By Milan J. Dluhy Professor of Public Administration University of North Carolina Wilmington

1. Knowledge Management in Housing and Transportation Policy: How to Connect Performance Measurement and Decision Making By Milan J. Dluhy Professor of Public Administration University of North Carolina Wilmington

2. Background • Over 200 Community Indicator Projects in the U.S. • “Bottoms up” projects, developed at local level • No common structure or template for measures • Literature shows Quality of Life Projects, Benchmarking Projects, Economic Indicators, Social Indicators, Health Communities and Cities, Sustainable Cities Projects • Diversity in purpose and focus • All projects appeared aimed at influencing policy agendas • Common theme is to emphasize a “results oriented management approach • Little literature on the actual utilization of PM by decision makers

3. Purposes of Paper • How to Develop more comprehensive Performance Measures in Community Based Decision Making (in housing and transportation) • How to get Decision Makers and other Community Stakeholders to use Performance Measures more frequently (in housing and transportation) • How to provide better advice to Decision Makers at the Local Level (in housing and transportation)

4. Definition-PMA performance measure is a quantifiable,enduring measure of outcomes, outputs, efficiency, or cost effectiveness. In general, measures should be related to an agency’s/ community’s mission and programs, and they should not merely measure one-time or short term activities.

5. Uses of PMs • Track projects in a strategic plan • Track accomplishment of goals in planning/policy • Track policy and program outcomes over time • Report community progress to decsion makers and public • Benchmark with other jurisdictions to gauge effectiveness of effort • Track performance over time to determine trends, progress, and priorities

6. How to Improve Connections between Knowledge and Policy • Always use (and include) a wide range of measures when deciding what data will be collected • Emphasize outcomes and outputs whenever possible, but do not ignore efficiency, inputs, and productivity • Also try to use readily available data online if possible so inter-jurisdictional comparisons can be made

7. Housing Affordability (Outcome) Financial Burden or Rent/income ratio(Outcome) Unit over 30 yrs old (Outcome) Median Value of unit (Output, Outcome) % Ownership (Output, Outcome) Avj. Square Ft per unit (Output, Outcome) Neighborhood Crime (Output, Outcome) No transit accessible (Output, Outcome) Amenities nearby (Output, Outcome) Tax burden (Outcome) Commute time to work (Outcome) Fraction/Acre per resident (Output,Outcome) Rating of Schools (Outcome) Selected Housing Measures

8. Travel Congestion (Outcome) Mean travel time to work (Outcome) Rides public transit (Output and Outcome) Live within one fourth of mile of transit (Output and Outcome) Operating expenses per passenger mile (Efficiency, Outcome) % of population owning vehicle (Efficiency and Outcome) Vehicle miles driven per capita (Output, Outcome) Accidents per thousand (Output,Outcome) Transportation affordability (Outcome) Selected Transportation Measures

9. How to Improve Connections between Knowledge and Policy 2. When designing the data sets for the community make sure there are measures for all major constituencies/stakeholders interested in progress and change • Stakeholders have preferences for Outputs, Outcomes, Efficiency, Inputs, and Productivity

10. Elected Officials more interested in Property tax burden Sprawl Quality of Schools Neighborhood Crime Age of unit (over 30 years) Rides public transit to work Accidents per thousand Consumers more interested in Financial burden (rent/income ratio) Structural quality of house/apt Property tax burden Commute time to work Quality of Schools Neighborhood Crime Housing affordability Traffic Affordability Cost of gasoline Commute time to work Stakeholder Preferences for PMs

11. Planners Sprawl Commute time to work People per square mile Amenities nearby Traffic congestion Energy use per capita Per capita emissions Administrators Age of units (over 30 years) Median value of unit % Ownership Use carpool Rides public transit to work Traffic congestion Stakeholder Preferences for PMs

12. How to improve the connections between Knowledge and Policy • Use stakeholders to develop measures and then fully integrate the measures into the planning and decision making processes • There are a number of communities in the U.S. with a long history of using a civic engagement approach to develop PMs which reflect a “bottoms up” consensus building process • Examples include Asheville, N.C., Austin, Tx., Jacksonville, Fl., San Francisco, Ca., Seattle, Wash., etc.

13. Examples of Civic Engagement Strategies • Community Steering or Advisory Committees represented public, private, and non-profit sectors • Community forums/Retreats • Regular surveys and focus groups • Annual agenda setting conferences • Occasionally setting up a new 501 c3 organization to manage the “bottoms up” community building process • Use of white papers on issues of the day • Interactive web-sites and email surveys • TV and radio programs

14. How to improve the connection between knowledge and policy • Present reports of measures to interested parties on a regular basis and work with media to disseminate results • Institutionalize annual report and conference • Become legitimate reporter on the “state of the region” • Develop working groups to follow up on cross cutting issues and have them focus on implementation of recommendations • Keep the public sector, private sector, and non-profit sector working together, do not let one sector dominate • Establish political action committees if needed for political lobbying • In first 3-5 years, focus on a small number of cross cutting issues

15. How to improve the connection between knowledge and policy • 5. Whenever possible make cross community or cross jurisdiction comparisons. • Benchmarking against other areas helps to identify priorities and other approaches that might work better for the community doing the comparison

16. Public Transit Rider-Ship Rates in North Carolina

17. Results from a 50 city inter-correlation analysis • In the 50 city analysis, housing homeownership rates are the highest in the smallest areas and considerably less in the biggest areas • Smaller areas also have shorter commute times, are less likely to use transit, and people are more likely to drive alone • Smaller areas also have lower value homes and are less dense • Larger areas consistently are more dense, have longer commutes to work, have higher home prices, have less homeownership, and have more people carpooling and taking transit. • From a positive policy perspective and benchmarking perspective, decision makers would seem to prefer higher value homes, more homeownership, more carpooling and transit rider-ship, and fewer people driving to work alone. Each size community seems to have its unique advantage and disadvantage (when benchmarking)

18. Conclusion—Some Challenges for PM utilization at the local level • Keep same core indicators, do not keep changing them • Monitor trends over time so changes in policy can be assessed, you need at least a decade to see most changes • If consensus on a measure of success or failure breakdown, develop a new measure • Make sure all three sectors come to the table and agree upon measures • Pick bench-marking or “best practice” comparisons very carefully and very politically