Performance Measurement Project PRO Conference, Niagara Falls, April 2003

1. CANADIAN PARKS AND RECREATION ASSOCIATION Performance Measurement Project PRO Conference, Niagara Falls, April 2003 Presented by Doris Haas and Jennifer Reynolds

2. BACKGROUND… CPRA RESOLUTION AUGUST 2001, TORONTO “…that CPRA coordinate a process to build on the work done by Parks and Recreation Ontario to develop a performance measurement system for parks and recreation in Canada.”

3. THINK TANKAPRIL 2002, VANCOUVER • Leaders from across Canada – met for 3 days • Sponsored by CLASS SOFTWARE and facilitated by Brian Johnson, PERC • Paul Gauthier Saskatoon, Saskatchewan • Doris Haas Vaughan, Ontario • Don Hunter Surrey, British Columbia • Karen MacTavish Halifax, Nova Scotia • Pierre Morin Montreal, Quebec • Susan Mundick Vancouver, British Columbia • Dave Ladner Calgary, Alberta • Jennifer Reynolds Milton, Ontario • Cathy Matheson CLASS Software

4. THINK TANK OUTCOME! • Confirmed cities across Canada had already launched performance measurement programs • Key objective of our work was development of a measurement framework - common terminology • Consensus - this work needs to focus on “outcome” measures • Utilize Benefit Statements to develop sample measures - worked through (8) statements

5. THINK TANK FOLLOW UP! • Cities contributed $500 to prepare “white paper” • - Halifax • - Vaughan • - Milton • - Calgary • - Surrey • - Saskatoon • Vancouver • Association quebecoise du loisir municipal (AQLM) • - Parks & Recreation Ontario (PRO) and Class Software further supported $ • Contracted Heather Daynard, Prospect Management Enterprises Inc., to develop a measurement framework and to incorporate benefit measures into this process

6. HARNESSING THE POWER OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FOR CANADIAN PARKS AND RECREATION: • a way forward... • Public programs must identify intended benefits and impacts (outcomes) and measure extent they have been realized • Management practices include four steps : • - Planning results to be achieved • - Implementing activities to achieve them • - Measuring actual results • - Reporting results to improve the next cycle • This process is commonly referred to as Performance • Management

7. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CYCLE Plan (where do we want to go?) Activities (how will we implement the plan?) Reports (what will we do to improve?) Measures (how close did we get to our plan?)

8. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT • Success depends on the measurement component • Without measures of achievement, other components • cannot proceed • Performance information is used to set goals, allocate • resources, and report results

9. BENCHMARKING • Performance Management is not the same as • Benchmarking • In order to accurately compare measures, data elements • must be defined and collected uniformly • Benchmarking is the best practice or standard based • on the defined measures

10. WHAT’S IN THIS FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMUNITY? • Process of reporting to stakeholders on intended results - transparent, build awareness and involvement • Demonstrate the benefits for individuals and society - legitimizing the work done in the Benefits Catalogue • Adoption of common set of measures - development of common body of knowledge across parks and recreation programs - strengthen our capacity to manage our field of practice • Assist Departments set and maintain our own agendas rather than having them dictated to us • Increased efficiency and higher quality services - enhanced profile

11. INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES SUPPORT WHICH PRODUCE WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO Actions- developing programs- maintaining facilities Resources- budget- equipment- staff- facilities Product/Service- classes- clean floors- walls painted- trimmed trees Intended Results- value added- individual- community- broad social goals FOCUSING ON THE BENEFITS WE CONTRIBUTE – THE LOGIC MODEL PROCESS • Public programs are obligated to assess our performance on basis of our efficient and productive use of resources (conversion of inputs to outputs) and our achievement of results (outcomes)Logic Model – Logical Sequence

12. LOGIC MODEL - EXAMPLE • Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes • budget, bikeway planning, Plans, meetings, - safer bike routes • staff construction bike paths, signs, - people bike more - • and maintenance - grass cut, use cars less • weeds controlled - reduced auto • - public information emissions materials - increased exercise by citizens • - better air quality • - healthier citizens • - reduced health care costs. etc. • Outcomes can be… Initial Outcome- safer biking routeIntermediate Outcome- people bike more use cars lessUltimate Outcome- better air quality

13. Long-Term Outcomes Short-Term Outcomes Outputs External Uses: Accountability to Political Level Program Advocacy Central Agency Budget Review Public Communication Internal Uses: Strategic Planning Program Evaluation Operational Planning and Control Performance Appraisals CATEGORIZING OUTCOMES –IMPORTANT STEP IN DEVELOPING PERFORMANCE MEASURES

14. POTENTIAL MEASURES – BIKEWAY EXAMPLE • Measures: • total km bikeway per capita • total km bikeway per sq. km. of municipal area • average maintenance costs per km bikeway • average construction cost per km new bikeway • # bike accidents per capita • # bike accidents per sq. km. of municipal area • % of population using bikeways for: leisure, commuting • % of commuters biking to work • % of main commuter corridors served by bikeways • PPM of air pollutants from auto exhaust • average # hours exercise by citizens per week • incidence of asthma in citizens • annual # doctor visits per capita for respiratory ailments • annual # hospital days per capita for respiratory ailments • average level of fitness in citizens • average levels of obesity, high blood pressure and cholesterol in citizens

15. POTENTIAL COMMON MEASURES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENTS • Think Tank - identified key benefits of parks and recreation work • Attempted “logic model approach” to develop a set of potential common measures for these outcomes • Generated a long list of potential benefit measures • Also, drafted a small set of measures of operating efficiency • - useful for comparing various departments across Canada • - compare to industry benchmarks to demonstrate operational prudence

16. CPRA CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER 2002 • Presented similar session • Participants provided input and chose top performance • indicators • Think Tank Report presented to CPRA Board of Directors

17. PROVINCIAL / TERRITORIAL PARTNERS • Document circulated to Provincial / Territorial Partners • for input in February 2003 • PRO is obtaining input during this conference • All input received will be reviewed by the “Think Tank”

18. ROLE OF CPRA • CPRA Board has been asked to support AQLM taking • the lead to further develop performance measures project • CPRA has applied for funding from the Federal Government • to support this initiative • CPRA will determine whether they are able to commit any • funds to this project in the 2003 / 2004 budget

19. WHERE TO NEXT? • Work to date has laid the foundation for developing a small set of common measures of the benefits of parks and recreation • Think Tank will take all available input and reduce the list of “benefit measures” to 10-15 (in May 2003) • The final list of proposed common measures will be circulated to the partner organizations for comment • Work with CPRA and CLASS to develop a national database to collect measurement results • Concurrently pilot the measures in several municipalities

20. GROUP DISCUSSION TASKS • Is the Logic Model a good, common framework? • Is the use of the Benefits the right approach for this work? • 3. Complete the Survey as individuals • 4. As a group, choose THE most important performance measure in each of the 6 Benefit Categories.

21. THANK YOU