Issue frequency: Published monthly except February.
5. Number of issues published annually: 11.
6. Annual subscription price: $46 (Domestic); $155 (Other countries).
7. Complete mailing address of known office of publication (not printer): 777 North Capitol
Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201.
8. Complete mailing address of headquarters or general business office of publisher (not
printer): 777 North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201.
9. Full names and complete mailing addresses of publisher, editor, and managing editor.
Publisher: International City/County Management Association (ICMA), 777 North Capitol
Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201. Editor: Beth Payne, ICMA, 777
North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201.
10. Owner: International City/County Management Association (ICMA), 777 North Capitol
Street, N.E., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20002-4201.
11. Known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1
percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities: None.
12. Tax status: The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt
status for federal income-tax purposes have not changed during the preceding 12 months.
13. Publication title: Public Management (PM).
14. Issue date for circulation data below: October 2015.
15. Extent and Nature of Publication. Average no. copies each issue during preceding 12
months: A. Total no. copies (net press run): 8,678. B. Paid circulation (by mail and outside
the mail): (1) Mailed outside-county paid subscriptions stated on PS Form 3541: 7,942;
(2) Mailed in-county paid subscriptions stated on PS Form 3541: 0; (3) Paid distribution
outside the mails including sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, counter
sales, and other paid distribution outside USPS®: 0; (4) Paid distribution by other classes
of mail through the USPS: 0. C. Total paid distribution: 7,942. D. Free or nominal rate
distribution (by mail and outside the mail): (1) Free or nominal rate outside-county copies
included on PS Form 3541: 0; (2) Free or nominal rate in-county copies included on PS
Form 3541: 0; (3) Free or nominal rate copies mailed at other classes through the USPS
(e.g., First-Class Mail): 65. (4) Free or nominal rate distribution outside the mail (carriers or
other means): 0. E. Total free or nominal rate distribution: 65. F. Total distribution: 8,007. G.
Copies not distributed: 671. I. Total: 8,678. Percent paid: 99.19.
16. No. copies of single issue published nearest to filing date: A. Total no. copies (net press
run): 8,800. B. Paid circulation (by mail and outside the mail): (1) Mailed outside-county
paid subscriptions stated on PS Form 3541: 7,950; (2) Mailed in-county paid subscrip-
tions stated on PS Form 3541: 0; (3) Paid distribution outside the mails including sales
through dealers and carriers, street vendors, counter sales, and other paid distribution
outside USPS: 0; (4) Paid distribution by other classes of mail through the USPS: 0. C.
Total paid circulation: 7,950. D. Free or nominal rate distribution by mail and outside the
mail): (1) Free or nominal rate outside-county copies included on PS Form 3541: 0; (2)
Free or nominal rate in-county copies included on PS Form 3541: 0; (3) Free or nominal
rate copies mailed at other classes through the USPS (e.g., First-Class Mail): 49. (4) E.
Free or nominal rate distribution outside the mail (carriers or other means): 0. F. Total free
or nominal rate distribution: 49. G. Total distribution: 7,999. H. Copies not distributed:
801. I. Total: 8,800. Percent paid: 98.39. Not claiming electronic copies.
17. This statement of ownership will be printed in the December 2015 issue of this publication.
Signed: Beth Payne, Editor
WHILE BUDGETS MAY BE CONSTRAINED AND STAFFS STRETCHED THIN, THERE IS ONE RESOURCE IN WHICH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE WEALTHY: DATA. CITIES, TOWNS, AND COUNTIES HAVE BEEN COLLECTING DATA FOR YEARS.
JENNIFER ROBINSON is director, local government solutions, SAS, Cary, North Carolina ([email protected]). ICMA partnered
with the analytics company SAS in 2014 to launch ICMA InsightsTM, a cloud-based performance management solution.
icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 2322 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
BY OCTAVIO CHAVEZ
PROMOTING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN MEXICOChallenging journey toward a new culture
I CMA has been working in Latin America for more than two decades providing direct technical assistance
to local governments and encouraging the adoption of professional manage-ment practices. Performance measure-ment is one of the key elements of that assistance, particularly in Mexico.
ICMA México-Latinoamerica (ICMA-ML), based in Guadalajara, has been promoting performance measurement in the public sector since 2001. In 2007, the Mexican National Congress amended the country’s constitution to require all public entities to establish performance indicators and make the results public.
A few years later, the obligation was expanded to require all public entities to adopt performance-based budgeting by 2015. The performance-based budget requires a robust performance measure-ment system.
Introducing Performance MeasurementPrior to the legal requirement, ICMA started to operate a voluntary system for municipalities. SINDES (Sistema de Evaluación del Desempeño, www.sindes.org)—the first formal governmental performance measurement system in Mexico—was modeled on ICMA’s per-formance management program. It was jointly developed with 15 municipalities in 2001, and more than 50 municipalities have participated since then.
SINDES has served as a framework for local governments to develop their own performance measurement systems. In 2004, for example, the municipality of
Puebla developed its own system called SEDEM (Sistema de Evaluación del Desempeño Municipal).
ICMA-ML helped Puebla build and consolidate SEDEM. Coordinated by the Municipal Institute of Planning and supervised by a citizen council, SEDEM improves municipal performance and service delivery by addressing opera-tional and managerial processes.
The five components of SEDEM include methodology; manual of proce-dures and policies; team of specialized employees; software; and an indicator description form. All participating local departments are required to submit data that is reviewed, processed, and organized to produce reports that can be helpful in making decisions for existing programs and daily operations.
Assessments conducted by ICMA-ML have shown that Puebla has solid opera-tions and good governance practices.
SEDEM has served as the platform for Puebla’s efforts to improve the quality of public service delivery and has attracted positive attention. In September 2013, the Organization of American States recognized Puebla with the Inter-American Award for Innovation in Effective Public Manage-ment, specifically for planning and public policy evaluation.
The SINDES program has also recognized Puebla’s efforts. SINDES presents awards in three categories or levels—participant, intermediate, and advanced—as municipalities move through the steps of implementing per-formance measurement programs. The
advanced award is given to communi-ties that operate an institutionalized performance measurement system with strong resident involvement.
As of summer 2015, Puebla had received the advanced award for nine consecutive years, longer than any other municipality. San Nicolás was second with four years.
Other large cities, including Zapopan, Chihuahua, Guadalajara, Monterrey, and León, have made efforts to measure performance.
State-Level InitiativesLikewise, ICMA helped the state of Guerrero develop its own system. Some of those systems, however, have been discontinued or fundamentally altered due to changes in governments.
ICMA also helped the state auditor’s office in Campeche develop a similar program to assess the municipalities’ performance as part of the yearly auditing process. This program, known as SIMDEG, was recognized with the National Municipal Award by the Ford Foundation and CIDE (a Mexican academic research center) for its contri-bution to the municipalities in 2003. The SIMDEG´s results are public—something that is unique in Mexico.
As the need to expand the practice of performance measurement, ICMA initi-ated, in 2014, a performance measure-ment program in partnership with the finance and management office of the state of Sinaloa and the State Develop-ment Council for Sinaloa (CODESIN), a joint partnership between the business community and the state government.
As of summer 2015, this statewide program called SEDEMSI (Sistema de Evaluación del Desempeño de Sinaloa) included eight of the 18 municipalities that represent more than 80 percent of the state’s population. SEDEMSI has 51 indicators classified in six topics. Results are expected to be made public starting in 2016.
Continued on page 32
international | ICMA influence in Mexico
icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 2322 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
BY OCTAVIO CHAVEZ
PROMOTING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN MEXICOChallenging journey toward a new culture
I CMA has been working in Latin America for more than two decades providing direct technical assistance
to local governments and encouraging the adoption of professional manage-ment practices. Performance measure-ment is one of the key elements of that assistance, particularly in Mexico.
ICMA México-Latinoamerica (ICMA-ML), based in Guadalajara, has been promoting performance measurement in the public sector since 2001. In 2007, the Mexican National Congress amended the country’s constitution to require all public entities to establish performance indicators and make the results public.
A few years later, the obligation was expanded to require all public entities to adopt performance-based budgeting by 2015. The performance-based budget requires a robust performance measure-ment system.
Introducing Performance MeasurementPrior to the legal requirement, ICMA started to operate a voluntary system for municipalities. SINDES (Sistema de Evaluación del Desempeño, www.sindes.org)—the first formal governmental performance measurement system in Mexico—was modeled on ICMA’s per-formance management program. It was jointly developed with 15 municipalities in 2001, and more than 50 municipalities have participated since then.
SINDES has served as a framework for local governments to develop their own performance measurement systems. In 2004, for example, the municipality of
Puebla developed its own system called SEDEM (Sistema de Evaluación del Desempeño Municipal).
