1 / 12

National Center for Civic Involvement (NCCI) Grant Advisory Council on Citizen-Friendly Reporting

National Center for Civic Involvement (NCCI) Grant Advisory Council on Citizen-Friendly Reporting. Last Meeting! August 30, 2005. Grant Received March 2004. Purpose : improve the state’s effectiveness in informing the public about agency performance

terris
Download Presentation

National Center for Civic Involvement (NCCI) Grant Advisory Council on Citizen-Friendly Reporting

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. National Center for Civic Involvement (NCCI) Grant Advisory Council on Citizen-Friendly Reporting Last Meeting! August 30, 2005

  2. Grant Received March 2004 • Purpose: improve the state’s effectiveness in informing the public about agency performance • Focus: current performance measure system plus three specific agency projects: • Product: a report to the Progress Board for use in refining 2007-09 budget instructions for performance measurement • Advisory Committee: to provide critical citizen perspective and reality check (8 members)

  3. Meetings in a nutshell • July 2004 • Orientation • Sept 2004 • National criteria for performance reporting • Real time feedback to four volunteer agencies on their annual performance reports* • Oct 2004 • Feedback to Governor’s Chief of Staff on Principles Budget

  4. Meetings in a nutshell, continued • Jan 2005 • Feedback on how to get public interested in newly posted performance reports* • Feedback on customer service guidance* • March 2005 • Update on agency projects • Evaluation options • April 2005 • Update on agency projects • Evaluation plan from HSRI

  5. Getting it over the finish line • September • HSRI presentation of findings to Progress Board at September 20th meeting • October • 1st draft report to you for review • 2nd draft - small review group • November • Final to Progress Board for approval • Final quarterly report to NCCI

  6. Remaining agenda for today • HSRI agency evaluation findings • Discussion of what else should go into your final report, considering • Live feedback to four volunteer agencies’ annual reports* • Feedback on how to get public interested in newly posted performance reports* • Feedback on customer service guidance*

  7. Feedback on agency annual reports (Meeting #2, September 2004) • Readability: proof; keep it at 8th grade level – brief sentences, summarize; provide links or glossary to more detail; use bullet points and TOC with page #s • Data: check accuracy; make as current as possible; explain how data are collected; if not available, explain how you are going to get it • Use peer review • Be as blunt as politically feasible • Discuss what you have actually done (past vs. future) • Add questions about barriers/facilitators to achieving the target; are performance measures dependent on outside factors? • Show legislatively mandated measures impacting local governments • Show financial summary and person hours involved in writing the reports

  8. Feedback on how to get public interested in annual reports online(Meeting #4, January 2005) • Does press only want the bad stuff? #2 • Reports are “ho-hummers” but when packaged with specific examples in aggregate, it may sell to reporters. #2 • Food stamp measure – could be interpreted as careless increase of government dole. (Note - hunger is a priority for this governor.) • Get a reporter to help create a contest and send around the state, asking readers to say what is most impressive/interesting • Tie Oregon Benchmarks to election issues. • Several audiences: legislators, public, and agencies. Limited resources to repackage for different audiences, forcing reports to be all things to all audiences.

  9. Feedback on customer service reporting - 10 line format (Meeting #4, January 2005) • Mixed opinion on TMI. Predominantly, yes, too much information. • Keep percents and lose the average rating. It is less accurate, but more easily understood. • Layered approach is the goal, where people can drill down to more information if desired.

  10. Oregon’s guidelines for performance measures Reports should include: • Purpose and scope • Goals and objectives √ (OR criterion) • Citizen involvement • Multiple levels of reporting √ (external vs. internal) • Analysis of results/challenges √ (annual reports) • Focus on key measures √ (OR criterion) • Reliable information √ (OR criterion) • Relevant measures √ (OR criterion) • Resources used and efficiency √ (OR criterion)

  11. Oregon’s guidelines for performance measures (continued) Reports should include (cont.): • Citizen and customer perceptions √ (new) • Comparisons √ (OR criterion) • Factors affecting results √(OR criterion) • Aggregation and disaggregation • Consistency √ (change process) • User friendliness • Regular and timely reporting √ (biennial)

  12. Questions • How can we better inform the public about agency performance? • How can we get citizens to pay attention? • Should government work to get citizens to pay attention?

More Related