Performance Management - The Need for a Focus on Public Value - Research Proposal Example

Assignment 4

Performance Management: The Need for a Focus on Public Value

Performance management of the policing sector consistently fails to take account of the most important resources in delivering performance people – the public. Research indicates that the primary problematic issue of police performance management is the unclear description of its culture and social outcomes which lead to poor performance and public mistrust. Current literature has only begun to start addressing the importance of social outcomes and public value; two crucial standards for performance measurement. This essay investigates performance management issues within the policing sector and the importance of including public value as an important resource to utilize in the performance management of the police sector.

Public organisations, such as the policing sector, face significance challenges to optimal performance management (Winstanley & Stuart-Smith, 1996). The primary issue of effectively managing performance in the public sector is the challenge of embedding it within the organisation's culture (Accenture, 2009). Another challenge to many public sectors is the lack of focus on social outcomes (Moore & Braga, 1997). The policing sector, and other public sectors are facing increased pressures to meet government goals, citizen expectations and increased productivity and efficiency. It is argued that public sectors are not considering the importance if social outcomes. As Accenture (2009) explains;

To deliver value to the people they serve – citizens, taxpayers, service users and consumers – public service organisations must align and focus resources and employee behaviour to provide real and beneficial social outcomes to the public, their ultimate customers” (p.5).

An improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of public safety is a primary social outcome for the policing sector. Public sectors, such as the policing sector, have mission statements and objectives that are not aligned with social outcomes.

In a detailed study of public sector performance management, Accenture (2009) determined that “performance management is not being used in a strategic or proactive way to anticipate, respond

to and mitigate performance issues before they escalate into problems” which results in merely reporting accomplishments and failures and not methods of improvement (p.9). Research also indicated that there is too much focus on the financial departments of public sectors as a drive for performance activities which deters behavioural change and performance improvement in other departments (Accenture, 2009).

The economic conditions are causing more pressure on public service sectors; resulting in reduced budgets and increased public expenditure. Ideally, performance management in the public sector should allow organisations to focus management efforts and resources on social outcomes so that there is a greater value for tax payer money. This would also enable organisations to spread limited funds further through activity and outcome-aligned budgets. Perhaps most importantly, effective performance management provides greater individual and departmental accountability and efficiency. As service performance levels are increased, the level of waste and inefficiency decreases.

The launch of the Operational Efficiency Programme in 2008 by the Chief Secretary of the Treasury was integral to the push for greater efficiency in the public sector (Accenture, 2009). The Programme highlighted the need for improved accountability and performance management. In order to improve and motivate public sector performance, the UK government implemented public service agreement (PSAs) which based budget allocations on agency performance (2009). The implementation of performance management improvement programmes for public sectors have been initiated in Canada, Australia, and the US. The problem however, with this approach, is the reliance of statistical assessments of performance as a driver, rather than the social outcomes. It is important that the policing sector hold social credibility and legitimacy in the public eye which is obtainable through positive social outcomes.

Performance Management in the Public Sector

Public sector performance management is much different than that of the private sector. Whereas private sector performance heavily focuses on profit maximization as an indicator of performance, public sectors do not. The public sector is not concerned as much with the “bottom line” as those in the private sector (Boland & Fowler, 2000).

Unlike the private sector, the public sector, such as the policing sector, obtains its principle source of money from the public in the form of taxes. The public's perception of the necessity of the police organisation, influences legislations use of tax collection towards police financial capital and operating revenues (Moore & Khagram, 2004). The importance of public and legislative support is summarized by Moore and Khagram as;

Government managers secure the resources they need to operate not by selling products and services to individual customers, but by selling a story of public value creation to elected representatives of the people in legislatures and executive branch positions.

It is important to understand the importance of public value, as this value will determine the resources allocated to police organisations. Therefore it is crucial that public value be a goal in performance management strategies.

Private sectors rely on their revenue of goods to determine value; this is not the case with public organisations however, they must rely on alternative methods of determining value as they do not sell their services.

