UW Performance
Measurement &
Budgeting Project
A Cooperative Presentation by UWExtension and UW-Oshkosh for the
Wisconsin City Managers
Association
Alan Probst, Senior Lecturer, UW-Extension LGC
Craig Maher, Associate Professor, UW-Oshkosh
Why the Project?
Current local government financial situation
requires better efficiency
Need for education and training was expressed
to the University of Wisconsin
Logical program staff:
Craig Maher, UW-O, MPA program and city
council member
Alan Probst, UW-EXT, LGC and former city
manager
Project Status to Date

Introductory Presentation
Complete

Instructional Presentation
Complete

Performance Handbook/Manual
Complete

Identify Core Indicators
Draft

Training Exercises
First 1 complete

Training for local officials
Ongoing

Data clearinghouse
Seeking Funding
Performance Budgeting

Originated in late 1940’s

Congress enacted through National
Security Act of 1949 for newly formed
Department of Defense

Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA)
Performance Budgeting
Based on the assumption that presenting
performance information alongside
budget amounts will improve budget
decision-making by focusing funding
choices on program results
Performance Based Budgeting



Performance based budgeting cannot begin
until a system of performance measurement
has been instituted
A functional performance based budgeting
system cannot be expected to produce the
long-term desired results in the first year of
its inception
Must build a Performance Based
Management System
Management Tool
Performance budgets focus on missions,
goals, and objectives to explain why money
is being spent and provide a way to allocate
resources to achieve specific results
PBB is intended to be a management tool for
program improvement, not a “carrot and
stick” methodology used to “punish”
departments for not meeting goals
Why is this Important?

Most Federal grants now require outcome
evaluations (performance measurement) in their
applications

Bond sales require indicators of financial condition
which are well presented by performance data

Local government revenues are becoming
insufficient making effective use of resources
imperative

Promotes the logical tie between planning and
budgeting
Why is this Important?

Both the Government Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) and the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) are promoting performance
measurement indicating it may soon become a
requirement

Provides a way to quantify to the citizens how well
their local government is doing compared to
previous years and other similar communities; i.e.
“how much bang they’re getting for their buck”

The current fiscal crisis is expected to worsen; the
State of WI is facing a $3b. GF annual shortfall
Performance Measurement
The regular systematic collection,
analysis, and reporting of data that
tracks resources used, work produced,
and whether specific outcomes were
achieved by an organization
Note: Measurements are only meaningful to the degree that they
are a basis for strategic and operational decision-making
Performance Measurement
Performance Measurement should:





Be based on program goals and objectives that tie to
a statement of program mission or purpose
Measure program outcomes
Provide for resource allocation comparisons over
time
Measure efficiency and effectiveness for continuous
improvement
Be verifiable, understandable, and timely
Performance Measurement

Be consistent throughout the strategic plan,
budget, and accounting and reporting
systems over time

Be reported internally and externally (Federal
grants do and GASB may soon require it)

Be monitored and used in managerial
decision-making processes
Local Example
Performance Indicators
CITY GOAL: Ensure a safe and peaceful
community
Fire Service:
 Structural fires per 1,000 population
 Response times reduced to or maintained at ___
minutes
 Percent of 9-1-1 calls answered in 20 seconds
 Inspections w/time period
 Citizen satisfaction
 ISO rating
 Fire/incident scene accountability
Performance Indicators
Police/Sheriff:
 Cases or % of cases closed per reporting
period
 Violent crime per population or time period
 Property crime per population or time period
 Juvenile offenses per population or time
period
 Response times
 Perceptions of safety
 Courthouse security (BIG issue for more
urban counties)
Performance Indicators
EMS:
 Attain/maintain a cardiac survival rate of
_____ %.
 Attain/maintain an in-city response time of
_____ minutes.
 (in all but most urban areas of the state, EMS
and Fire are separate organizations)

