|
|
|
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (GASB)
AUSTIN, TX
Austin
follows a managing-for-results emphasis in their measurement effort. A
number of events have moved the city towards the use of performance
measures:
1985:
Auditor’s office initiates performance auditing.
1989-1994:
The city manager adopts TQM.
1992: The
City Council adopts a resolution on performance measurement and reporting.
1994:
Auditor’s office audits the city’s measurement system.
1997:
Community Scorecard, a productivity performance report is issued by city
management.
1998:
Auditor conducts third audit of the city’s performance measurement and
reporting system.
1999: A
“corporate partnership” between city management and the Auditor’s office
begins implementing a performance accountability system.
A number of
people cited accountability as the principle intent of performance
measurement. The main document for communicating performance is the
budget. There is a Community Scorecard which has aggregated
measures—per capita figures. There is also an annual auditor’s report.
Some departments are beginning to publish performance information on the
web (e.g., fire dept).
Items of
note include:
-
Despite
the range of communication activities, most commented that the city
should be more systematic in how it informs citizens.
-
The city
conducts an annual survey. Public Works and Transportation report a
high level of citizen support.
-
Staff from
the city of Austin’s Sustainable Communities Initiative convened a group
of community leaders to consider starting a regional Sustainability
Indicators project. A diverse 50-person advisory board was formed with
representation from three counties representing three views (economic
development, environment, and social equity). The Sustainability
Indicators project gave 25 presentations to community groups across
three counties and conducted a community survey on priority issues
published in the Austin American-Statesman newspaper in both Spanish and
English. In April 1999, they conducting visible public outreach. The
project was not mentioned in any of the interviews.
-
Citizens
and the media were not mentioned in the interviews as users of
information or as significant participants in developing measures.
-
In an
auditor’s survey of city government managers, performance measurement
was rated low in terms of its ability to meet the needs of council
members and citizens. The exception involves some citizens raising
performance questions in public budget meetings.
-
Most
boards and commissions have not been involved in the development or
review of performance measures.
-
While
citizens do not play a major role in developing or using the measures of
most departments, they do play an important role in providing customer
focused performance data for the city and its departments through an
annual citizen satisfaction survey and other individual department
surveys.
-
At the
time of the interviews, many officials expressed a desire to improve
communication with the press and residents.
-
Audit
staff see the linking of department performance indicators to
higher-level City Livability Indicators and Council Priority Indicators
as the key to helping citizens understand measurement efforts better.
Local Governments:
Austin, TX;
Multnomah County, OR;
Portland, OR;
Prince William County,
VA;
Tucson, AZ;
Phoenix, AZ; Winston-Salem, NC;
Catawba County, NC;
Dayton,
OH;
Coral Springs, FL;
Long Beach, CA;
Ramsey County, MN
State Governments:
Arizona,
Illinois,
Iowa,
Louisiana,
Oregon,
Texas
Background Information:
|
|
|
