Performance Measurement ProjectPRO Conference, Niagara Falls, April 2003

Presented by Doris Haas and Jennifer Reynolds

ASSOCIATIONCANADIAN PARKS AND RECREATION

BACKGROUND… CPRA RESOLUTION AUGUST 2001, TORONTO

“…that CPRA coordinate a process to build on the work done by Parks and Recreation Ontario to develop a performance measurement system for parks and recreation in Canada.”

THINK TANKAPRIL 2002, VANCOUVER

Leaders from across Canada – met for 3 daysSponsored by CLASS SOFTWARE and facilitated by Brian Johnson, PERC

Paul Gauthier Saskatoon, SaskatchewanDoris Haas Vaughan, OntarioDon Hunter Surrey, British ColumbiaKaren MacTavish Halifax, Nova ScotiaPierre Morin Montreal, QuebecSusan Mundick Vancouver, British ColumbiaDave Ladner Calgary, AlbertaJennifer Reynolds Milton, OntarioCathy Matheson CLASS Software

THINK TANK OUTCOME!

• Confirmed cities across Canada had already launched performance measurement programs

• Key objective of our work was development of a measurement framework - common terminology

• Consensus - this work needs to focus on “outcome” measures

• Utilize Benefit Statements to develop sample measures - worked through (8) statements

THINK TANK FOLLOW UP!

• Cities contributed $500 to prepare “white paper”- Halifax- Vaughan

- Milton- Calgary- Surrey- Saskatoon- Vancouver- Association quebecoise du loisir municipal (AQLM)- Parks & Recreation Ontario (PRO) and Class Software further supported $

• Contracted Heather Daynard, Prospect Management Enterprises Inc., to develop a measurement framework and to incorporate benefit measures into this process

HARNESSING THE POWER OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FOR CANADIAN PARKS AND RECREATION:a way forward...

• Public programs must identify intended benefits and impacts (outcomes) and measure extent they have been realized

• Management practices include four steps :- Planning results to be achieved- Implementing activities to achieve them- Measuring actual results- Reporting results to improve the next cycle

• This process is commonly referred to as Performance Management

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CYCLE

Plan(where do we want to go?)

Reports(what will we do

to improve?)

Activities(how will we

implement the plan?)

Measures(how close did we get

to our plan?)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

• Success depends on the measurement component

• Without measures of achievement, other components cannot proceed

• Performance information is used to set goals, allocate resources, and report results

BENCHMARKING

• Performance Management is not the same as Benchmarking

• In order to accurately compare measures, data elements must be defined and collected uniformly

• Benchmarking is the best practice or standard based on the defined measures

WHAT’S IN THIS FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMUNITY?• Process of reporting to stakeholders on intended results - transparent, build awareness and involvement

• Demonstrate the benefits for individuals and society - legitimizing the work done in the Benefits Catalogue

• Adoption of common set of measures - development of common body of knowledge across parks and recreation programs - strengthen our capacity to manage our field of practice

• Assist Departments set and maintain our own agendas rather than having them dictated to us

• Increased efficiency and higher quality services - enhanced profile

FOCUSING ON THE BENEFITS WE CONTRIBUTE – THE LOGIC MODEL PROCESS

• Public programs are obligated to assess our performance on basis of our efficient and productive use of resources (conversion of inputs to outputs) and our achievement of results (outcomes)

Logic Model – Logical Sequence

INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

SUPPORT WHICH PRODUCE WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO

Resources- budget- equipment- staff- facilities

Actions- developing programs- maintaining facilities

Product/Service- classes- clean floors- walls painted- trimmed trees

Intended Results- value added- individual- community- broad social goals

LOGIC MODEL - EXAMPLE

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes

budget, bikeway planning, Plans, meetings, - safer bike routesstaff construction bike paths, signs, - people bike more -

and maintenance - grass cut, use cars less weeds controlled - reduced auto - public information emissions

materials - increased exercise

by citizens - better air quality

- healthier citizens - reduced health care costs. etc.

• Outcomes can be… Initial Outcome - safer biking route

Intermediate Outcome - people bike more use cars less

Ultimate Outcome - better air quality

CATEGORIZING OUTCOMES –IMPORTANT STEP IN DEVELOPING PERFORMANCE MEASURES

PerformanceAppraisals

Operational Planning and Control

Program Evaluation

Strategic Planning

Public Communication

Central Agency Budget Review

Program Advocacy

Accountability to Political Level

External Uses:

OutputsShort-Term Outcomes

Long-TermOutcomes

Internal Uses:

POTENTIAL MEASURES – BIKEWAY EXAMPLE

Measures:• total km bikeway per capita• total km bikeway per sq. km. of municipal area• average maintenance costs per km bikeway• average construction cost per km new bikeway• # bike accidents per capita• # bike accidents per sq. km. of municipal area• % of population using bikeways for: leisure, commuting• % of commuters biking to work• % of main commuter corridors served by bikeways• PPM of air pollutants from auto exhaust• average # hours exercise by citizens per week• incidence of asthma in citizens• annual # doctor visits per capita for respiratory ailments• annual # hospital days per capita for respiratory ailments• average level of fitness in citizens• average levels of obesity, high blood pressure

and cholesterol in citizens

POTENTIAL COMMON MEASURES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS

• Think Tank - identified key benefits of parks and recreation work

• Attempted “logic model approach” to develop a set of potential common measures for these outcomes

• Generated a long list of potential benefit measures

• Also, drafted a small set of measures of operating efficiency

- useful for comparing various departments across Canada- compare to industry benchmarks to demonstrate operational prudence

CPRA CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2002

• Presented similar session

• Participants provided input and chose top performance indicators

• Think Tank Report presented to CPRA Board of Directors

PROVINCIAL / TERRITORIAL PARTNERS

• Document circulated to Provincial / Territorial Partners for input in February 2003

• PRO is obtaining input during this conference

• All input received will be reviewed by the “Think Tank”

• CPRA Board has been asked to support AQLM taking the lead to further develop performance measures project

• CPRA has applied for funding from the Federal Government to support this initiative

• CPRA will determine whether they are able to commit any funds to this project in the 2003 / 2004 budget

ROLE OF CPRA

WHERE TO NEXT?• Work to date has laid the foundation for developing a small set of common measures of the benefits of parks and recreation

•Think Tank will take all available input and reduce the list of “benefit measures” to 10-15 (in May 2003)

•The final list of proposed common measures will be circulated to the partner organizations for comment

•Work with CPRA and CLASS to develop a national database to collect measurement results

•Concurrently pilot the measures in several municipalities

GROUP DISCUSSION TASKS

1. Is the Logic Model a good, common framework?

2. Is the use of the Benefits the right approach for this work?

3. Complete the Survey as individuals

4. As a group, choose THE most important performance measure in each of the 6 Benefit Categories.

THANK YOU