ROLE 3: Define or Measure Performance:
Practice 3b. Collect data: Collect performance measurement data.
San Francisco City Services Auditor
The City Services Auditor (CSA) in San Francisco conducts a biennial survey of residents to measure citizen satisfaction and perception across an array of public services and community issues. Quantified feedback from residents through the San Francisco City Survey complements measures of performance captured through traditional audit activities, by giving managers, elected officials, and residents of the City and County of San Francisco valuable constituent perspectives on service performance and the quality of life. In addition to the general multi-service survey, the CSA has also conducted a special survey on park users. As noted in the San Francisco CSA example for Practice 5b. Report performance, the park user survey is a good example of how survey results on resident or user perceptions complements other forms of performance measurement by providing the external perspective of local government constituents and service customers.
The City Survey, once called the Citizen Survey, has been conducted since 1996. Before the CSA function was created by charter amendment in 2003, CSA’s parent agency, the Office of the Controller, conducted the survey. The City Survey incorporates a core set of questions repeated over the years to gauge citizen perceptions of a wide range of services, such as streets and sidewalks, public safety, parks and recreation, libraries, and San Francisco’s public transportation system. In the 2007 survey, additional questions were asked on topics such as children’s services, tap water quality, emergency preparedness, and how likely one is to leave the city. A total of 3,685 residents participated via mail-in questionnaire, telephone interview, or an option for residents in the sample to complete the survey on-line, with a sampling error of +/-1.3 percent. The large sample size allowed for analyses of results by San Francisco’s eleven supervisorial districts. Differences in opinion among residents in different districts provide the CSA with a portrait of perceived service performance and conditions across San Francisco’s diverse neighborhoods, and allow elected members of the Board of Supervisors and residents to make geographic comparisons. An option to take surveys in Spanish and Chinese was available and used in the written and telephone surveys. The survey report contains a detailed description of the methodology.
The City Survey asks residents to grade overall city services as well as a variety of specific services on a scale from “A” (Excellent) to “F” (Failing). The 2007 survey revealed that the average rating of local government performance was, at “C+,” unchanged since the last survey. However, more residents (40%) gave favorable ratings (A or B) of overall performance than any time since the Controller’s Office instituted the survey. Also, the survey asked users to indicate the extent to which they used specific services, which enables the CSA to analyze, for policy makers, how people who are in greater contact with public services view government performance vs. those with less direct experience. Residents who used multiple services frequently—such as the library or public parks—were more likely to rate government performance favorably than those who used only one service frequently or those who did not use public services. The survey report shows that frequent users of government services were 1.4 more times likely than non-frequent users to give government a positive grade.
The City Survey also asks residents to rate community conditions related to local government services on a variety of scales. Some of the community conditions rated by residents include the cleanliness of sidewalks and streets, street pavement condition, number of trees, and feelings of safety walking in their neighborhood in daytime and at night. Some questions on conditions ask residents to provide ratings both for their neighborhood and citywide. An open “Comments” section allows respondents to provide their specific opinions on any subject related to city services. CSA analyzes the comments and includes highlights of their analysis, with sample comments, in the survey report. In the 2007 survey report, CSA noted that overall, the “comments both support the findings in the individual survey questions and offer insight beyond questions asked by the survey.” The report noted that the largest number of comments were on the public transit “Muni” system, whose satisfaction ratings had declined. Sample comments were provided on three other subjects with a large number of comments: public safety, homelessness, and safety of cyclists.
In the City Survey, CSA asks some interesting questions beyond what may be typically found on other local government surveys, because the City and County San Francisco has policies and programs beyond the scope of many other local governments. For example, one section of the survey has been dedicated health insurance status. Compared with results from the last survey in 2005, in 2007 respondents reflected a slight increase in the amount of uninsured and a two percent rise in the number insured by either Medicare or Medi-Cal (California’s version of Medicaid). In another example, the City Survey asked San Franciscans about their at home computer use. The CSA analyzed data by geographic district and income level, providing geographic and demographic data on computer ownership and home internet access disparities. Having data on these important issues can help San Francisco decision makers formulate policies, target services, build partnerships that may help beyond what local government can do, and advocate more effectively for policies and support by the state and federal governments.
Reports:
|
