Tracking and Using Performance Metrics
A state’s first step toward performance-driven governance is to define its priorities so that all the stakeholders know the results they are trying to achieve. Once the priorities are defined, states need to develop performance measurements to help track whether or not they are achieving the desired results.
Performance metrics offer critical information to policymakers so they can oversee the efficiency and effectiveness of agency strategies and programs and hold leaders accountable. In addition, together with the state strategic plan, the metrics help create the framework for the state budget and assist states in directing funds to programs that achieve desired results.
Once agencies develop and begin tracking performance information, it is not only important for the executive branch to use this information in decision making but also just as critical that legislators do so. To be most effective, the executive and legislative branches need to be on the same page – using the same information to make decisions for the state.
For more information on how performance metrics can help states spend money smarter in tough economic times, see the Pew recent publication, “Trade-Off Time: How Four States Continue to Deliver.” For more information on legislative use of performance metrics, see “Five Actions to Enhance State Legislative Use of Performance Information” from the IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Moving Forward
States use performance metrics in numerous ways, and some states more effectively than others. When considering developing or improving performance metrics, states should:
- Develop high-value metrics focused on specific outcomes.
- Track performance information regularly to measure success.
- Hold agencies accountable for achieving results for citizens.
- Link performance metrics to budget requests.
- Make performance information available to the public so they clearly understand them.
Develop high-value performance metrics. High-value metrics are those focused on the specific outcomes desired and demonstrate whether or not those outcomes are being achieved. These metrics must answer the question, “How effectively and efficiently is the agency achieving its mission?”
The number of metrics should be kept to a minimum. Tracking too much information can cause confusion regarding which metrics are most important and therefore lead to ineffective management, so agencies should whittle them down to a short list of those that most directly relate to the agency’s mission.
Ultimately, agencies may feel it is important to track measures other than outcomes, such as inputs, processes, efficiencies or outputs. In fact, Virginia requires agencies to include metrics on inputs, outputs and outcomes. These measures may be helpful in certain situations, but they should be used in addition to, and not replace, outcome measurements.
For example, Virginia may track the following types of measurements:
- Input – The number of building inspectors
- Output – The number of inspections performed
- Outcome – The number of sites passing safety inspections
Knowing the input and output measures is important, but only by tracking outcomes measurement will an agency know whether it is achieving its mission.
Track performance information regularly. States employ a number of methods to track performance, including Web-based database systems and requiring performance reports. To be most effective, performance information should be reported as frequently as possible, so people have access to the most up-to-date information.
State Examples:
- Michigan has developed MiPlan, a Web-enabled, Oracle database that enables state agency representatives to enter and track statewide and departmental initiatives. The MiPlan monitors more than 500 agency-specific initiatives, and key projects are assessed by the governor at bi-weekly cabinet meetings using the tool.
- Utah uses a balanced scorecard to track performance data on important output and efficiency measures of agencies and reports this information to the governor’s office monthly. As performance data is collected, it is updated on the Performance Elevated Web site.
- Washington has developed the Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP) system and created DataView, a Web-based system that agencies update quarterly, to prepare reports for the governor that provide information about the performance of top priority areas. To view an example of how agencies use DataView, click here.
- Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who developed CitiStat as mayor of Baltimore, created StateStat (click to see StateStat legislation) upon becoming governor to monitor the performance of state agencies. Agencies are required to submit regular reports on their progress. For more information on StateStat in action, see the Pew publication “Trade-Off Time.”
- Virginia requires agencies to develop and maintain strategic plans that include metrics on inputs, outputs and outcomes. Agencies post these measures online on the state’s Virginia Performs Web site. For more information on how Virginia uses performance metrics, see the Pew publication “Trade-Off Time.”
- New Mexico’s Legislative Finance Committee distributes Agency Performance Report Cards that use “dashboard reporting” to indicate the overall status of projects vis-a-vis their stated metrics by coding them green, yellow or red. Agency Performance Report Cards are released twice per year.
- Iowa state agencies produce monthly performance reports and hold internal meetings to discuss progress.
- Missouri agencies have expanded their use of performance measures outside the scope of budget requests and integrated performance information into their overall operations. The state now tracks, analyzes and reports performance information quarterly instead of annually to measure progress.
Hold agencies accountable. Once the performance information is collected, states should use it to make decisions and hold all agencies accountable for results. Performance agreements between the governor and agency directors should reflect the governor’s expectations of the extent to which the agency will contribute to the achievement of the goals in the statewide strategic plan. Agency directors should also incorporate agency strategic plan metrics in the performance plans of the managers and employees. In addition to the governor, members of the legislative branch should also be using performance metrics to make decisions.