ICMA-ML helped Puebla build and consolidate SEDEM. Coordinated by the Municipal Institute of Planning and supervised by a citizen council, SEDEM improves municipal performance and service delivery by addressing opera-tional and managerial processes.
The five components of SEDEM include methodology; manual of proce-dures and policies; team of specialized employees; software; and an indicator description form. All participating local departments are required to submit data that is reviewed, processed, and organized to produce reports that can be helpful in making decisions for existing programs and daily operations.
Assessments conducted by ICMA-ML have shown that Puebla has solid opera-tions and good governance practices.
SEDEM has served as the platform for Puebla’s efforts to improve the quality of public service delivery and has attracted positive attention. In September 2013, the Organization of American States recognized Puebla with the Inter-American Award for Innovation in Effective Public Manage-ment, specifically for planning and public policy evaluation.
The SINDES program has also recognized Puebla’s efforts. SINDES presents awards in three categories or levels—participant, intermediate, and advanced—as municipalities move through the steps of implementing per-formance measurement programs. The
advanced award is given to communi-ties that operate an institutionalized performance measurement system with strong resident involvement.
As of summer 2015, Puebla had received the advanced award for nine consecutive years, longer than any other municipality. San Nicolás was second with four years.
Other large cities, including Zapopan, Chihuahua, Guadalajara, Monterrey, and León, have made efforts to measure performance.
State-Level InitiativesLikewise, ICMA helped the state of Guerrero develop its own system. Some of those systems, however, have been discontinued or fundamentally altered due to changes in governments.
ICMA also helped the state auditor’s office in Campeche develop a similar program to assess the municipalities’ performance as part of the yearly auditing process. This program, known as SIMDEG, was recognized with the National Municipal Award by the Ford Foundation and CIDE (a Mexican academic research center) for its contri-bution to the municipalities in 2003. The SIMDEG´s results are public—something that is unique in Mexico.
As the need to expand the practice of performance measurement, ICMA initi-ated, in 2014, a performance measure-ment program in partnership with the finance and management office of the state of Sinaloa and the State Develop-ment Council for Sinaloa (CODESIN), a joint partnership between the business community and the state government.
As of summer 2015, this statewide program called SEDEMSI (Sistema de Evaluación del Desempeño de Sinaloa) included eight of the 18 municipalities that represent more than 80 percent of the state’s population. SEDEMSI has 51 indicators classified in six topics. Results are expected to be made public starting in 2016.
Continued on page 32
international | ICMA influence in Mexico
24 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 25
management minute | leaders in 2015
2015 LEADERS IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTRecognizing those who foster a performance culture
F orty-eight local governments are recipients of the 2015 Certificates in Performance Management from the ICMA Center for Performance Analytics (icma.org/performance-certificates). Awarded annually, the certificates recognize performance management programs, encourage comparative analysis, and reward transparency.
Based on established criteria explained here, they are awarded at three levels: excellence, which is the highest, along with distinction and achievement.• Certificates of Achievement are awarded to those who collect and verify data to ensure reliability, train staff in performance
measurement, and report data to the public through budgets, newsletters, and information provided to elected officials.• Certificates of Distinction are awarded to those who also use performance data in strategic planning and operational decision
making and share their knowledge with other local governments through presentations, site visits, and networking activities.• Certificates of Excellence go to those who, in addition, track and report key outcomes, survey residents and local government
employees, incorporate data into performance dashboards or other visual communications, and foster the development of a performance culture throughout their organizations.ICMA is accepting applications for the 2016 Certificates in Performance Management. Criteria and an application to download
can be found at icma.org/performance-certificates.
Certificate of ExcellenceAlachua County, Florida (Lee A. Niblock, County Manager)
Albany, Oregon (Wes Hare, City Manager)
Austin, Texas (Marc A. Ott, City Manager)
Bayside, Wisconsin (Andrew K. Pederson, Village Manager)
Bellevue, Washington (Brad Miyake, City Manager)
Clayton, Missouri (Craig Owens, City Manager)
Coral Springs, Florida (Erdal Donmez, City Manager)
Dallas, Texas (A. C. Gonzalez, City Manager)
Decatur, Georgia (Peggy Merriss, City Manager)
Durham, North Carolina (Thomas J. Bonfield, City Manager)
Fairfax County, Virginia (Edward L. Long Jr., County Executive)
Fort Collins, Colorado (Darin Atteberry, City Manager)
Kansas City, Missouri (Troy Schulte, City Manager)
Mesa, Arizona (Christopher J. Brady, City Manager)
Miami-Dade County, Florida (Carlos Gimenez, Mayor)
Montgomery County, Maryland (Timothy L. Firestine, Chief Administrative Officer)
New Orleans, Louisiana (Andrew Kopplin, First Deputy Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (James D. Couch, City Manager)
Olathe, Kansas (Michael Wilkes, City Manager)
Peoria, Arizona (Carl Swenson, City Manager)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Richard Negrin, Managing Director)
Phoenix, Arizona (Ed Zuercher, City Manager)
Poudre Fire Authority, Colorado (Ann Turnquist, Administrative Services Director)
Purcellville, Virginia (Robert W. Lohr Jr., Town Manager)
Rock Hill, South Carolina (David Vehaun, City Manager)
San Antonio, Texas (Sheryl L. Sculley, City Manager)
San Francisco, California (Ben Rosenfield, Controller)
San Jose, California (Norberto Duenas, City Manager)
Scottsdale, Arizona (Fritz Behring, City Manager)
Tacoma, Washington (T.C. Broadnax, City Manager)
Tamarac, Florida (Michael Cernech, City Manager)
Williamsburg, Virginia (Jackson C. Tuttle, Former City Manager; Marvin E. Collins III, City Manager)
Woodbury, Minnesota (Clint P. Gridley, City Administrator)
Certificate of DistinctionBettendorf, Iowa (Decker P. Ploehn, City Administrator)
Bloomington, Illinois (David A. Hales, City Manager)
Fayetteville, North Carolina (Theodore L. Voorhees, City Manager)
Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Lee Feldman, City Manager)
Gilbert, Arizona (Patrick S. Banger, Town Manager)
North Hempstead, New York (Aline Khatchadourian, Deputy Supervisor)
Palm Coast, Florida (James Landon, City Manager)
Richmond, Virginia (Selena Cuffee-Glenn, Chief Administrative Officer)
Suwanee, Georgia (Marvin R. Allen, City Manager)
Wichita, Kansas (Robert L. Layton, City Manager)
Certificate of AchievementAlgonquin, Illinois (Tim J. Schloneger, Village Administrator)
Grafton, Wisconsin (Darrell Hofland, Village Administrator)
Greer, South Carolina (Edward R. Driggers, City Administrator)
Johnson City, Tennessee (M. Denis “Pete” Peterson, City Manager)
Loudoun County, Virginia (Timothy D. Hemstreet, County Administrator)
BY MIKE CONDUFF, ICMA-CM
ALIGNING GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCEA rewarding journey that promises results
Good governance clearly seems to flow more easily when great man-agement occurs in an organization.
When the staff activities appropriately align with the elected officials’ goals, and these goals are being consistently measured and met in an efficient and effective way, governing body members can focus their efforts on the future and not the present.
Staying in their governing role is simply easier for them when the staff is “taking care of business.” Even so, this intersection of good governance/good management may take significant time to build.
Aligning Separate PathsSome of our management colleagues will certainly argue that the good governance must come before the management and measurement. “After all, how do I know what to spend time and resources on unless the council sets goals?” is the way one colleague put it to me.
On the other hand, asking the council to stay out of operations when those are not functioning at a high level, or are the subject of task forces, subcommit-tees, and resident complaints, is largely an exercise in futility. Fortunately, the separate paths can align and function well when nurtured appropriately.
For the 2013 ICMA Governance Award winning community of Westlake, Texas (Tom Brymer, town manager), for example, it has taken consistent dedica-tion to doing things right in order for the town council to be able to keep its focus at a high level. While the town itself is relatively small, its governance is quite complicated in that Westlake also owns and operates Westlake Academy—an International Baccalaureate Charter School.
Everyone has dual roles: The mayor is also the president of the school
board, the town councilmembers are also school board trustees, and the city manager is also the superintendent of the school. If you think it is tempting for a council to delve into municipal operations, just magnify that temptation to talk about educational means!
By forging a strong partnership between the mayor and the town manager, starting with small steps, providing governance education (e.g., explaining roles for the parties), and staying consistent in these roles and behaviors, the town has progressed to the point where both the staff and the elected officials are expected to, and do, perform at an extremely high level.
