Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program for the 15th NISPAcee Annual Conference Program Overview VII. Working Group on Capacity Building of Civil Servants... Author(s) Roman Kiflyuk The National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council of Ukraine Kyiv Ukraine Title Foreign experience of using performance measurement programs in Local Government File Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. Presenter Abstract The use of performance measures in local government is being driven by increased citizen demands for government accountability, greater interest on the part of local legislators in performance related information to assist in program evaluation and resource allocation decisions, and the efforts of various organizations and professional associations to make governments more results-oriented. Performance measurement allows policy makers, managers, and citizens to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of government services. Performance measures include inputs (resources used), outputs (program activities), efficiency measures (ratio of inputs to outputs), and outcomes (the actual results of programs and services). Many performance measurement systems are limited to measuring program inputs and outputs. Ideally, however, performance measurement efforts will also generate information about program results and outcomes. Outcome-based management is not new in the public sector. Some U.S. cities have developed it over the past two decades; some states are beginning to; and other countries such as Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand are on their way. Based on the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, performance measurement was defined in 1980 as an assessment of an organization's performance, including measures of: · Productivity, which quantifies the outputs and inputs of an organization and expresses the two as a ratio. Generally, the ratio is expressed as output to input (for example, inspections per staff-day). · Effectiveness, which determines the relationship of an organization's outputs to what an organization is intended to accomplish. · Quality, which examines an output or the process by which an output is produced. Quality is indicated by attributes such as accuracy (or error rate), thoroughness, and complexity. Usually, performance management is described as contributing to the following: · Better decision-making: it provides managers with information to perform their management control functions; · Performance appraisal: it links both individual and organizational performance to aspects of personnel management and motivates public employees; · Accountability: it fosters responsibility on the part of managers; · Service delivery: Improvements in public service performance; · Public participation: clear reporting of performance measures can stimulate the public to take a greater interest in and provide more encouragement for government employees to provide quality services; and · Improvement of civic discourse: it helps to make public deliberations about service delivery more factual and specific. Both effectiveness and efficiency measures are needed to properly assess service delivery. Without effectiveness measures, the cheapest form of service delivery would be perceived as optimal because it would yield the lowest cost per unit. With effectiveness measures, other factors are evaluated such as how well services meet municipal service quality goals and expectations of the public.