State Examples:
- In Utah, the Governor’s Office of Economic Development recently cut a $300,000 program to help businesses recruit employees when the program could not show measurable success, and a portion was used to fund an online recruitment program to encourage former Utah residents to move back. Utah was one of the four states profiled in the Pew publication “Trade-Off Time.”
- In Maryland, the governor and his executive staff hold bi-weekly StateStat meetings with state managers to report and answer questions on agency performance and priority initiatives. In addition, weekly executive briefings for each agency detailing areas of concern are based on key performance metrics from the customized data templates submitted to the StateStat office biweekly by participating agencies. (To view a sample template from the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, click here.) Throughout this process, the governor and his staff carefully analyze data, closely monitor performance trends, and develop strategies to achieve improved performance.
- In Georgia, the chief operating officer and chief financial officer hold quarterly one-on-one sessions with agency heads to assess performance measures on key initiatives and ongoing operations. Teams of agencies organized by priority area also meet with the chief operating officer every few weeks to collaborate and solve problems.
- In Iowa, the governor negotiated performance agreements with agency directors and evaluated them each year, basing salary increases on achievements related to the metrics in their strategic plans.
- Michigan’s Web-enabled database allows performance information to be continuously updated. The governor regularly tracks the information in MiPlan and assesses key projects at bi-weekly cabinet meetings.
- Indiana’s Department of Child Services was performing poorly on nearly all indicators: child support collection, investigation of abuses, and the ratio of case-workers to children. To improve the safety of Indiana’s most vulnerable children, state policymakers funded an increase that doubled the number of caseworkers. Although it is too early to declare success, reports of repeat abuse are declining and children appear to be staying protected and safe for longer periods of time. For more information on Indiana’s continuing progress in using performance metrics, see the state profiled in the Pew publication “Trade-Off Time.”
- Washington’s Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP) system tracks information that the governor and her team use during frequent, public meetings with agency directors that discuss their progress and any barriers to reaching their goals. Agencies are responsible for addressing and reporting back on outstanding issues. The governor also uses this information to make a case to the legislature and the public about desired changes.
Link performance metrics to the budget process. As the “Defining State Priorities” section of this Web site mentions, performance measures should link to the budget process to ensure greater accountability. In developing the budget, both the executive and legislative branches should focus on agency goals and draw a clear relationship between spending and achievement of those goals.
State Examples:
- Iowa agencies provide performance measures in their budget justifications, which compare past, present, and future performance. The performance levels illustrate through different scenarios how different amounts of funding would increase or decrease related performance measures; moreover, agencies are required to commit to achieving future expected performance levels. Thus, legislators have the information they need to make decisions in the best interests of citizens.
- Utah’s governor is allowed by law to require agencies to submit budget requests that include “program productivity and performance measures, where appropriate, with emphasis on outcome indicators.” In recent years, the governor has required agencies to align their budget submissions with their agency plans using the same performance measures. Agencies also annually report key performance information to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget and the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, as part of the budget process.
- Missouri’s House Appropriations Committee staff developed the “Suggested Guidelines and Procedures for Appropriations Committees” to help members focus budget hearings on performance, oversight and accountability. The guidelines are meant to revise the way members review agency budget information and focus them on whether agencies are tracking the right performance measures and whether they are achieving desired outcomes, so that they can use this information to make decisions on the budget.
- Maryland’s StateStat, a data management system that monitors 10 major departments, helps the governor identify where to trim to achieve savings and better results. For example, the state closed an under-capacity juvenile justice detention facility, saving $1.5 million. Of that money, $600,000 was reallocated to less expensive community-based youth initiatives that use evidence-based family therapy and education programs proven to be more effective than incarceration.
- Michigan’s performance information from MiPlan, a Web-enabled, Oracle database, is used in short- and long-term planning for the state. MiPlan enables a planning process that can be continuously updated and allows the state to incorporate long-term strategic planning into the day-to-day operations of government, which ensures a balance of long-term and short-term objectives.
- New Mexico’s Agency Performance Report Cards are used to review agency budget requests to determine where money will be spent.
- Virginia uses the performance data and objectives to drive the funding decisions when the budget office develops the state’s budget.
- Washington’s governor uses information from the Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP) system to make a case to the legislature for desired changes in agency funding levels.
Make the information public. Taxpayers should be kept up-to-date on the results that state agencies are, or are not, achieving. Several states are posting agency results online to share this information with the public.
State Examples:
