(1)Population well-being
is clearly beyond the responsibility of any one organization or any one level
of government. It is beyond government itself. It requires a whole range of
public and private partners.
(2)Programs and agencies
serve client and customer groups that are (almost always) less than the total
population. It is possible to identify agency and program managers who
can be held responsible.
(3) A given piece of data like "high school graduation rate"
can play two
different ROLES: the role of indicator
and the role of performance
measure. This is like an actor playing two different parts;. same
actor, but one day Hamlet and the next day Lear. So graduation rate is one day
a performance measure for the school system and the next day an indicator of
all children succeeding in school. (This does not mean that
performance measures are sometimes indicators, anymore than it means that
Hamlet is sometimes Lear.)
Full Answer
(1)Population well-being
is clearly beyond the responsibility of any one organization or any one level
of government. It is beyond government itself. It requires a whole range of
public and private partners. People can see this clearly
when an example is used.
TECHNIQUE: Help a group see
how population accountability is beyond any one agency, organization or
government itself: Ask the group to name the potential
partners who have a role to play in “All Children Being Healthy.” (Or
choose another result about children and families or for the entire population
like “Clean Environment” or “Prosperous Economy.”) Ask the group
if any one of these partners can or should be held responsible for the result.
Note that, in the case of "healthy children," it is common for this
responsibility to be pinned on just one department, the Health Department. Now
that we have a fuller list of partners we can see that this is not right. The
Health Department should, perhaps, take the lead in convening the partners
(around a table), and organizing the process, but can not assume full
responsibility.
(2)Programs and agencies
serve client and customer groups that are (almost always) less than the total
population. It is possible to identify agency and program managers who
can be held formally responsible for the performance of that program or
agency.
(3) Advanced view of the relationship between indicators and performance
measures: When a program or agency is small, it is not hard to distinquish the
client population from the total population. But there are some times when a
program (or agency's) clients are close to or the same as the total
population. As a program's client population approaches the total population
(of the state, county, city or community), program performance measures
begin to play a double role. First they are measures of how well the program
is performing. And they can be used as indicators, proxies for the well-being
of the whole population.
EXAMPLE 1: This most often happens in education and public health. The
school superintendent and her senior staff go off on a retreat. The group
discusses performance measures for the school district as an organizational
entity that they are responsible for running. One of the most important
performance measures is "high school graduation rate." The next
day the superintendent goes down the street to the monthly meeting of the
family and children's collaborative. Here, one of the population results the
group has established is "all children succeeding in school," and
one of the indicators is "high school graduation rate." The data
for the graduation rate is playing two different roles, first as a
management performance measure, and second as a proxy for the well-being of
all school age children.
Note that the data element "graduation rate" is playing two
different ROLES. This is like an actor playing two different parts;. same
actor, but one day Hamlet and the next day Lear. So graduation rate is one day
a performance measure and the next day an indicator. This not mean that
performance measures are sometimes indicators, anymore than it means that
Hamlet is sometimes Lear. The constant is the data. The roles are different.
EXAMPLE 2: The
Public Health Department is operating a campaign to improve childhood
immunizations. The campaign can be seen as a program to be managed. And as
such it has performance measures. Such performance measures might include the
unit cost of the vaccines or the accessibility of the service as measured by
percentage of staff hours in mobile vans vs. clinics (upper right quadrant
measures). Client or customer well-being can be measured (in the lower
quadrants) by the number of children immunized and the percent this represents
of the total population. But it can also be measured by the percentage of the
total population that is immunized or the childhood disease rate for
immunizable illnesses. These are total population measures which usually serve
as indicators. Here they are also used in the role of performance measure for
the initiative.
