1 / 15

Draft Report May 18, 2005

Performance Counts! Evaluation Report on Phase II Budget Integration Presentation to the Guiding Coalition. Draft Report May 18, 2005. Contents. Introduction Background Phase II Objectives & Tasks Phase II Results Lessons Learned Implementation Approach Organization Process Technology

casper
Download Presentation

Draft Report May 18, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Performance Counts! Evaluation Report on Phase II Budget IntegrationPresentation to the Guiding Coalition Draft Report May 18, 2005

  2. Contents • Introduction • Background • Phase II Objectives & Tasks • Phase II Results • Lessons Learned • Implementation Approach • Organization • Process • Technology • Recommendations

  3. Introduction • Performance Counts! represents the County of Los Angeles’ focus on building an overall performance measurement framework for the County. The Performance Counts! common reporting format is based on answering two fundamental program evaluation questions: • What results did we achieve? • How well did we achieve those results? Background • Implementation was recognized from the beginning as amulti-year process. The effort began in December 2002 with endorsement of the pilot program by the Guiding Coalition. The effort was expanded in July 2003 with a countywide orientation session for rollout to all County departments. The 2004-05 budget represented the first effort to present performance results consistently for all County departments. All County departments included measures, but not necessarily for all their programs.

  4. Introduction Phase II Budget Integration The next stage of this effort began in July 2004 and focused on aligning the PC! programs and budgets for seven pilot departments, thereby initiating integration of PC! into County resource and management decision-making; pilot results are reflected in the 2005-06 Proposed Budget. The focus of thePhase II Performance Counts! pilot was to align programs and budget reporting units to more effectively integrate performance results into budget decision-making and answer “What resources are invested to achieve what results?”. The seven Phase II pilot departments are: • Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures • Auditor-Controller • Children & Family Services • Internal Services • Health Services • Mental Health • Public Social Services

  5. Introduction Similar to other Strategic Plan-related initiatives, the Guiding Coalition provided overall leadership. Other key team members included: • Auditor-Controller, who led the integration with County’s new financial system, eCAPS • Staff from three CAO units: Budget and Operations Management Branch, Office of Unincorporated Areas Services and Special Projects, and Service Integration Branch • Pilot departments Executive, Administrative and Budget/Finance and Program staff. The pilot effort concluded with the development of the integrated budgets for inclusion in the 2005-06 Proposed Budget.

  6. Introduction • Phase II Results • All pilot departments have completed or initiated budget integration, leveraging the functionality that is now available in eCAPS. Two other “non-pilot” departments, Parks and Recreation and Beaches and Harbor made similar progress on their own initiative. • Methodology for aligning budgets using eCAPS has been developed and documented. • Several pilot departments have used the pilot as the trigger to re-examine how their budgets are developed as well as financial and budget reporting to better understand cost drivers in their organization. • Several departments have begun to structure performance-based decision making models within their organization. • Pilot departments have developed a recommended set of common administrative measures for all County departments to utilize as a core set of performance measures for internal administrative functions.

  7. Lessons Learned: Implementation is a Multi-Phased Process • Awareness/Recognition – Create a common understanding of the value, concepts and use of performance measurement as a management tool, including: • Definition– Define and apply the concepts to each department/organization and its services and work, including developing programs, selecting measures, and developing data sets for measurement reporting. • Integration – Integrate the use of performance measures into management decision-making, including financial and management strategies, resource allocation, improvement efforts, organizational priorities, etc.

  8. Lessons Learned: Implementation is a Multi-Staged Process Implementation Continuum Awareness/ Recognition Definition Integration Organizations rely on metrics to drive improvement efforts and track organization’s performance. Utilize performance based decision making models. Organizations begin to see the value of relying on performance-based data and begin to build infrastructure to support ongoing performance measurement. Organizations recognize the importance of developing performance measures either due to internal or external pressures and began to build reporting systems.

  9. Characteristics of Implementation Stages

  10. Lessons Learned • Departments are at various stages in implementing PC! Departments that are moving to the right on this continuum are generally: • Larger departments • Departments with Federal or State mandates which reinforce these efforts • Departments which have made a significant investment of management time and resources. • Best practices are emerging within the County for integration: • DPSStats – Model for performance-based decision-making • DCFS – Using performance data to drive cultural and organizational change • DMH – Linking contract provider service expectations with improvement results • Auditor-Controller – Service agreements outlining outcome-based service and performance standards.

  11. Challenge: How to Move More Departments Individually. and the County Collectively, from Left to Right? • Continue to support progress on Performance Counts! through people, process and technology investments • Foster the success of departments that are making investments while reducing the degree of variance of progress in other departments • Capitalize and “spread” the intellectual capital that the County has created among departments and managers

  12. Organizational Recommendations • Dedicate resources to lead and support future stages of PC! implementation. • Department Support/Coordination Needs – Many departments continue to struggle with key definitional and structural issues, such as how to define programs. Leadership required to provide consistent answers and reinforce the value of the “learning process” in the development of results and measures. • Resources and Leadership - Diversify leadership and knowledge; build on support from Quality and Productivity Commission; form an Interdepartmental Leadership Team to guide process and share emerging best practices. Consider full-time central coordination staffperson to lead effort. • Education/Training – Growing gap in knowledge and implementation among departments; continued training and reinforcement required. Develop an Academy program focused on Performance-Based Management.

  13. Process Recommendations • Revise existing performance-based reporting structures to eliminate duplicative reporting and align performance measures • Re-evaluate format and structure of Children and Families Budget (CFB) – Overlapping programs in PC! and CFB. Should CFB be subset of PC! programs? Prioritize reporting components of CFB which are most responsive to external and internal needs. Continue current efforts of CFB programs established within eCAPS to allow for budget and actual reporting and reduce departmental “estimating”. • County Progress Report – Report on subset of PC! measures selecting “leading indicators” which are of high external interest. (Proposed approach for 2005 version).

  14. Technology Recommendations • Continue to build and reinforce eCAPS integration • Unless PC! is integrated into budget reporting, the effort will not be sustained. The work with pilot departments started that process of incorporating of developing the CFB within eCAPS and as part of Propose Budget. This effort should be continued and eliminate offline systems to support reporting. • Broader roll-out will require higher level of support from Auditor-Controller, CAO (Budget) and department finance and program management • Multiple “approaches” and strategies for eCAPs integration have been developed; departments will require coaching on which approach best matches to their organizational needs. Continue to rely on trained staff within eCAPS team. • Continue to support County standard for performance reporting.

  15. 2005-06 Implementation Plan • Goal 4, Strategy 1, Objective 2: By September 2005, begin implementation to expand the project to at least 10 more County departments for the 2006-07 Proposed Budget based on lessons learned. • Which departments? • How many? • Address resources required to support next stage of implementation

More Related