ROLE 5: Assist Elected Officials or Citizens
Practice 5b. Report performance: Produce and issue external periodic performance reports.
Kansas City, Missouri, City Auditor [Profile]
Since 2002, the City Auditor’s Office has issued annual City Services Performance Reports (starting with fiscal 2001) including citizen survey results and many other performance indicators. Before that, from the mid-1990s until March 2002, the City Auditor issued reports specifically on citizen surveys and on a 1999 survey of business owners and managers, providing performance information on satisfaction with city services, perceptions of community conditions, and priorities for services or issues that should receive future emphasis from city leaders. The City Auditor also issued a report on a series of 2001 focus groups of business owners and managers, providing in-depth information to complement the satisfaction and perception ratings business people provided in 1999.
Starting in 2000, the City Auditor has provided benchmarking data comparing Kansas City citizen satisfaction and perception ratings with those of citizens in other communities. For 2005, survey results showing year-to-year citywide comparisons were included in the City Services Performance Report (November 2005) and a separate Benchmarking Report was issued in March 2006 with survey result comparisons with other cities and between geographical areas within Kansas City. In these reports, the Auditor’s Office has used a variety of interesting graphic formats to clearly show comparisons of results over time for Kansas City, and comparisons of results of Kansas City vs. other communities in the metropolitan region and vs. other large cities in the central U.S.
The City Services Performance Reports present a summary of citizen survey results followed by performance information in six broad categories: streets, public safety, parks, water and sewer, neighborhood livability, and overall quality of life. A section in the report on each category includes both relevant citizen survey results and relevant indicators of service performance or community conditions. The City Auditor’s Office intended for the performance information to provide balance and context for the survey data—both to be fair to city staff to address their concerns that survey results aren’t a complete picture, and to be fair to citizens so that their perceptions are considered. To help determine what performance measures should be included in the report for each category, the City Auditor assembled a nine-member advisory panel, including two city management staff and seven community representatives (see 5d). Citywide performance report projects have taken an average of about 1,200 staff-hours each.
The 2006 survey results were reported without corresponding performance information due to inadequate available staff within the City Auditor’s Office. It is anticipated that performance information will be provided along with survey results in the future.
More information on performance reports issued by the City Auditor, including descriptions of some of the graphic formats used to report comparative survey results with other communities [Example in 2004 Guide-PDF]
Reports:
|