Early attempts to understand performance management in the public sector relied on a value for money strategies that involved external audits (Boland & Fowler, 2000). Most recently, performance management strategies in the public sector rely on the achievement of set standards. These standards, in the policing sector for example, would be set for the entire industry; this criteria is then used against individual organisations to determine how much they have achieved. Many organisations find this strategy somewhat systematically inadequate and have attempted to initiate a performance improvement initiative (PII) which allows upper management to consider what strategies, or performances could use improvement and how that can be achieved. These improvements are seen through performance indicators (2000). These indicators help determine whether the organisation is meeting specific goals and using resources wisely. Performance indicators in the policing sector must focus on not only meeting financial targets, but public value goals as well.

Research indicates that there are numerous theories of what constitutes effective performance management standards. It is clear that there has to be accountability through financial targets which justify the use of financial resources. There is also reason to include specific social outcomes; however Moore & Khagram (2004) believe financial and social standards do not provide enough information to determine the actual value of the organisation which is important in assessing the performance of a public sector organisation.

Other research indicates that a corporate structure can be used to assess performance management (Flemming, 2008). Perhaps Fleming (2008) sums up police performance management best when he writes, “police organizations are expected to deliver value through the socially and fiscally responsible allocation of resources and ensure effective service delivery” (p. 254).

Since defining performance management standards in policing has been so difficult, many researchers have differing beliefs as to what constitutes performance management and how to understand the results. It is important therefore to first understand the development of performance management which is discussed in the following section.

The Development of Performance Management

It is important to set outcomes and strategic plans by first using the organisation's mission as a base and strategically planning with stakeholders. The stakeholders in the policing sector is the public (Donnelly, 1999). It is important to work in collaboration with stakeholders to ensure that external factors drive the strategic plan. This is where many researchers debate the importance of public value as a standard performance measurement. Many researchers believe that community outreach is an important tool for police organisations to utilize when strategically planning. The strategic plan must detail the services and processes needed to create the desired social outcomes; such as reducing crime. It is equally important to identify value drivers, such as improved response times to crisis calls; this will establish key performance indicators (Accenture, 2009). Accenture (2009) also suggests that,

...metrics are also critical to effective strategic planning and should be explicitly tied to individual value drivers, while taking account of the external perspective—such as the government agenda. Metrics based on value drivers are aligned to strategic outcomes and are therefore an effective measure of success (p.13).

It is then important to determine and implement performance targets that are meaningful to the entire organisation (Accenture, 2009). It is important that the targets are meaningful because the entire organisation will be accountable for delivering objectives that will meet performance targets. The key is to set strategic objectives that coincide with action-oriented plans.

Management must influence ownership of the performance management plan across the entire organisation; this can be done through collaborative and decentralized planning (Accenture, 2009) (See Figure 1). The strategic planning and budgeting efforts of management will drive value which will influence a new, more accountable and collaborative organisational culture. This culture will be one of continuous improvement which will be aligned with target outcomes. The culture that is created in the organisation must foster knowledge sharing as this will build efficiency; therefore implementing data sharing and performance management tools is important. These tools will promote the sharing of expertise, group support and other means for growing trust and responsibility within the organisation.

The culture of the organisation is determined by the targets to be attained; with this said, if the organisation believes public value and social outcomes to be important performance standards, then these standards will drive the organisation's performance. Once these standards are included in the organisational strategy and culture, resources will be better allocated for optimal performance.

A crucial step to effectively developing a performance management plan is to constantly monitor performance (performance measurement) and progress through a comparison of delivery to planned objectives. It is important to address poor performance immediately, as it becomes evident, because any issues that arise must be compared with the performance management plan and prioritized. Addressing these issues directly will give management the opportunity to anticipate and plan for future issues, creating a more efficient and effective performance management framework. Overall it is important that the entire organization is involved with the organisation's performance goals and targets and that all employees are aware of outcomes and any changes that will be implemented.

