Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and EstablishingCommunity Standards, 2nd Ed.David Ammons (Sage Publications, 2001)Performance measurement provides local governments with a means of keeping score on how their various operations are doing. The key is to focus “not on inputs but on outcomes” (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). Benchmarks measure desired or anticipated performance results, anchored either in professional standards or in the experience of respected municipalities.I. Why measure Performance?- Accountability- Planning/Budgeting- Operational Improvement- Program Evaluation/Management-by-Objectives/Performance Appraisal- Reallocation of Resources- Directing Operations/Contract MonitoringII. Types of Performance MeasuresA. Workload (output) measures  Amount of work performed or amount of services receivedB. Efficiency measures Relationship between work performed and resources required to perform it- Unit costs (cost of service/number of units provided)- Units per labor hourC. Effectiveness (outcomes) measures Degree to which performance objectives are achieved  Quality of local performance Response times and other measures of service quality sometimes usedD. Productivity measures Combines efficiency and effectiveness into single indicator Unit cost per effective service providedIII. Criteria for Performance MeasuresA. ValidB. ReliableC. UnderstandableD. TimelyE. Resistant to Undesired BehaviorF. ComprehensiveG. NonredundantH. Sensitive to Data Collection CostsI. Focused on Controllable Facets of PerformanceIV. Sources of Performance DataA. Existing recordsB. Time logsC. Citizen/client surveysD. Trained observer ratingsE. Specially designed data collection processesV. Resistance of Performance MeasurementA. Reasons:a. Threat to statusb. Implied accusation of poor performancec. Preference for political negotiatingB. Key to success: Secure input and support from frontline employees and supervisors, thereby increasing the likelihood that the right things are being measured and that they are being measured fairly.C. Common objections:a. “You can’t measure what I do!” (usually, from an office characterized by nonroutine work and/or absence of existing data collection systems)- Reply: “If your office closed shop for a few weeks, I know you would be missed. But who would suffer the greatest impact, and what aspect of your work would theymiss the most?”b. “You’ve measured the wrong thing!”- Involve service providers in the decisions- May be due to real differences in opinion—in which case,those disagreements/misunderstandings must be resolved.c. “It costs too much, and we don’t have the resources!”- Like the logger, facing a stack of uncut logs, felt he couldnot spare the time to sharpen his dull saw.d. Summary: There is no reason to embark on performance measurement improvements unless better measures are expected - to lead to improved services, - to make services more efficient, or - to make them more equitable.VI. Developing a Performance Measurement and Monitoring SystemA. Secure managerial commitmentB. Assign responsibility (individual or team) for coordinating departmental effortsC. Select departments/activities/functions for the development of performance measuresD. Identify goals and objectivesE. Design measures that reflect performance relative to objectivesa. Emphasize service quality and outcomesb. Include neither too few nor too many measuresc. Solicit rank-and-file as well as management input/endorsementsd. Identify customers and emphasize service delivery to theme. Consider periodic customer surveysf. Include effectiveness and efficiency measuresF. Determine desired frequency of performance reportingG. Assign department responsibility for data collection & reportingH. Assign centralized responsibility for data receipt & monitoringI. Audit performance data periodicallyJ. Ensure suitable basis for comparisonK. Connect performance measurement to decision processesL. Continually refine performance measures (while maintaining consistency)M. Incorporate measures into public information reportingVII. BenchmarkingA. Compare a jurisdiction’s performance marks against some relevant pega. Compare current performance with previous reporting periodsb. Compare with different units in same jurisdiction providing similarservicec. Compare with national/state standardsd. Compare with private sector performancee. Compare with performance records of other jurisdictionsB. Classical method (private sector)a. Identify best-in-class performersb. Identify practices that make them best-in-classc. Adapt key processes to one’s own organization to close performance gapC. Preferred method (public sector)a. Anticipated or desired performance resultsb. Anchored in either professional standards or the experience of respected municipalitiesD. Issuesa. Data availabilityb. Comparability i. Unaudited dataii. Time frame differencesc. Reactive vs. proactive managementd. Aggregate statistics as camouflageVIII. Benchmarks surveyed in the textA. Animal controlB. City attorneyC. City clerkD. CourtsE. Development administrationF. Emergency communicationG. Emergency medical servicesH. FinanceI. Fire serviceJ. Fleet maintenanceK. Gas and electric serviceL. Human resource administrationM. Information systemsN. LibraryO. Management services P. Parking servicesQ. Parks and recreationR. PoliceS. Property appraisalT. Public healthU. Public transitV. Public worksW. Purchasing and warehousingX. Risk managementY. Social servicesZ. Solid waste collectionAA. Streets, sidewalks, and storm drainageBB. Traffic engineering and controlCC. Utilities business officeDD. Water and sewer