Journey Starts With ValuesWestlake’s journey of several years began when the council spent multiple challeng-ing sessions agreeing on values and using those values to develop its vision and mission, both for the town and for the academy. Councilmembers next identi-fied major outcomes (or “ends” in Policy Governance® language) that allowed the staff to develop strategies for outcomes, which they publish as a “strategy map.”
In order to be clearly transpar-ent, each strategic objective outlines accompanying action items necessary to support or achieve the desired result, along with the responsible staff party, all of which is linked directly to the strategy map. The budget document also is tied to the strategies, with monies clearly associated with the appropriate themes and perspectives.
Efforts are measured and reported quarterly. Resident surveys are con-ducted. In short, both governance and management are aligned in such a way as to provide the best possible results for Westlake and Westlake Academy.
Efficient PerformanceHave there been hiccups along the way? Of course! In the words of Mayor Laura Wheat, “At each critical juncture, we would remind ourselves that we are here on behalf of the citizens and stakeholders of Westlake, and that the best way to serve this very engaged community is for us each to perform well in our appropriate sphere.
“We use the Eight Behaviors and set the targets, the city manager oversees accomplishments, and our balanced scorecard indicators allow us to assess the organization’s performance.”
Tom Brymer goes on to say, “Because efficiency is such a hallmark in our profession, especially with our small number of town staff, we have to make sure we are measuring the appropriate activities. Only when the council is convinced that we are using scarce resources most effectively can [council-members] concentrate their efforts on their value-add to the process.”
Westlake also uses its annual council retreats to examine its governance process and to educate its new members so that the process continues to be sustainable over the long run.
One ModelIf your community is ready to take the good governance challenge, Westlake’s Eight Behaviors (http://www.cmraso.com/gb.htm) journey might be a worthy model for you to investigate. The model’s principles are:
• Values, vision, mission.• Council outcomes.• Staff strategies.
council relations | performance
Continued on page 32
24 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 25
management minute | leaders in 2015
2015 LEADERS IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTRecognizing those who foster a performance culture
F orty-eight local governments are recipients of the 2015 Certificates in Performance Management from the ICMA Center for Performance Analytics (icma.org/performance-certificates). Awarded annually, the certificates recognize performance management programs, encourage comparative analysis, and reward transparency.
Based on established criteria explained here, they are awarded at three levels: excellence, which is the highest, along with distinction and achievement.• Certificates of Achievement are awarded to those who collect and verify data to ensure reliability, train staff in performance
measurement, and report data to the public through budgets, newsletters, and information provided to elected officials.• Certificates of Distinction are awarded to those who also use performance data in strategic planning and operational decision
making and share their knowledge with other local governments through presentations, site visits, and networking activities.• Certificates of Excellence go to those who, in addition, track and report key outcomes, survey residents and local government
employees, incorporate data into performance dashboards or other visual communications, and foster the development of a performance culture throughout their organizations.ICMA is accepting applications for the 2016 Certificates in Performance Management. Criteria and an application to download
can be found at icma.org/performance-certificates.
Certificate of ExcellenceAlachua County, Florida (Lee A. Niblock, County Manager)
Albany, Oregon (Wes Hare, City Manager)
Austin, Texas (Marc A. Ott, City Manager)
Bayside, Wisconsin (Andrew K. Pederson, Village Manager)
Bellevue, Washington (Brad Miyake, City Manager)
Clayton, Missouri (Craig Owens, City Manager)
Coral Springs, Florida (Erdal Donmez, City Manager)
Dallas, Texas (A. C. Gonzalez, City Manager)
Decatur, Georgia (Peggy Merriss, City Manager)
Durham, North Carolina (Thomas J. Bonfield, City Manager)
Fairfax County, Virginia (Edward L. Long Jr., County Executive)
Fort Collins, Colorado (Darin Atteberry, City Manager)
Kansas City, Missouri (Troy Schulte, City Manager)
Mesa, Arizona (Christopher J. Brady, City Manager)
Miami-Dade County, Florida (Carlos Gimenez, Mayor)
Montgomery County, Maryland (Timothy L. Firestine, Chief Administrative Officer)
New Orleans, Louisiana (Andrew Kopplin, First Deputy Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (James D. Couch, City Manager)
Olathe, Kansas (Michael Wilkes, City Manager)
Peoria, Arizona (Carl Swenson, City Manager)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Richard Negrin, Managing Director)
Phoenix, Arizona (Ed Zuercher, City Manager)
Poudre Fire Authority, Colorado (Ann Turnquist, Administrative Services Director)
Purcellville, Virginia (Robert W. Lohr Jr., Town Manager)
Rock Hill, South Carolina (David Vehaun, City Manager)
San Antonio, Texas (Sheryl L. Sculley, City Manager)
San Francisco, California (Ben Rosenfield, Controller)
San Jose, California (Norberto Duenas, City Manager)
Scottsdale, Arizona (Fritz Behring, City Manager)
Tacoma, Washington (T.C. Broadnax, City Manager)
Tamarac, Florida (Michael Cernech, City Manager)
Williamsburg, Virginia (Jackson C. Tuttle, Former City Manager; Marvin E. Collins III, City Manager)
Woodbury, Minnesota (Clint P. Gridley, City Administrator)
Certificate of DistinctionBettendorf, Iowa (Decker P. Ploehn, City Administrator)
Bloomington, Illinois (David A. Hales, City Manager)
Fayetteville, North Carolina (Theodore L. Voorhees, City Manager)
Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Lee Feldman, City Manager)
Gilbert, Arizona (Patrick S. Banger, Town Manager)
North Hempstead, New York (Aline Khatchadourian, Deputy Supervisor)
Palm Coast, Florida (James Landon, City Manager)
Richmond, Virginia (Selena Cuffee-Glenn, Chief Administrative Officer)
Suwanee, Georgia (Marvin R. Allen, City Manager)
Wichita, Kansas (Robert L. Layton, City Manager)
Certificate of AchievementAlgonquin, Illinois (Tim J. Schloneger, Village Administrator)
Grafton, Wisconsin (Darrell Hofland, Village Administrator)
Greer, South Carolina (Edward R. Driggers, City Administrator)
Johnson City, Tennessee (M. Denis “Pete” Peterson, City Manager)
Loudoun County, Virginia (Timothy D. Hemstreet, County Administrator)
BY MIKE CONDUFF, ICMA-CM
ALIGNING GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCEA rewarding journey that promises results
Good governance clearly seems to flow more easily when great man-agement occurs in an organization.
When the staff activities appropriately align with the elected officials’ goals, and these goals are being consistently measured and met in an efficient and effective way, governing body members can focus their efforts on the future and not the present.
Staying in their governing role is simply easier for them when the staff is “taking care of business.” Even so, this intersection of good governance/good management may take significant time to build.
Aligning Separate PathsSome of our management colleagues will certainly argue that the good governance must come before the management and measurement. “After all, how do I know what to spend time and resources on unless the council sets goals?” is the way one colleague put it to me.
On the other hand, asking the council to stay out of operations when those are not functioning at a high level, or are the subject of task forces, subcommit-tees, and resident complaints, is largely an exercise in futility. Fortunately, the separate paths can align and function well when nurtured appropriately.
For the 2013 ICMA Governance Award winning community of Westlake, Texas (Tom Brymer, town manager), for example, it has taken consistent dedica-tion to doing things right in order for the town council to be able to keep its focus at a high level. While the town itself is relatively small, its governance is quite complicated in that Westlake also owns and operates Westlake Academy—an International Baccalaureate Charter School.
Everyone has dual roles: The mayor is also the president of the school
board, the town councilmembers are also school board trustees, and the city manager is also the superintendent of the school. If you think it is tempting for a council to delve into municipal operations, just magnify that temptation to talk about educational means!
By forging a strong partnership between the mayor and the town manager, starting with small steps, providing governance education (e.g., explaining roles for the parties), and staying consistent in these roles and behaviors, the town has progressed to the point where both the staff and the elected officials are expected to, and do, perform at an extremely high level.
Journey Starts With ValuesWestlake’s journey of several years began when the council spent multiple challeng-ing sessions agreeing on values and using those values to develop its vision and mission, both for the town and for the academy. Councilmembers next identi-fied major outcomes (or “ends” in Policy Governance® language) that allowed the staff to develop strategies for outcomes, which they publish as a “strategy map.”
In order to be clearly transpar-ent, each strategic objective outlines accompanying action items necessary to support or achieve the desired result, along with the responsible staff party, all of which is linked directly to the strategy map. The budget document also is tied to the strategies, with monies clearly associated with the appropriate themes and perspectives.
Efforts are measured and reported quarterly. Resident surveys are con-ducted. In short, both governance and management are aligned in such a way as to provide the best possible results for Westlake and Westlake Academy.
