|
Videos
May 20, 2009 By Wayne Hanson
President Obama in February outlined some fundamental principles for the disbursement of stimulus funds. "We are asking the American people to trust their government with an unprecedented level of funding to address the economic emergency," he said. " In return, we must prove to them that their dollars are being invested in initiatives and strategies that make a difference in their communities," and called for accountability and transparency in the management of stimulus funds.
Most jurisdictions across the country are accustomed to reporting to state and federal entities, and many have instituted unprecedented levels of financial transparency. Performance management tools can help fulfill the reporting requirements, improve transparency and help to refine and improve the processes of government to better achieve "making a difference." Lane County, Oregon, is serious about taking on those challenges.
In the fall of 2005 Lane County, Ore., began a pilot implementation of performance management software in the Health and Human Services Department. "We refined all the metrics being used in the department," said Lane County Senior Management Analyst Jennifer Inman "Unlike other organizations, we didn't develop a balance score card or a set of key indicators that we measured from the top down. We developed program-level manager-level metrics to use for data-driven decision-making on a day-to-day or month-to-month basis."
The county has since expanded the performance management program to 14 departments -- using Actuate software -- covering services from road maintenance to immunizations, building permits, deeds and records. "We have so many different kinds of work in our organization," said Inman, "that each area develops their own sets of metrics to report. Some of those areas have very detailed program-level measures -- efficiency and service quality, customer satisfaction -- and others have high-level measures that are reported at the department level. Some departments use the software and do performance management in quite detailed ways, and other departments do performance measure to report out annually or biannually to the county and other funders -- and then through our budget process to the public."
With stimulus funding transparency and accountability a high-profile issue, metrics could be key. Inman said that the county is expecting stimulus funding for public works and health and has grant documents for its federally qualified health center. But as yet there are no specifics on the kinds of outcome data that might be required. She said most likely it would be focused on the quantity of services provided under a specific level of funding. "Customer service and its impact, number of immunizations, first-birth families that we are able to screen into our healthy start program, numbers about outcomes for infant mortality -- we have different touchpoints to look at.
You may use or reference this story with attribution and a link to
http://www.govtech.com/health/County-Program-Management-Provides-Actionable-Data.html
Collaborative Justice: Transforming Criminal Justice Services Through Unified Collaboration
Cloud-Based Services Accelerate Public Sector Adoption of Video Collaboration
People in Oregon should ask the question, how much did this REALLY cost?
People in Oregon should ask the question, how much did this REALLY cost?
People in Oregon should ask the question, how much did this REALLY cost?
The only direct cost for the transition to performance management software was $156,000 in 2005. This was paid by all departments/funds with $56,020 paid by Lane County's general fund. No additional staff were hired. The transition to use of the software has taken several years with a gradual movement toward increased use of the performance measures database. Measurement of performance outcomes is not an option for most County services. Reporting of program results is required by state and federal funders, expected by our policy makers and community members, and essential to maintaining our high fiscal and program management standards.
The only direct cost for the transition to performance management software was $156,000 in 2005. This was paid by all departments/funds with $56,020 paid by Lane County's general fund. No additional staff were hired. The transition to use of the software has taken several years with a gradual movement toward increased use of the performance measures database. Measurement of performance outcomes is not an option for most County services. Reporting of program results is required by state and federal funders, expected by our policy makers and community members, and essential to maintaining our high fiscal and program management standards.
The only direct cost for the transition to performance management software was $156,000 in 2005. This was paid by all departments/funds with $56,020 paid by Lane County's general fund. No additional staff were hired. The transition to use of the software has taken several years with a gradual movement toward increased use of the performance measures database. Measurement of performance outcomes is not an option for most County services. Reporting of program results is required by state and federal funders, expected by our policy makers and community members, and essential to maintaining our high fiscal and program management standards.
It is important to estimate all costs associated with such projects so that performance benefits, if and when they occur, can be assessed from a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness standpoint. Presumably, staff implementing the new system were doing something productive prior to its adoption, so calculation of such opportunity costs will help understanding of true system implementation and maintenance costs.
It is important to estimate all costs associated with such projects so that performance benefits, if and when they occur, can be assessed from a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness standpoint. Presumably, staff implementing the new system were doing something productive prior to its adoption, so calculation of such opportunity costs will help understanding of true system implementation and maintenance costs.
It is important to estimate all costs associated with such projects so that performance benefits, if and when they occur, can be assessed from a cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness standpoint. Presumably, staff implementing the new system were doing something productive prior to its adoption, so calculation of such opportunity costs will help understanding of true system implementation and maintenance costs.