(4) This double role of data helps explain why these ideas have been so
mixed up together over the years. It has been quite common in past (and
unfortunately many current) performance measurement efforts to hold agencies
responsible for indicators. If it's "safe community" then it must be
the police department. If it's "healthy children," then it must be
the health department. And so forth. This has lead to considerable, and well
justified, cynicism about performance measures. Because the heads of these
agencies can easily see that they are one of many players who must work
together to do better. And yet the performance accountablity system pins it on
them alone. One way to deal with this in agency presentations (to the public
or the legislative branch) is as follows:
Make sure every presentation has two parts: Part 1 displays the
community-wide results and indicators the agency is trying to impact as part
of a broad partnership. Part 2 displays the specific performance measures
for the agency and it's component parts.
EXAMPLE 3: The Health Department Director's budget testimony: "We
are here today to present the budget of the Healthy Department for the next
fiscal year. On page one you can see at the top of the page the most
important indicators of the health of our citizens in this (state, county,
city). The Health Department is part of a health coalition addressing these
indicators. This coalition includes the hospitals, doctors, nurses, managed
care organizations, as well as schools, teachers and parents. Here's what we
as a coalition will be doing in the next year to turn the curve on the
indicators you see before you. And here is the Health Department's role in
that effort. Some of these actions require your approval in the budget for
the Department. The actions of other partners are contributed and paid for by
those partners. On the lower portion of the page you can see a summary of
the Department and its component divisions. Presented for each are 2 or 3 of
the most important performance measures. These tell you whether that
particular part of the organization is working well. We use these measures,
and many others, to manage the department and work to provide the very best
possible service. When we get to the budget for each division, we will show
you the baselines for each of these measures, and what we propose to do to
improve performance."
The very structure of this presentation separates population accountability
from agency and program performance accountability. This two part structure
can be used in everything from press releases to the annual report. It helps
keeps the department's role clear. And it helps policy makers see that if they
really want to make progress on population indicators (like immunization
rates, high school graduation rates, juvenile crime rates, poverty rates, etc.)
it will take the actions of many partners, and significant, not token,
investment.
(5)Another place where the boundary between performance measures and indicators
is important is the discussion of service “systems.” Service systems
involve many different agencies and service providers. The important thing to
remember here is that these systems provide service and have clients or
customers. In other words it is possible to distinguish people in the system
receiving service from those outside the system not receiving service. This
means that the measures for the service system performance are performance
measures. So for example, take the entire child welfare system, the rate of
repeat child abuse and child neglect (that is children who come back through
the system a second time) is a performance measure for the system. This is
distinct from the actual population rate of child abuse and repeat child
abuse, which in theory can only be gathered from population surveys and
studies. Again, services system performance measurement data will often play a
double role as indicators.
(6) Prevention programs: prevention programs by their nature
attempt to influence the behavior or condition of an entire population before
they have need to enter the formal service system. In effect their client
population is an entire population. In this case client results and population
results are the same thing. So prevention programs must be judged on measures
which are most often used only as indicators. It is also possible to measure
the effects of prevention on the much smaller group of those people
“contacted” by the prevention program (e.g. those children who attended a
traveling theater production on violence prevention.) This kind of measure
then cleanly follows the ruled for performance measures. Prevention programs
should have both kinds of measures.
(7) It
would be useful to help government leaders understand the different choices that go with
these two kinds of work.Most
states have some version of performance measurement under way - efforts of
various quality. Relatively few have population results efforts with an active
process to engage communities.
(8) Is any framework that uses the word Aresult@
equally worth consideration by decision makers. This
is what many other publications on results have done. Maybe it=s
a good way to Aposition@
the organization sponsoring the publication, but there is a risk that the work will lose its conceptual center and
point of view. It is necessary to be
more explicit about the different kinds of results-based work. Rather than gloss
over these differences, take them head on. For example:
AResults
based decision making includes many different types of efforts that share in
common the plain language articulation of desired conditions of well-being for
agency customers or population groups, the business-like use of data to drive
decision making, and the development of partnerships to steer the work and
contribute to its success. Not all efforts which use the word Aresult@ in
fact have these characteristics. The two most important types of results-based
decision making efforts are (1) those which focus inside government or private
agencies to improve the performance of services provided to customers of those
agencies, and (2) those more broadly based efforts which address the well-being
of whole populations, like the work in many states to make Aall
children healthy and ready to learn.@