Efficient PerformanceHave there been hiccups along the way? Of course! In the words of Mayor Laura Wheat, “At each critical juncture, we would remind ourselves that we are here on behalf of the citizens and stakeholders of Westlake, and that the best way to serve this very engaged community is for us each to perform well in our appropriate sphere.
“We use the Eight Behaviors and set the targets, the city manager oversees accomplishments, and our balanced scorecard indicators allow us to assess the organization’s performance.”
Tom Brymer goes on to say, “Because efficiency is such a hallmark in our profession, especially with our small number of town staff, we have to make sure we are measuring the appropriate activities. Only when the council is convinced that we are using scarce resources most effectively can [council-members] concentrate their efforts on their value-add to the process.”
Westlake also uses its annual council retreats to examine its governance process and to educate its new members so that the process continues to be sustainable over the long run.
One ModelIf your community is ready to take the good governance challenge, Westlake’s Eight Behaviors (http://www.cmraso.com/gb.htm) journey might be a worthy model for you to investigate. The model’s principles are:
• Values, vision, mission.• Council outcomes.• Staff strategies.
council relations | performance
Continued on page 32
26 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 27
management minute | excellence
T he St. Louis suburb of Clayton, Missouri (16,000 residential popu-lation; 46,000 daytime population;
$55 million operating budget), dem-onstrates how a smaller city can excel in performance management. Clayton has received a Certificate of Excellence in Performance Management from the ICMA Center for Performance Analytics each year since 2011. Excelling in several areas has allowed the community to earn that recognition.
Winning WaysOrganizational culture and leadership. Internally, Clayton fosters
an organizational culture that embraces performance management. Orientation for new city staff includes a one-on-one meeting with City Manager Craig Owens, who describes the city’s philosophy and explains how the staff member’s job contributes to the overall performance management strategy. “We are indeed passionate about demonstrating value,” he says.
Owens also meets annually with all employees in small groups to review the three elements of the organization’s culture: team pride, quality services, and high value (Figure 1). The quality services element focuses heavily on
benchmarking and emphasizes the city’s strong performance.
“We feel it is important to bench-mark our citizen satisfaction,” says Owens. “The worst performing fire department is likely to have higher satisfaction than a top performing code enforcement department just because of the nature of the work. We need a relative scale to make sure we aren’t shooting for the wrong targets and can celebrate results achieved on a tougher grading curve.”
Internal processes. The city has formally collected performance data for more than eight years. At the start of the annual data collection cycle each January, an e-mail alerts staff members that the data collection period has begun. Staff responsible for data collec-tion, entry, and approval are required to watch the applicable training courses provided on the ICMA website, taking special note of any definitions that may have changed.
George Ertle, assistant to the city manager, oversees internal data col-lection, and also serves as the primary coordinator with the ICMA Insights™ performance analytics program. He ensures that staff are trained on how to enter data correctly. Then he reviews the data for accuracy and consistency with past data, taking into account any changes in external circumstances or internal practices that might account for apparent aberrations.
At least quarterly, Owens reviews performance data with department heads, and performance results are discussed as part of performance evaluations for department heads and employees.
Resident feedback. The city conducts an annual community survey covering 45 measures that are surveyed across more than 30 cities in Kansas and Missouri. The 2014 survey showed that Clayton rated above the national and Kansas/Mis-souri averages on all 45 measures.
95%
Planning and develoPment
95%2014 goal
95%2013 actual
2014 actual
% of residents rating appearance of Clayton as good or better
excePtional city services HigHligHts
$125
Public safety
$136 2014 goal
$1292013 actual
2014 actual
Police cost per capita
$95$93 2014 goal
$922013 actual
2014 actual
Fire/EMS cost per capita
3:513:04 2014 goal
3:552013 actual
2014 actual
Amount of time it takes Clayton PD to respond on-scene once a priority call is
received by 911 dispatch
5:004:36 2014 goal
4:532013 actual
2014 actual
Response time for priority EMS calls
$5.45
economic develoPment
$6.07 2014 goal
$5.622013 actual
2014 actual
Sales tax per square foot of retail development
95%
Parks and recreation
95%2014 goal
92%2013 actual
2014 actual
% of residents rating overall satisfaction with Parks and Recreation as good or
better
75%
transPortation
77%2014 goal
77%2013 actual
2014 actual
% of residents rating maintenance of City streets as good or better
28organizational excellence
332014 goal
232013 actual
2014 actual
Annual training hours per employee
$8,500$9,780 2014 goal
$10,0032013 actual
2014 actual
Cost of park maintenance per acre
Source: Example from Clayton, Missouri’s Exceptional City Services Scorecard from the City’s FY2016 Budget Document.
EXCEPTIONAL CITY SERVICES HIGHLIGHTSCLAYTON, MISSOURI’S FISCAL YEAR 2016 SERVICES SCORECARD
BY BARBARA MOORE
EXCELLENCE IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTWhat makes Clayton, Missouri, a repeat recipient?
26 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 27
management minute | excellence
T he St. Louis suburb of Clayton, Missouri (16,000 residential popu-lation; 46,000 daytime population;
$55 million operating budget), dem-onstrates how a smaller city can excel in performance management. Clayton has received a Certificate of Excellence in Performance Management from the ICMA Center for Performance Analytics each year since 2011. Excelling in several areas has allowed the community to earn that recognition.
Winning WaysOrganizational culture and leadership. Internally, Clayton fosters
an organizational culture that embraces performance management. Orientation for new city staff includes a one-on-one meeting with City Manager Craig Owens, who describes the city’s philosophy and explains how the staff member’s job contributes to the overall performance management strategy. “We are indeed passionate about demonstrating value,” he says.
Owens also meets annually with all employees in small groups to review the three elements of the organization’s culture: team pride, quality services, and high value (Figure 1). The quality services element focuses heavily on
benchmarking and emphasizes the city’s strong performance.
“We feel it is important to bench-mark our citizen satisfaction,” says Owens. “The worst performing fire department is likely to have higher satisfaction than a top performing code enforcement department just because of the nature of the work. We need a relative scale to make sure we aren’t shooting for the wrong targets and can celebrate results achieved on a tougher grading curve.”
Internal processes. The city has formally collected performance data for more than eight years. At the start of the annual data collection cycle each January, an e-mail alerts staff members that the data collection period has begun. Staff responsible for data collec-tion, entry, and approval are required to watch the applicable training courses provided on the ICMA website, taking special note of any definitions that may have changed.
George Ertle, assistant to the city manager, oversees internal data col-lection, and also serves as the primary coordinator with the ICMA Insights™ performance analytics program. He ensures that staff are trained on how to enter data correctly. Then he reviews the data for accuracy and consistency with past data, taking into account any changes in external circumstances or internal practices that might account for apparent aberrations.
At least quarterly, Owens reviews performance data with department heads, and performance results are discussed as part of performance evaluations for department heads and employees.
Resident feedback. The city conducts an annual community survey covering 45 measures that are surveyed across more than 30 cities in Kansas and Missouri. The 2014 survey showed that Clayton rated above the national and Kansas/Mis-souri averages on all 45 measures.
95%
Planning and develoPment
95%2014 goal
95%2013 actual
2014 actual
% of residents rating appearance of Clayton as good or better
excePtional city services HigHligHts
$125
Public safety
$136 2014 goal
$1292013 actual
2014 actual
Police cost per capita
$95$93 2014 goal
$922013 actual
2014 actual
Fire/EMS cost per capita
3:513:04 2014 goal
3:552013 actual
2014 actual
Amount of time it takes Clayton PD to respond on-scene once a priority call is
received by 911 dispatch
5:004:36 2014 goal
4:532013 actual
2014 actual
Response time for priority EMS calls
$5.45
economic develoPment
$6.07 2014 goal
$5.622013 actual
2014 actual
Sales tax per square foot of retail development
95%
Parks and recreation
95%2014 goal
92%2013 actual
2014 actual
% of residents rating overall satisfaction with Parks and Recreation as good or
better
75%
transPortation
77%2014 goal
77%2013 actual
2014 actual
% of residents rating maintenance of City streets as good or better
28organizational excellence
332014 goal
232013 actual
2014 actual
Annual training hours per employee
$8,500$9,780 2014 goal
$10,0032013 actual
2014 actual
Cost of park maintenance per acre
Source: Example from Clayton, Missouri’s Exceptional City Services Scorecard from the City’s FY2016 Budget Document.
EXCEPTIONAL CITY SERVICES HIGHLIGHTSCLAYTON, MISSOURI’S FISCAL YEAR 2016 SERVICES SCORECARD
BY BARBARA MOORE
EXCELLENCE IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTWhat makes Clayton, Missouri, a repeat recipient?
icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 2928 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
management minute | continued
What Can You Do With BoardDocs?
