San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
The Numbers Have Something to Say, Is Anybody Listening? Performance Measurement (pm) in San Francisco City Government
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 1 findings
F1
through 15 1 and 10 15
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
through 14 8 13.b and 13.c [P.C. 933.05(a)] requires a response to each finding of either: “agree with the finding”, or “disagree wholly or partially with the finding” with appropriate explanations and corrections. [P.C. 933.05(b)] requires a response to each recommendation of either: “has been implemented”, “will be implemented”, or “will not implement”, with appropriate summaries, times and explanations.
Additional Recommendations 14
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R2The Mayor should establish key metrics for key departments and report quarterly to the citizens on progress.
-
R3Annual staff evaluations should be based on PM metrics.
-
R4The Mayor should ensure that heads of departments reduce the number of metrics used within their departments to a manageable number that support the goals the Mayor has given to the department.
-
R5The Mayor should delegate PM leadership to his Chief of Staff (COS).
-
R6The COS must be educated in Performance Measurement to drive the PM program.
-
R7A CPO should be appointed from within the existing PM qualified staff, reporting to the COS.
-
R8The CPO should select two assistants from within the existing qualified staff.
-
R9All three PM professionals must be fully dedicated to PM and not have any responsibilities to the Controller.
-
R10The Mayor should appoint a Performance Measurement review committee to include at least the COS, the Controller and the PM Unit.
-
R11The reporting chain could look like this MMaayyoorr CChhiieeff ooff SSttaaffff CCPPOO PPMM SSttaaffff PPMM CCoommmmiitttteeee BBiigg DDeeppaarrttmmeennttss SSmmaallll DDeeppaarrttmmeennttss UUnniittss
-
R12The CPO should write a Performance Measurement plan for the City, derived from best practices in PM from around the country.
-
R13The PM plan should include at least these components: a. The use of Efficiency Plans such that strategic goals, plans and programs give rise to metrics that can be included in the PM system. b. Metrics that are set by the Mayor for department heads, by department heads for their managers, and by managers for their staff. c. Metrics that reflect the Mayor’s goals for departments. d. Metrics that are for the fiscal year and are not to be changed. e. Reviews of large departments by the PM Committee in formal session at least monthly and smaller departments not less than every six months. f. Training for department heads and line managers in PM practices.
-
R14The Jury recommends changes to these metrics that are related to PM: a. The 311 system should be tied into the PM system to establish targets for City services. Pending automating that process, the data should be entered manually. b. Managers should link PPA objectives to PM metrics where that makes sense. c. MEA bonuses should be rolled into regular compensation.
-
R15The Jury recommends this Performance Measurement implementation schedule a. The CPO should implement an abbreviated PM Plan containing at least metrics assigned by the Mayor to department heads by 31 December 2009. b. The CPO should fully implement PM by 1 July 2010. Responses are required from: The Mayor The Controller Director, Human Resources