Performance Management Measures

A crucial part of performance management is the effective measuring, or monitoring, of performance results. These measurements will show where changes are needed and once action is taken to make those changes, a desired behaviour will be produced – thus improving performance (Fryer, et.al., 2009). Whereas performance management aims to improving an organisation's future, performance measurement looks into past performance to build a foundation for performance management to build upon (2009). The difficulty that arises in policing, and public sectors in general, is the problem of adding value to intangible standards such as social outcomes and public value.

Tangible vs. Intangible Outcomes. Many researchers such as Fleming (2008) suggest using tangible outcomes that can be quantified versus traditional outcomes often seen in the private sector. According to Fleming (2000),

Police officers are encouraged to aim for, and achieve organizational targets and priorities. A distinctive feature of performance management has been setting key performance indicators to audit efficiency and effectiveness and to create benchmarks (p. 256).

There is much criticism however that tangible objectives as the sole means for performance management are ineffective (Hann & Mortimer, n.d. and Fleming & Scott, 2008). While it is important to have data regarding arrests, etc., there are many intangible measures, such as reassurance policing and community involvement that are difficult to obtain. It is argued that the “numbers game” or measuring quantity and not quality results in management by status quo (Fleming, 2008).

Public skepticism of government authorities has led to the need for clearer accountability structures to point out what particular duties and achievements are being made by public sectors. Focusing on public value as a performance driver allows social outcomes to directly reflect the publics needs and therefore improve the public value of police organisations. The problem however is how to measure and demonstrate intangible productions such as social outcomes?

Theories of how to measure intangible productions abound. According to Fryer (et.al., 2009, p. 481), there are four aspects to performance management. These aspects are:

• “deciding what to measure”
• “how to measure it”
• interpretation of the data
• communication of the results

As previously established, policing sectors should incorporate not only financial standards of measurement, but social outcomes and public value as well. In the police sector, one must consider performance indicators that reveal output, welfare, and performance. Since it is difficult to set indicators in the police sector, as they have often relate to “the number of process reports issued or the number of arrests” made; many police organisations choose to rely on concrete methods such as financial indicators (Fryer, et al. 2009, p.482). While this may save management from arguments of financial resource usage, it does not answer to the public who are not only the recipients of police services but, as discussed earlier, the public influences legislative decisioning on resource allocation.

Service delivery indicators can focus on the effectiveness of delivery compared to the strategic objectives that are in place. Some service delivery law enforcement indicators are motor vehicle theft, violence, recorded crime figures (Fleming, 2008). Police organisations however, are realizing more and more that these tangible indicators are not fulfilling the desired social outcome and public value results that they need. Changes have been made to move in the direction of a more community-minded strategy of performance management; resulting in more proactive and responsive police in the community.

Some police organisations use a survey-method with citizens to determine the quality of the services performed. It is debatable whether this is an effective way to measure the public opinion; Fleming (2008) believes this to be effective, however Moore & Khagram (2004) don't believe so because it is not complete. For example, to measure the effectiveness of an arrest one could ask the victim of the crime whether it was handle to his or her expectations, but one could hardly see an officer surveying the criminal to determine what his or her experience was. In other words, the public cannot be separated by criminals and victims and then the rest; there needs to be an objective standard that will justify the organisation's use of resources and performance to the public.

There have been proposed frameworks to address performance assessment methods, such as the community survey method that, for the most part, are cumbersome and not effective in relaying social outcomes and public value. The Balance Scorecard method, for example, requires customization within the public sector and it is for this reason that many public organisations do not use it (Fryer, et al. 2009). It is also not considered appropriate for strategic performance management which is required in the public sector. There is evidence however, that a modified Balanced Scorecard is a potentially effective measuring tool for the policing sector. The Scottish Police Force, effectively implemented the Scottish Policing Performance Framework which takes the traditional Balanced Scoreboard and substitutes the categories with police-specific categories. Further investigation into the Scottish Government Justice Analytical Services' 2010 report on of the Scottish Policing Performance Framework revealed interesting results that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the Balanced Scorecard as a performance measurement tool. The researcher will briefly discuss these findings before moving on to other measurement methods. The point of this brief exodus from the essay is to report of the effectiveness of performance indicator reporting through the Balanced Scorecard method and not the effectiveness of the Scottish Police forces. Therefore, the researcher will not go into great detail of the report, rather touch on key points that will determine how effective the Balanced Scorecard is in revealing financial and social outcomes as well as perceived public value – three standards that the researcher has established as crucial to the structure of a performance management strategy. The researcher is particularly interested in this report because a survey method was used in determining public satisfaction.