BoardDocs.com 800. 407.0141
BoardDocs web applications eliminate paper and streamline the
processes used to manage board packets, access information and
conduct meetings. You’ll save money, time and improve your boards’
effectiveness, on a massive scale. If your decisions affect the lives
of others, call us. We’ll help you do what you do best, even better.
It’s their future. It’s your choice.
© 2015 Emerald Data SolutionsTM, Inc. BoardDocs is a registered trademark of Emerald Data Solutions. All rights reserved.
WhatCanYou_OlderMan.indd 1 10/15/15 12:29 PM
In addition to asking residents to rate services, the 2013 survey sought input on services that could be reduced if necessary. Results were used to evaluate the cost of providing several services and to identify opportunities to improve efficiency.
Public reporting. Clayton reports financial, operational, and survey data, including comparative data, on its website (www.claytonmo.gov). Here, residents can view:• Operating and capital improvements
budgets and two-year plans for the current and past fiscal years.
• The city’s annual reports from the past five years.
• The city’s strategic plan (“C the Future”), focusing on four key per-formance areas: 1) exceptional city services; 2) livable community; 3) strategic relationships; and 4) economic development and vibrant downtown.
The annual report shows perfor-mance measures for key service areas and, where data exist, shows how Clay-ton’s performance compares with the average performance of 15 peer cities, separated into two groups: St. Louis area peer cities and ICMA peer cities, which include cities from across the country that have reported data to ICMA.
The report also shows year-to-year comparisons for many key measures, including residents’ ratings on the com-munity survey.
In addition to showing comparisons for measures collected regionally or nationally, Clayton reports on such measures of local interest as retail/office vacancy rates and average commercial rental rates per square foot.
The Exceptional City Services ScorecardThe first key performance area in the strategic plan, exceptional city services,
includes a commitment to performance measurement and benchmarking, and thus lies at the heart of Clayton’s per-formance management initiatives. The city has developed an Exceptional City Services Scorecard showing resident satisfaction; cost and revenue mea-sures; police, fire, and EMS response times; employee training hours; and facility use.
This scorecard is published in the budget book, summarizing historical and current performance data along with goals for the fiscal year. The scorecard also captures results from an internal employee engagement survey.
NetworkingIn 2014, City Manager Owens spear-headed a regional performance measure-ment initiative and persuaded more than a dozen municipalities in the St. Louis region to collect data that permitted comparisons among the cities while taking account of differences that can affect services.
The East-West Gateway, a regional council of governments, coordinated the data collection. The initiative was in response to queries from elected officials about how Clayton compares with other cities in the area.
A Good AssessmentIn the final analysis, Clayton has
embraced performance management by instilling it as a value throughout the organization; ensuring the accurate collection and verification of data from residents and local government operations; sharing results publicly; comparing performance with bench-mark cities; and using the results to continuously improve services.
BARBARA MOORE Performance Management Outreach Coordinator Outreach and Communications Team ICMA
Washington, D.C. [email protected]
FIGURE 1. Three Elements of Clayton, Missouri’s Culture.
CLAYTON REPORTS FINANCIAL, OPERATIONAL, AND SURVEY DATA, INCLUDING COMPARATIVE DATA, ON ITS WEBSITE AT WWW.CLAYTONMO.GOV.
TEAM
PRIDE
HIGH VALUE
QUALITY SERVICES
icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 2928 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
management minute | continued
What Can You Do With BoardDocs?
BoardDocs.com 800. 407.0141
BoardDocs web applications eliminate paper and streamline the
processes used to manage board packets, access information and
conduct meetings. You’ll save money, time and improve your boards’
effectiveness, on a massive scale. If your decisions affect the lives
of others, call us. We’ll help you do what you do best, even better.
It’s their future. It’s your choice.
© 2015 Emerald Data SolutionsTM, Inc. BoardDocs is a registered trademark of Emerald Data Solutions. All rights reserved.
WhatCanYou_OlderMan.indd 1 10/15/15 12:29 PM
In addition to asking residents to rate services, the 2013 survey sought input on services that could be reduced if necessary. Results were used to evaluate the cost of providing several services and to identify opportunities to improve efficiency.
Public reporting. Clayton reports financial, operational, and survey data, including comparative data, on its website (www.claytonmo.gov). Here, residents can view:• Operating and capital improvements
budgets and two-year plans for the current and past fiscal years.
• The city’s annual reports from the past five years.
• The city’s strategic plan (“C the Future”), focusing on four key per-formance areas: 1) exceptional city services; 2) livable community; 3) strategic relationships; and 4) economic development and vibrant downtown.
The annual report shows perfor-mance measures for key service areas and, where data exist, shows how Clay-ton’s performance compares with the average performance of 15 peer cities, separated into two groups: St. Louis area peer cities and ICMA peer cities, which include cities from across the country that have reported data to ICMA.
The report also shows year-to-year comparisons for many key measures, including residents’ ratings on the com-munity survey.
In addition to showing comparisons for measures collected regionally or nationally, Clayton reports on such measures of local interest as retail/office vacancy rates and average commercial rental rates per square foot.
The Exceptional City Services ScorecardThe first key performance area in the strategic plan, exceptional city services,
includes a commitment to performance measurement and benchmarking, and thus lies at the heart of Clayton’s per-formance management initiatives. The city has developed an Exceptional City Services Scorecard showing resident satisfaction; cost and revenue mea-sures; police, fire, and EMS response times; employee training hours; and facility use.
This scorecard is published in the budget book, summarizing historical and current performance data along with goals for the fiscal year. The scorecard also captures results from an internal employee engagement survey.
NetworkingIn 2014, City Manager Owens spear-headed a regional performance measure-ment initiative and persuaded more than a dozen municipalities in the St. Louis region to collect data that permitted comparisons among the cities while taking account of differences that can affect services.
The East-West Gateway, a regional council of governments, coordinated the data collection. The initiative was in response to queries from elected officials about how Clayton compares with other cities in the area.
A Good AssessmentIn the final analysis, Clayton has
embraced performance management by instilling it as a value throughout the organization; ensuring the accurate collection and verification of data from residents and local government operations; sharing results publicly; comparing performance with bench-mark cities; and using the results to continuously improve services.
BARBARA MOORE Performance Management Outreach Coordinator Outreach and Communications Team ICMA
Washington, D.C. [email protected]
FIGURE 1. Three Elements of Clayton, Missouri’s Culture.
CLAYTON REPORTS FINANCIAL, OPERATIONAL, AND SURVEY DATA, INCLUDING COMPARATIVE DATA, ON ITS WEBSITE AT WWW.CLAYTONMO.GOV.
TEAM
PRIDE
HIGH VALUE
QUALITY SERVICES
30 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
innovation edge | grievance policies
BY TONI SHOPE AND KAREN THORESON
IMPROVING GRIEVANCE POLICIESNew research suggests it may be time to revamp your practices
Grievance. Does this word put you to sleep or drive you to distraction? If you have any tenure in local gov-
ernment, probably both! And what does it have to do with innovation, emerging practices, and getting better results?
The Local Government Research Collaborative (LGRC) completed its first funded research project this year: Red Tape, Green Tape, and Grievance Policies in Local Government Organizations. Principal researcher Dr. Leisha Dehart-Davis, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, School of Government, studied North Carolina local govern-ments through surveys and interviews to understand grievance policy designs, outcomes, and effectiveness.
Grievance policies provide a value beyond managing legal risk and due process for employees. The process itself surfaces information, allowing local governments the ability to track data across the organization and identify managerial and department weak spots that need to be addressed. Grievance policies also symbolize fairness and provide employees an opportunity to make their concerns known.
Key FindingsHere are the research findings, which ran the gamut from surprising to expected:
Most grievance policies are old. The average age of these policies in surveyed governments was nine years, which could mean that many were a lot older than that.
Old policies reflect more bureau-cratic approaches and often less employee trust and engagement. Updat-ing and simplifying grievance policies, hopefully in an open and transparent process, can go a long way to making
those policies more employee and management friendly.
Grievances are expensive. They can be time-consuming, distracting, often divisive, and extract an emotional toll on everyone involved. One way to mini-mize grievances is having an effective performance appraisal system in place with periodic employee surveys and good supervisory training.
While the research found that nearly 80 percent of grievances were solved in favor of management, anecdotes from practicing city and county managers indicate that that may be because management can shortcut the process and accommodate the employee if its own case is weak.
Really good data on grievances is hard to come by and few organizations keep records that can help them under-stand the hotspots in their organization or the policies that might be causing the problems. The study recommended tracking grievances using a dashboard or Excel spreadsheet to help learn how they can be prevented.
