Chapter 3 MANAGING FOR RESULTS—AN …

1 Chapter 3 MANAGING FOR results AN OVERVIEWBy Jonathan Walters, Mark Abrahams, and James FountainIntroductionSystemized techniques have been developed for tracking spending and activities of government in relation to theresults they are trying to achieve. Widely known as MFR, MANAGING for results is an approach to public policy andadministration that has the promise to improve how government is viewed and how it operates. This Chapter providesan overview of one approach to the concept of is a way to recast planning, budgeting, management, and reporting in direct relation to what governmentwants (or is expected) to accomplish. The ideas behind MFR are basic: to identify the needs a government is tryingto address; to develop an overall plan (mission, goals, objectives, and strategies) for addressing those needs; to comeup with policies, programs, and services to meet those needs; to organize and implement budgeting, accounting, andmanagement systems that support the strategies, goals, and objectives laid out in the overall plan; andfinally todevelop and track cost and performance data that allow the government to gauge its progress in reaching its goalsand objectives, and tweaking (or changing) strategies, programs, policies, management systems, or budgets government operations in such terms can have powerful impacts on government decision making andresults.

2 Take the area of law enforcement, for example, which arguably has been one of the leading program andservice areas in adopting MFR practices. In one state, members of the state highway patrol used to be judged by howmany tickets they wrote, how many drivers in distress they helped, and how many miles of state highway they coveredduring a shift. This led to predictable action on the part of officers they would write the requisite number of tickets,help the requisite number of drivers in distress, and cover the requisite miles while on major changed, however, when the state police switched to an MFR approach. A key unwritten goal ofthe department had always been safe, smooth-running highways, but there was never any real connection betweenthat goal and what patrol officers thought they were supposed to do every day.

3 Therefore, the department decided tomake the broader goal of safe, efficient highways one of the prime directives influencing the actions of their officersin thefield. And so, instead of judging a patrol officer on traffic stops, drivers helped, and so forth, the departmentstarted to evaluate a district s performance and by extension a patrol officer s performance by more results -oriented criteria such as accident rates throughout the state highway system (that is, safe highways).Almost immediately, state patrol officers started to think and behave differently. When officers wrote tickets underthe new policy, they wrote them specifically to slow drivers along particularly hazardous stretches of road. If therewere other problems on their roads, such as potholes or poorly marked lanes that had the potential to contribute toaccidents, officers were diligent in reporting them.

4 The transportation department was now made aware of thesepotential problems and couldfix them. Not surprisingly, accident rates have gone down environmental arena is another area that has seen significant shifts in behavior when programs refocused fromprocess to results . In another state, for example, the department of environmental protection began working moreclosely with businesses on pollution prevention, as opposed to writing permits for toxic releases and then chasingoffenders in a game of catch andfine. What regulatory officialsfigured out is that if the state really focused onresults a reduction of toxic releases (and, therefore, a cleaner environment) then it made more sense to work withbusinesses at the front end on ways to reduce pollution production, generally, rather than attempting to control thewhole process by regulating what comes out of the end of the pipe or of the policy area, MFR is clearly meant to get policymakers, program officials, and front-line workersthinking about results as the reason for providing service.

5 This means they begin identifying and collecting the kindof data that will allow them to connect what they do the policies they set, the money they spend, the actions theypursue from upper-level managers down to the front line to the results they want to : An overview of the BasicsWhat is actually involved in developing a comprehensive MFR approach to governance? Some have called it MANAGING by common sense. Essentially, the approach to MFR presented in this Chapter involves seven basic steps(see Chart ). Although they are presented here as discrete and separate, the steps are in fact interwoven andshould feed back, forth, and across. Governments have implemented the MFR process in various ways and to varyingdegrees; there is no hard-and-fast formula. The key is to understand the basics: plans that focus government on realneeds and desired outcomes, programs and services that address those needs, performance measures for gauginghow efficiently and effectively government is working toward fulfilling the needs and achieving the desired outcomes,and adjusting strategies (programs and services) and budgets based on what needs to be done and the data flowingback to decision for results (strategic planning).

6 This includes developing a broad set of goals and objectives forgovernment, based on a clear understanding of the needs government is supposed to be addressing asestablished by policymakers, ideally in response to constituent inputs about their concerns. Such goals andobjectives may come in the form of a mission statement based on identified needs or may simply be a list that setsout the principal areas where government wants to see progress. Such a planning process may also includedeveloping clear policy directions and directives that begin to push the overall plan down to the operational includes looking at how departments deliver services and whether those servicescontribute to achieving the government s broader goals and objectives. It may also include departmental strategicplans, including mission statement, needs assessments, a set of specific departmental and program goals andobjectives, and a set of services (strategies) for producing outputs necessary for achieving those goals meaningful performance involves working with the relevant departments (fromdirector, to front-line staff, and in some cases to citizens/customers/clients) to come up with meaningful measuresaimed at judging progress (or lack thereof) in meeting goals and objectives.

7 A full set of measures also will includedata on activities (the type and amount of work being done) and on costs (including direct costs of providingChart : MANAGING for results Process14services or doing other work, along with indirect and overhead costs). Governments generally develop input,output, efficiency, service quality, and outcome indicators to track the extent to which program and activity goalsand objectives and desired outcomes are being for involves allocating resources based on some set of negotiated priorities that take intoconsideration the government s stated goals and objectives. To accomplish this, the line-item budget is normallyreformatted to allocate resources based on strategies for achieving outcomes associated with the goals andobjectives that the government has determined it wants to and using the data to manage work involves developing systems (for example,databases, accounting) for collecting data at the desired program or activity level and then assessing the data andregularly (weekly, monthly) monitoring them for indications of the extent to which goals and objectives are beingachieved and how efficiently and effectively programs are operating.

8 The results of these continuing assessmentsare then used at the operational level to make adjustments to programs and services and and responding to is a more formal, overall assessment of what the data are tellinggovernment about the effectiveness and efficiency of the programs and services both provided internally andthrough outside contracts. Such assessments typically are in the form of formal periodic reports to upper-levelcareer and appointed officials, and elected officials. Often these evaluations, which are used in setting policies andbudgets for future operating years, are made quarterly or less involves communicating to elected and appointed officials and constituents a comprehen-sive set of clear, decipherable performance measures. Reporting generally involves communicating the extent towhich the government s goals and objectives are being achieved with information to assist users in assessing theefficiency and effectiveness of the program(s).

9 Why Manage for results ?The advantages of MFR are straightforward: MFR allows governments to organize around an evaluation of whatthey are trying to accomplish, and what is working and what is not based on program performance and costinformation. Is the government efficiently and effectively achieving its goals and objectives?Reasons that individual governments may consider pursuing MFR include: To focus government more clearly on citizens (including citizens as customers or clients ) and the services theyneed or want, and less on organization and process To establish goals and objectives and to track whether those goals and objectives are being achieved To answer such questions as: How efficient and effective are the government s services? What are the services quality levels and how can they be improved?

10 To allocate resources, set policies, and organize government in as close accord as possible with desired outcomes To determine the degree to which programs and services are aligned with the results the government is trying toachieve To modify policies, programs, services, or budgets in midstream based on performance data and results as theyflow in To compare the government s performance to itself over time, or with that of other governments (or in certaincircumstances, the private sector if such a comparison is appropriate) To better communicate to the public and legislative bodies what government is accomplishing, the extent to whichgoals and objectives are being achieved, and how efficiently and effectively government is MANAGING for ResultsFor governments that are interested in implementing MFR, there is no single, absolutely right way to go about , programs, services, and management systems all vary in complexity and size among governments.