Scottish Policing Performance Framework. The 2010 Scottish Policing Performance report is the first report since the start of the Scottish Policing Performance Framework in 2007. In this report, data was reported from 2007/2008, 2008/2009, and 2009/2010 years. None police forces were reported on; Central, Dumfries and Galloway, Fife, Grampian, Lothian and Borders, Northern, Strathcyde, Tayside and Scotland.

The Balanced Scorecard indicated that the tangible outcomes such as crime rates reduced significantly from 2007/2008 to 2009/2010 (Figure 2). There was also evidence that police were more active in the community with an yearly increase of warnings for misconduct. Financially (tangible), the Balanced Scorecard reported an increase in savings through increased efficiency in all nine police forces (Figure 3). While salaries increased slightly, capital expenditures and operating costs either remained the same or increased slightly. The expenditure per resident increased however, indicating that there may be more public pressure on increased efficiency and accountability by Scottish Police Forces.

Figure 2. Crime Rate Reduction (p.15)

Figure 3. Efficiency Savings (p.53)

Figure 4. Expenditures (p.66)

Intangible outcomes were much more difficult to determine by the Balanced Scorecard. As previously mentioned, a survey method was used to capture and report public satisfaction. It can be expected that the publics satisfaction of police services would influence the perceived public value. According to the report, the majority of locations reported that the percentage of complaints about officers and the forces in general increased from the 2007/2008 reporting year to 2009/2010 (Figure 5). Upon closer observation however, one could see that the number of surveys sent were small and in most cases, there was a very small percentage of return rates (Figure 6). This can be very misleading and reinforces the belief that the survey method is an ineffective tool for determining police performance. The Scotland Balanced Scorecard did not report any other methods for determining public satisfaction or value and was unable to specify whether the social outcomes were in correlation with public interest.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Based on the results of the Scotland Balanced Scorecard method of reporting, the researcher believes the scorecard to be ineffective in providing an accurate interpretation of performance results other than financial indicators. Even though Scotland reformatted the scorecard to correlate with police standards and objectives, there was not a reliable method for measuring social outcomes or public value.

A relatively new concept, established in the UK, most notably with the National Reassurance Policing Program, is reassurance policing, or neighborhood policing. Reassurance policing directly addresses public concerns that can be addressed by police forces by working in the community (Singer, 2004). Research shows that many public concerns are not correlated with the actual presence of crime; for example, many community residents perceive a neighborhood as dangerous due to graffiti on buildings and abandoned building (Kirkby, 2006).

Neighbourhood policing specifically aims to provided communities with access to policing and community safety services, community influence over safety priorities, community partnerships for problem solving and “sustainable solutions to problems and feedback on results” (Kirkby, 2006, p.24). Neighbourhood policing is guided by ten principles that include a structure of performance management and monitoring (Figure 7). The National Reassurance Policing Program of England, which was enacted in 2002, is similar in structure to the neighbourhood policing discussed by Kirkby (2006) and has been effective in improving public value of policing (Quinton & Tuffin, 2007). While not a traditional performance measurement in itself, neighbourhood policing provides a sustainable means for improving public perception of police value (Quiton & Morris, 2008).

Figure 7. 10 Neighbourhood Policing Principles (Kirby, 2006, p. 26)

Conclusion

The most important police sector resource is the public. The publics perceived value of the police directly influences the decisions and resource allocations provided by government and legislation. It is therefore crucial that any performance management strategy incorporates indicators related to social outcomes and public value. While some researchers suggest adapted private sector performance management measurements, such as the Balanced Scorecard, this isn't realistic for intangible outcomes. With an increased need for accountability and public support, performance management of policing sectors must be structured in untraditional ways that emphasis the intangible.