With the spreadsheet approach, it could be as simple as annually identify-
ing by department how many griev-ances were filed by supervisors and by individuals, along with what the subjects and the outcomes were.
Study research also showed that the standard process most localities use—written document, written response, review, interview, determination, and possible appeal—compounds the friction involved in grievances because the parties don’t talk to one another, nor do they try and solve their problem. They stand their ground and hope they win.
Instead of a grievance being used to create dialogue and problem solving, we’ve seen it wielded by management or a disgruntled employee as a heavy hammer, where scripted responses are required within a specified time period and dialogue is secondary to meeting deadlines.
Consider renaming your policy to something that more reflects the result you want to achieve: appeal, problem solving, mediation, consult, and resolve. These terms might better reflect the approach you want and the outcome you hope to achieve.
Consider an EvaluationWell-designed grievance policies lead to better management decisions. It’s important to invest time in determining what you want out of a dispute resolu-tion process. This could include thinking
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESEARCH COLLABORATIVEIN EARLY 2013, 21 local governments and three universities joined together with
AFI, the International City/County Management Association, and the Center for
Urban Innovation at Arizona State University to establish the Local Government
Research Collaborative (LGRC). It is developing and funding an actionable research
agenda that addresses significant issues confronting local governments.
LGRC provides the critical link between academic researchers and local governments and allows managers direct input on the identification of emerging and leading practices that will have the most impact on the profession. It will also shape a research agenda to expand our knowledge of how local governments pursue innovative change and fundamentally improve their performance.
Continued on page 32
30 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
innovation edge | grievance policies
BY TONI SHOPE AND KAREN THORESON
IMPROVING GRIEVANCE POLICIESNew research suggests it may be time to revamp your practices
Grievance. Does this word put you to sleep or drive you to distraction? If you have any tenure in local gov-
ernment, probably both! And what does it have to do with innovation, emerging practices, and getting better results?
The Local Government Research Collaborative (LGRC) completed its first funded research project this year: Red Tape, Green Tape, and Grievance Policies in Local Government Organizations. Principal researcher Dr. Leisha Dehart-Davis, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, School of Government, studied North Carolina local govern-ments through surveys and interviews to understand grievance policy designs, outcomes, and effectiveness.
Grievance policies provide a value beyond managing legal risk and due process for employees. The process itself surfaces information, allowing local governments the ability to track data across the organization and identify managerial and department weak spots that need to be addressed. Grievance policies also symbolize fairness and provide employees an opportunity to make their concerns known.
Key FindingsHere are the research findings, which ran the gamut from surprising to expected:
Most grievance policies are old. The average age of these policies in surveyed governments was nine years, which could mean that many were a lot older than that.
Old policies reflect more bureau-cratic approaches and often less employee trust and engagement. Updat-ing and simplifying grievance policies, hopefully in an open and transparent process, can go a long way to making
those policies more employee and management friendly.
Grievances are expensive. They can be time-consuming, distracting, often divisive, and extract an emotional toll on everyone involved. One way to mini-mize grievances is having an effective performance appraisal system in place with periodic employee surveys and good supervisory training.
While the research found that nearly 80 percent of grievances were solved in favor of management, anecdotes from practicing city and county managers indicate that that may be because management can shortcut the process and accommodate the employee if its own case is weak.
Really good data on grievances is hard to come by and few organizations keep records that can help them under-stand the hotspots in their organization or the policies that might be causing the problems. The study recommended tracking grievances using a dashboard or Excel spreadsheet to help learn how they can be prevented.
With the spreadsheet approach, it could be as simple as annually identify-
ing by department how many griev-ances were filed by supervisors and by individuals, along with what the subjects and the outcomes were.
Study research also showed that the standard process most localities use—written document, written response, review, interview, determination, and possible appeal—compounds the friction involved in grievances because the parties don’t talk to one another, nor do they try and solve their problem. They stand their ground and hope they win.
Instead of a grievance being used to create dialogue and problem solving, we’ve seen it wielded by management or a disgruntled employee as a heavy hammer, where scripted responses are required within a specified time period and dialogue is secondary to meeting deadlines.
Consider renaming your policy to something that more reflects the result you want to achieve: appeal, problem solving, mediation, consult, and resolve. These terms might better reflect the approach you want and the outcome you hope to achieve.
Consider an EvaluationWell-designed grievance policies lead to better management decisions. It’s important to invest time in determining what you want out of a dispute resolu-tion process. This could include thinking
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESEARCH COLLABORATIVEIN EARLY 2013, 21 local governments and three universities joined together with
AFI, the International City/County Management Association, and the Center for
Urban Innovation at Arizona State University to establish the Local Government
Research Collaborative (LGRC). It is developing and funding an actionable research
agenda that addresses significant issues confronting local governments.
LGRC provides the critical link between academic researchers and local governments and allows managers direct input on the identification of emerging and leading practices that will have the most impact on the profession. It will also shape a research agenda to expand our knowledge of how local governments pursue innovative change and fundamentally improve their performance.
Continued on page 32
32 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015 icma.org/pm32 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
innovation edge | continued
icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 33
Solutions for people who pay people.
Job ClassificationCompensation
Performance PaySalary Surveys
1335 County Road D Circle EastSt. Paul, MN 55109-5260
Phone: (651) 635-0976 Fax: (651) 635-0980
P.O. Box 32985 • Phoenix, AZ 85064-2985Phone: (602) 840-1070 Fax: (602) 840-1071
www.foxlawson.com
Fitch & Associates has been a worldwide provider of
complete financial, operational and HR management
consulting services for more than 30 years.
Visit fitchassoc.com or call us today
at 888-431-2600
EMS & Fire Consulting
Proud to be an ICMA Strategic Partner
TO
AD
VE
RT
ISE,
CO
NT
ACT
Be
n H
arm
on, T
he T
owns
end
Grou
p, In
c., 3
01/2
15-6
710,
ext
106
or
bhar
mon
@to
wns
end-
grou
p.co
m
mark
etp
lace
| pr
ofes
sion
al s
ervi
ces
ALMONT ASSOCIATES
Associates Across the Country
Offices: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Texas (352) 516-7319
[email protected] www.almontassociates.com
Proudly supporting the ICMA for 23 years
We Specialize in Fiscally Responsible Public Safety Assistance
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
BMA_PM_AD_2014_COLOR_PrintReady.pdf 1 7/17/2014 1:44:34 PM
The Center for State and Local Government Excellence
www.slge.org
Visit slge.org to ■ Download free publications
on pensions, health benefits, competitive employment practices, demographic trends, and financial planning.
■ Use the Public Plans Database containing comprehensive information for more than 126 state and local defined benefit plans.
■ Subscribe to the Center’s e-newsletter.
12-125
through whether a “one-size-fits-all” approach is the best way to proceed.
Consider undertaking an overhaul of your current grievance process. Include key stakeholders—senior managers, front-line employees, supervisors, and human resource professionals—in the grievance re-think. Have them evaluate your current process against some of these criteria for effective rules:
• The purpose and logic of the policy and process.
• The quality and clarity of the requirements.
• What level of control should be provided to both the employee and supervisor?
• The consistency and/or flexibility you want the policy to allow.
• How easy to understand is the process and policy for the whole organization?
• What training can be provided to help avoid routine conflicts?
It should not be a lengthy or momen-tous task, but an evaluation might help you and your organization be confident that you have in place an effective dispute resolution process when you need it. This could save time, money, and morale.
Or investigate some of the other sug-gestions in the report like an ombudsman or public advocate office, mediation, or a zero-fault grievance system.
The Alliance for Innovation (AFI) defines innovation as a new process, approach, or service that is new to you or to the organization and produces better results. Revisiting the goals and pro-cesses you use to resolve issues among employees in order to improve your organizational cultural and effectiveness meets that criteria.
Take a moment and review the new research produced on grievance policies and see if you can’t make measureable improvement in your own organization. The full report can be accessed at AFI’s website—www.transformgov.org—under the Research tab, where you will also find a letter from Dehart-Davis that describes how she would use the findings if she were a manager in local government.
Looking AheadPerformance measurement in Mexico at the local level still has a long way to go despite the obligations defined by law. Perhaps the biggest challenge is to convince public servants and elected officials that performance measurement is good for them and for the citizens, and it is needed to guide decision-making processes in local government management.
Creating a culture that values performance and encourages the identification of indicators is the key, and ICMA continues its efforts to encour-age this culture.
International continued from page 22
Council Relations continued from page 24
OCTAVIO CHAVEZ Director ICMA México-Latinoamérica Guadalajara, Mexico [email protected]
MIKE CONDUFF, ICMA-CM Former City Manager President and CEO The Elim Group
Denton, Texas [email protected]
TONI SHOPE is strategic initiatives director, Alliance for Innovation, Cornelius, North Carolina ([email protected]), and
KAREN THORESON is president and chief operating officer, Alliance for Innovation, Phoenix, Arizona ([email protected]). For more information on the Red Tape, Green Tape, and Grievance Policies in Local Government Organiza-tions report, contact [email protected].
COLLECTING BETTER DATADO YOU WANT TO COLLECT better data about your grievance procedures? Is there something unique about them—or about your dispatch system, animal control operation, or economic development initiatives that makes them difficult to benchmark?
ICMA Insights™ (icma.org/performanceinsights) tracks more than 900 key indicators, but it also has options for custom measures—either for comparison with other jurisdictions or just for internal tracking and dashboarding over time.
REALLY GOOD DATA ON GRIEVANCES IS HARD TO COME BY AND FEW ORGANIZATIONS KEEP RECORDS THAT CAN HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THE HOTSPOTS IN THEIR ORGANIZATION OR THE POLICIES THAT MIGHT BE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS.
• Responsible parties.• Good measures.• Tied to budget.• Quarterly reporting.• Annual retreats.
Remember, your own journey may take a while, but the governance rewards are significant.
icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 3332 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
innovation edge | continued
icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 33
Solutions for people who pay people.
Job ClassificationCompensation
Performance PaySalary Surveys
1335 County Road D Circle EastSt. Paul, MN 55109-5260
Phone: (651) 635-0976 Fax: (651) 635-0980
P.O. Box 32985 • Phoenix, AZ 85064-2985Phone: (602) 840-1070 Fax: (602) 840-1071
www.foxlawson.com
Fitch & Associates has been a worldwide provider of
complete financial, operational and HR management
consulting services for more than 30 years.
Visit fitchassoc.com or call us today
at 888-431-2600
EMS & Fire Consulting
Proud to be an ICMA Strategic Partner
TO
AD
VE
RT
ISE,
CO
NT
ACT
Be
n H
arm
on, T
he T
owns
end
Grou
p, In
c., 3
01/2
15-6
710,
ext
106
or
bhar
mon
@to
wns
end-
grou
p.co
m
mark
etp
lace
| pr
ofes
sion
al s
ervi
ces
ALMONT ASSOCIATES
Associates Across the Country
Offices: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Texas (352) 516-7319
[email protected] www.almontassociates.com
Proudly supporting the ICMA for 23 years
We Specialize in Fiscally Responsible Public Safety Assistance
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
BMA_PM_AD_2014_COLOR_PrintReady.pdf 1 7/17/2014 1:44:34 PM
The Center for State and Local Government Excellence
www.slge.org
Visit slge.org to ■ Download free publications
on pensions, health benefits, competitive employment practices, demographic trends, and financial planning.
■ Use the Public Plans Database containing comprehensive information for more than 126 state and local defined benefit plans.
■ Subscribe to the Center’s e-newsletter.
12-125
through whether a “one-size-fits-all” approach is the best way to proceed.
Consider undertaking an overhaul of your current grievance process. Include key stakeholders—senior managers, front-line employees, supervisors, and human resource professionals—in the grievance re-think. Have them evaluate your current process against some of these criteria for effective rules:
• The purpose and logic of the policy and process.
• The quality and clarity of the requirements.
• What level of control should be provided to both the employee and supervisor?
• The consistency and/or flexibility you want the policy to allow.
• How easy to understand is the process and policy for the whole organization?
• What training can be provided to help avoid routine conflicts?
It should not be a lengthy or momen-tous task, but an evaluation might help you and your organization be confident that you have in place an effective dispute resolution process when you need it. This could save time, money, and morale.
Or investigate some of the other sug-gestions in the report like an ombudsman or public advocate office, mediation, or a zero-fault grievance system.
The Alliance for Innovation (AFI) defines innovation as a new process, approach, or service that is new to you or to the organization and produces better results. Revisiting the goals and pro-cesses you use to resolve issues among employees in order to improve your organizational cultural and effectiveness meets that criteria.
Take a moment and review the new research produced on grievance policies and see if you can’t make measureable improvement in your own organization. The full report can be accessed at AFI’s website—www.transformgov.org—under the Research tab, where you will also find a letter from Dehart-Davis that describes how she would use the findings if she were a manager in local government.
Looking AheadPerformance measurement in Mexico at the local level still has a long way to go despite the obligations defined by law. Perhaps the biggest challenge is to convince public servants and elected officials that performance measurement is good for them and for the citizens, and it is needed to guide decision-making processes in local government management.
Creating a culture that values performance and encourages the identification of indicators is the key, and ICMA continues its efforts to encour-age this culture.
International continued from page 22
Council Relations continued from page 24
OCTAVIO CHAVEZ Director ICMA México-Latinoamérica Guadalajara, Mexico [email protected]
MIKE CONDUFF, ICMA-CM Former City Manager President and CEO The Elim Group
Denton, Texas [email protected]
TONI SHOPE is strategic initiatives director, Alliance for Innovation, Cornelius, North Carolina ([email protected]), and
KAREN THORESON is president and chief operating officer, Alliance for Innovation, Phoenix, Arizona ([email protected]). For more information on the Red Tape, Green Tape, and Grievance Policies in Local Government Organiza-tions report, contact [email protected].
COLLECTING BETTER DATADO YOU WANT TO COLLECT better data about your grievance procedures? Is there something unique about them—or about your dispatch system, animal control operation, or economic development initiatives that makes them difficult to benchmark?
ICMA Insights™ (icma.org/performanceinsights) tracks more than 900 key indicators, but it also has options for custom measures—either for comparison with other jurisdictions or just for internal tracking and dashboarding over time.
REALLY GOOD DATA ON GRIEVANCES IS HARD TO COME BY AND FEW ORGANIZATIONS KEEP RECORDS THAT CAN HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THE HOTSPOTS IN THEIR ORGANIZATION OR THE POLICIES THAT MIGHT BE CAUSING THE PROBLEMS.
• Responsible parties.• Good measures.• Tied to budget.• Quarterly reporting.• Annual retreats.
Remember, your own journey may take a while, but the governance rewards are significant.
34 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015 icma.org/pm34 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 35
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
MobileTownGuide_PMMagAd2.pdf 1 7/10/15 2:20 PM
Searching for the right fit?THAT IS OUR SPECIALTY.
ComprehensiveExecutive Recruitmentfocused on matching professional skills, managementstyle and core values to fit your organization’s specific requirements.
W&C | Waters & Company
A Springsted Company
www.waters-company.com 800.899.1669
Contact Philip Schaenman, President, TriData Division3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington VA 22201 (703) 351-8300
www.sysplan.com/capabilities/fire ems/index.html#capabilities
• Deployment and overtime analysis• Best global practices for increasing productivity• Performance measurement• Consolidation studies• Building bridges/cultural competency• Emergency management and preparedness• Post-incident analysis• Post-incident analysis• Data analysis
Fire, Police, EMS, and Emergency Management Studies
A Division of
SYSTEM PLANNING CORPORATION
TriData
TO
AD
VE
RT
ISE,
CO
NT
ACT
Be
n H
arm
on, T
he T
owns
end
Grou
p, In
c., 3
01/2
15-6
710,
ext
106
or
bhar
mon
@to
wns
end-
grou
p.co
m
mark
etp
lace
| pr
ofes
sion
al s
ervi
ces
Facilitation & Strategic Planning Community Engagement Training Executive Coaching Executive Search Organizational Assessment
and Optimization Financial Planning Organizational Development
Performance Management
[email protected] 513-221-0500
OrganizatiOnsStrengthening
Leadership Expertise. Exceptional Service.
