Hello, I am Brian Shelton. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today about LA Scores! our very own local government accountability system. I am very proud to have been given the privilege to work a lot on this initiative. I love my job because I get to work on a variety of business problems with professionals across the entire County government. We need about 30 minutes of your time today to highlight performance management and performance budgeting. As we move through FY2010, into our 4 th year of performance measurement, one of my key Performance Plan Objectives this fiscal year is to begin moving the organization from performance measurement focus to one of performance management. I’d like to introduce our other speakers today – [read slide and gesture with open hand towards each speaker]
From my perspective, there’s nothing new here. Take this moment to think about the powerful intention behind performance measurement and performance management. This is the vision and We are continually working towards it. This is a journey, not a destination. You can find reaffirmations of this in our budget book. Currently, most managers are using performance measurement to justify current service levels and expenditure levels. This is because we are still developing solid 5 year trends for many of our measures. We have just entered our 4 th year of performance measurement, and we have swapped out a number of measures this past year in favor of ICMA measures.
To begin actively managing with performance data, our managers must actively question results and outcomes, and each other. To actively manage performance, managers must instill urgency, quality, and continuous improvement – This is not TQM
Change is Hard, and some of our hard work is beginning to pay off. Let me caution you all that tangible benefits of this system cannot be guaranteed as it truly comes down to the challenges we face day to day and the expertise, attitude and leadership of our employees. That said, we do have some successes to share: They include: We’re updating our financial policies to include expanded, comprehensive guidelines for performance management & measurement. We’re comparing our performance to other jurisdictions via ICMA’s Center for Performance Measurement. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ CFO has selected our report format as an example to build upon for OHA. Now I’m going to turn the floor over to GINA COLUZZI to provide you an example of how the OMB works with other programs to use performance data to justify current service levels.
2008 Citizen Survey – Overall Quality of Los Alamos County Services – 95% surveyed rated it as good or excellent
2008 Citizen Survey – Overall Quality of Los Alamos County Services – 95% surveyed rated it as good or excellent
Disclaimer – This is only one example of where the County provides a high level of service.
In addition to roads, provide snow removal for sidewalks, parking lots, ski hill (high priority to citizens), and ice rink (when snow is too heavy, pavement has to snow blow snow off of ice).
Los Alamos reporting 46.8” snow Next higher jurisdiction is Highland Park IL with 65” snow at .56/inch The highest is Raymore MO with 5.15 snow at $1.74/inch
Los Alamos reporting 46.8” snow Next higher jurisdiction is Highland Park IL with 65” snow at .56/inch The highest is Raymore MO with 5.15 snow at $1.74/inch
Los Alamos reporting 46.8” snow Next higher jurisdiction is Highland Park IL with 65” snow at .56/inch The highest is Raymore MO with 5.15 snow at $1.74/inch
Important to note that not only can we benchmark against other jurisdications, but we can benchmark against ourselves. This can help us find our own efficiences when we examine our own operations. Data is only one factor to help us make the decisions. Public opinion and politics are a big one and do not always rely on the data.
Good morning – I am Sharyl Hofer, HR Manager for the County Upon my arrival to the County, Steve Lynne asked me to be a part of LA Scores steering committee Have seen it go through the development, implementation, evaluation, refinement and continued implementation For each division, team must look first at what the major services are that are provided and who the customer is. HR – customers are external and internal
HR Team met to determine the most critical areas to measure and develop plans for improvement 2 of the 3 measures had documented data demonstrating a need 2002 Survey: 23% low – 33% average – 44% above 2005 Survey: 14% low – 25% average – 60% above 2007 Survey: 12% low – 18% average – 70% above
Initial planning focused on the attraction and retention of employees Utilized internal benchmarks rather than external Identified actions for improvement which consisted of: All this as we continued to provide the variety of services in HR
After 2+ years of implementation, time to evaluate HR measures Evaluation consisted of various methods Big difference was the availability of ICMA measures – which resulted in major revisions
Ratio of HR FTE (minus payroll) per 100 FTE HR has utilized the measures as a look at how we can improve – and look forward to continuing to utilize this.
This excludes overtime for all jurisdictions shown, per ICMA definition.
Graph of top 4 measures – then speak to Became rather aggressive in what we could do Point of being too efficient and not necessarily meeting the needs Executive 180 days Exempt 120 and then 100 Non-exempt 90 and then 75 Public safety 180 days
Graph of top 4 measures – then speak to Became rather aggressive in what we could do Point of being too efficient and not necessarily meeting the needs Executive 180 days Exempt 120 and then 100 Non-exempt 90 and then 75 Public safety 180 days
Graph of top 4 measures – then speak to Became rather aggressive in what we could do Point of being too efficient and not necessarily meeting the needs Executive 180 days Exempt 120 and then 100 Non-exempt 90 and then 75 Public safety 180 days
Embarking on LA Scores was a little different for the library than for many County divisions and departments, because public libraries have been collecting and reporting output measures, and using them to strive toward excellence, for more than 25 years. Additionally, filing an annual report , which contains data relating to output measures, staffing, expenditure information with the State Library is a requirement to receive state aid. Our own library has data for some measures going back to the early 1980’s.
Today we’re going to focus on just one of our measures—material use, or Circulation—and give an example of how the data collected informs planning and decisions that are made.
Every 5 years, the Library convenes a Long Range Planning committee comprising community stakeholders to determine appropriate service responses, which get translated into goals, objectives and activities to implement the elements of the plan. Part of the reason for the growth since FY 06 to the present is the focus (as mandated by the Library’s Long Range plan) on materials relating to current topics and titles, and an increased emphasis on marketing the collection. “ Merchandising” trend in public libraries—bookstore model of displays, end of range shelving, roving display carts, etc.
How does the Library circulation compare nationally? Figures come from ICMA Center for Performance Management data, and feature low, median and high, with our library performance in red.
This shows our library in comparison to all jurisdictions reporting to ICMA/CPM. Note that the national figure isn’t available yet because we are all just now entering our data.
How translate into good management decisions? FTEs in FY 06: 26.75; FTE’s in FY 09: 27.5 ½ in Admin, and ¼ in White Rock
RFID also provides security for the collection, integrity of the on-line catalog, good management and order of the collection.
![Hello! Presenting Today’s Speakers: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()