Emergency Management:
 Achieve/maintain a public alert rate of
____________.
Performance Indicators
CITY GOAL: Operate and maintain an effective and
safe transportation system
 Number of miles paved during a reporting period
 Percent of streets/highways cleared of snow w/24
hours of snowfall
 Percentage of streets/highways with PASER rating of
4 or lower
 Percentage of streets reconstructed in reporting
period
 Traffic flow indicator
Performance Indicators
CITY GOAL: Improve the quality of life in
neighborhoods
 Resident level of safety in parks
 Citizen satisfaction with Parks & Recreation
 Rates of citizen participation per program
 Recycling diversion rate
 Community cleanliness
 Acres of park land maintained (mowed, cleaned, etc.)
 Number of households utilizing library service
 Water quality ratings
Performance Indicators
CITY GOAL: Promote economic vitality
and opportunity
 Perceptions of community as a place to
live/work
 Unemployment rate
 Per Capita Income
 Equalized Property Value per capita
 Homeownership rate
Performance Indicators
CITY GOAL: Efficient city management:
 Municipal bond rating
 Assessment ratio
 Building plan/plate reviews completed
(planning dept.)
 Building permits issued (planning dept.)
 Bills processed on time (finance
dept./treasurer)
 Public notices published (clerk)
 Personnel actions completed (HR or clerk)
Training Exercise
Scenario:
The City Council of Dog Patch has
complained to the City Administrator
that the fire department’s response
times are too slow, especially for
motor vehicle accidents. The City
Administrator wants you, the Fire
Chief, to begin tracking your
performance related to response times
to:
Training Exercise
(A) defend the department’s
response performance to the
council, and
(B) determine what can be done to
improve response times.
Benchmarks
Internal:

Average response time for all city public safety
services

Response time per mile traveled
External:

Response times for fire departments in other
comparable municipalities
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bug Tussle
Night owl
Black bog
Possum Hollow
Four-Step Methodology
Step 1: Review and Evaluate Existing
Department Mission and Cost Center
Goals:
“To provide emergency and nonemergency services to anyone
requiring assistance in our service
area.”
Four-Step Methodology
Step 2: Identify a Service Area.








Fire suppression
Fire prevention
Fire prevention education
Extrication
Confined space rescue
Disaster response
Other rescue as needed
Other emergency responses not applicable to
other depts.
Four-Step Methodology
Step 3: Service Area Objectives
“Arrival of first fire/emergency apparatus
on scene within seven (7) minutes of
dispatch anywhere within municipal
limits.”
Four-Step Methodology
Step 4: Identify indicators that measure
progress on objectives.
Time from initial dispatch to report 10-23 on
station.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
During normal workday
Night, after dark
Under adverse weather conditions
During unusual events
Other calls requiring response at same time
Four-Step Methodology
Step 4: Identify indicators that measure
progress on objectives. (cont.)

Manning level/firefighter availability at time
of dispatch

Equipment status/availability at time of
dispatch

Weather conditions at time of dispatch
MATRIX
Service Area
Fire Suppression
Response time
Objective
To ensure arrival of
first
fire/emergency
apparatus on
scene within
seven (7)
minutes of
dispatch
anywhere
within
municipal
limits
7 minutes
Input
Actual costs equipment
staff/firefighters
1 engine,
1 truck,
6 firefighters,
fuel
Output
# incidents
responded
to
342
Efficiency
avg. cost
per
response
$1,055
Service Quality
Outcome
avg. response time
acceptable response
time for ISO and
benchmarks
8 minutes, 4
seconds
acceptable response
time considering
manning and
weather
conditions
Supporting Data
Number of total responses during data
collection period:
342
Average response time:
8 min 4 sec
Number of responses during periods of
reduced manning:
184
(75% manning or lower)
Average response time:
7 min 15 sec
Supporting Data
Number of responses during or within 24 hours
of 3 inch snow or ice event: 127
Average response time:
9 min 32 sec
Number of responses w/full manning and no
weather event:
102
Average response time:
6 min 30 sec
Average response times for all comparable
benchmark municipalities
8 min 10 sec
Explanatory Data
Data collection period was conducted
during month of December, 2008 when
the municipality suffered the snowiest
December in recorded history and
budget deficits mandated 2/3 of shifts
to be manned at 75%. Some responses
experienced both snow/ice event and
reduced manning.
Summary
The department did not reach the goal of 7
minutes or less for each response time but
met an acceptable level of an average of 8
minutes, 4 seconds from dispatch to
reporting 10-23 on station because of
unprecedented manning reductions and
record-breaking winter weather. Under
normal conditions the department actually
exceeded the set goal by nearly 8 percentage
points and one half minute and still exceeds
the overall average response time of external
benchmarks.
Contacts
Alan Probst
Senior Lecturer & Local Government Specialist
UW-Extension Local Government Center
alan.probst@uwex.edu
Craig Maher
Associate Professor
UW-Oshkosh MPA Program
Director, Office of Governmental Studies
maher@uwosh.edu