Development
| | Chic|
SB FriedmanDevelopment Advisors
VISION | ECONOMICS | STRATEGY | FINANCE | IMPLEMENTATION
missionThere’s an Entire Team Behind Every Assignment
• Executive Recruitment
• Management Consulting
• Public Safety
www.RalphAndersen.com
916.630.4900
Consultants To Management
• Organization and Management Studies • Executive Search
• Utility Studies• Compensation and Classification Studies
• Privatization • Strategic Planning
Pinpointing Workable Solutions from 18 Offices Nationwide
5579B Chamblee Dunwoody Rd.#511 Atlanta, GA 30338
770.551.0403Fax 770.339.9749
email: [email protected]
551 W. Cordova Road #726Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
505.466.9500Fax 505.466.1274
email: [email protected]
5579B Chamblee Dunwoody Road #511Atlanta, Georgia 30338
770.551.0403 • Fax 770.339.9749E-mail: [email protected]
1000 Cordova Place #726Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
505.466.9500 • Fax 505.466.1274E-mail: [email protected]
201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 148Mountain View, CA 94040
650.858.0507• www.matrixcg.net
Management and operations studiesFeasibility studiesUser fees and cost allocation
Police • Fire • Public Works • UtilitiesParks & Recreation • Administration
Planning & Building
With offices in California, Texas, Illinois & Massachusetts
matrixconsu l t i ng g roup
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
Matrix_PM_Nov2012.pdf 1 11/8/12 11:59 AM
mark
etp
lace
| pr
ofes
sion
al s
ervi
ces
TO
AD
VE
RT
ISE,
CO
NT
ACT
Be
n H
arm
on, T
he T
owns
end
Grou
p, In
c., 3
01/2
15-6
710,
ext
106
or
bhar
mon
@to
wns
end-
grou
p.co
m
Expert Consulting Services for City Government and College Campus Relations
KEMP CONSULTING, LLC
ü Service Agreementsü Revenue Agreementsü Capital Projects Planningü Joint Policies and Proceduresü Town and Gown Briefingsü Town and Gown Partnerships
ü Joint Participation Facilitationü Presentations and Speechesü User Fees and Charges Studiesü Joint Initiatives and Programsü Enterprise Fund Projectsü Main Street Renewal
Roger L . Kemp, Pres iden tTe l : 203 .686.0281 • Emai l : r l kbsr@snet .ne t
www.roger lkemp.com
icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 3534 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm: online and mobile accessible DECEMBER 2015 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 35
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
MobileTownGuide_PMMagAd2.pdf 1 7/10/15 2:20 PM
Searching for the right fit?THAT IS OUR SPECIALTY.
ComprehensiveExecutive Recruitmentfocused on matching professional skills, managementstyle and core values to fit your organization’s specific requirements.
W&C | Waters & Company
A Springsted Company
www.waters-company.com 800.899.1669
Contact Philip Schaenman, President, TriData Division3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington VA 22201 (703) 351-8300
www.sysplan.com/capabilities/fire ems/index.html#capabilities
• Deployment and overtime analysis• Best global practices for increasing productivity• Performance measurement• Consolidation studies• Building bridges/cultural competency• Emergency management and preparedness• Post-incident analysis• Post-incident analysis• Data analysis
Fire, Police, EMS, and Emergency Management Studies
A Division of
SYSTEM PLANNING CORPORATION
TriDataT
O A
DV
ER
TIS
E, C
ON
TA
CT
Ben
Har
mon
, The
Tow
nsen
d Gr
oup,
Inc.
, 301
/215
-671
0, e
xt 1
06 o
r bh
arm
on@
tow
nsen
d-gr
oup.
com
mark
etp
lace
| pr
ofes
sion
al s
ervi
ces
Facilitation & Strategic Planning Community Engagement Training Executive Coaching Executive Search Organizational Assessment
and Optimization Financial Planning Organizational Development
Performance Management
[email protected] 513-221-0500
OrganizatiOnsStrengthening
Leadership Expertise. Exceptional Service.
Development
| | Chic|
SB FriedmanDevelopment Advisors
VISION | ECONOMICS | STRATEGY | FINANCE | IMPLEMENTATION
missionThere’s an Entire Team Behind Every Assignment
• Executive Recruitment
• Management Consulting
• Public Safety
www.RalphAndersen.com
916.630.4900
Consultants To Management
• Organization and Management Studies • Executive Search
• Utility Studies• Compensation and Classification Studies
• Privatization • Strategic Planning
Pinpointing Workable Solutions from 18 Offices Nationwide
5579B Chamblee Dunwoody Rd.#511 Atlanta, GA 30338
770.551.0403Fax 770.339.9749
email: [email protected]
551 W. Cordova Road #726Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
505.466.9500Fax 505.466.1274
email: [email protected]
5579B Chamblee Dunwoody Road #511Atlanta, Georgia 30338
770.551.0403 • Fax 770.339.9749E-mail: [email protected]
1000 Cordova Place #726Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
505.466.9500 • Fax 505.466.1274E-mail: [email protected]
201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 148Mountain View, CA 94040
650.858.0507• www.matrixcg.net
Management and operations studiesFeasibility studiesUser fees and cost allocation
Police • Fire • Public Works • UtilitiesParks & Recreation • Administration
Planning & Building
With offices in California, Texas, Illinois & Massachusetts
matrixconsu l t i ng g roup
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
Matrix_PM_Nov2012.pdf 1 11/8/12 11:59 AM
mark
etp
lace
| pr
ofes
sion
al s
ervi
ces
TO
AD
VE
RT
ISE,
CO
NT
ACT
Be
n H
arm
on, T
he T
owns
end
Grou
p, In
c., 3
01/2
15-6
710,
ext
106
or
bhar
mon
@to
wns
end-
grou
p.co
m
Expert Consulting Services for City Government and College Campus Relations
KEMP CONSULTING, LLC
ü Service Agreementsü Revenue Agreementsü Capital Projects Planningü Joint Policies and Proceduresü Town and Gown Briefingsü Town and Gown Partnerships
ü Joint Participation Facilitationü Presentations and Speechesü User Fees and Charges Studiesü Joint Initiatives and Programsü Enterprise Fund Projectsü Main Street Renewal
Roger L . Kemp, Pres iden tTe l : 203 .686.0281 • Emai l : r l kbsr@snet .ne t
www.roger lkemp.com
36 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | DECEMBER 2015 icma.org/pm
by the numbers | service data
TRACKING SERVICE DATAWhat do they measure?
ICMA asked applicants for Certificates in Manage-ment to tell us the service areas in which they collected performance data in FY 2014. Among the
certificate recipients (listed in this issue on page 25), the most frequently reported areas were code enforce-ment and general government, followed by parks and recreation; highway and road maintenance; and permits, land use, and plan review.
A number of jurisdictions reported that they also collect data on such other services as economic develop-ment; public health; water and wastewater; and airports and other transportation services.
The selection of metrics to collect depends on a number of factors, of course, including whether the jurisdiction directly provides a service and how high a priority the service has been assigned in the context of overall goal setting and strategic planning.
To avoid skewing the data, this analysis excludes the Poudre Fire Authority, which provides a more limited scope of services to Fort Collins, Colorado, and the Poudre Valley Fire Protection District.”
Are you measuring your performance in these areas? If not, how are you evaluating success, and how are you communicating your accomplishments to local residents?
SERVICE AREA AND PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS MEASURING PERFORMANCE IN THESE AREAS:
100%CODE ENFORCEMENT
100%
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
95.7%PARKS AND RECREATION
93.6%HIGHWAY AND ROAD MAINTENANCE
93.6%PERMITS, LAND USE, PLAN REVIEW
91.5%FIRE/EMS
91.5%FLEET MANAGEMENT
91.5%HUMAN RESOURCES
91.5%INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
91.5%POLICE/SHERIFF/JAILS
87.2%FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
87.2% RISK MANAGEMENT
87.2%SOLID WASTE
80.9%PURCHASING/ PROCUREMENT
70.2%SUSTAINABILITY
68.1%UTILITIES
63.8%HOUSING
55.3%LIBRARY SERVICES
36.2%YOUTH SERVICES
Cut through the noise
The only job board devoted to management and management-track positions, the ICMA Job Center is the single best career
resource for job seekers and employers alike.
FOR JOB SEEKERS
• Find the top local government management and management- track jobs.
• More early and mid-career opportunities.
• Search by function, geographic location and population, salary, and job type.
FOR EMPLOYERS
• Connect with the widest range of candidates.
• Reach ICMA’s members, the largest audience of dedicated local government professionals worldwide.
• It’s the only job board devoted to management and management-track positions with more than 12,000 unique visitors and more than 150,000 page views each month.
Get started with the ICMA Job Center at icma.org/jobcenterFollow us at @ICMAjobcenter
at the ICMA Job Center
16-111 Job Center PM Ad.indd 4 10/28/15 5:33 PM
APPLY TODAY. success.regent.edu | 888.800.7735
RSG150558
Christian Leadership to Change the World
Working for a U.S. Congresswoman, Clarin Gniffke wanted to broaden her perspective on politics. At Regent University, she found more than exceptional online courses — she found confidence. You can too. “With core classes like American Political Thought, you realize issues in law, ethics, philosophy and worldview will come up again and again in your career. You gain a stance you can defend,” she says. Ready to advance in how you analyze, communicate, and problem solve with a principled foundation? Our expert faculty will prepare you for the next steps in your public service career.
Master of Arts in Government (M.A.) Master of Public Administration (MPA)
Over a dozen concentrations, including:International Relations, Healthcare Policy & Ethics, Emergency Management & Homeland Security
ON CAMPUS | ONLINE
We don’t talk politics.We teach it.
