2011_0228_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

:M,11101Tw1!Z3=" IT-3 CL In the City of San Jose's peer review process, the scores departments gave their programs were evaluated, discussed, questioned, and sometimes recommended for change. The city established a review team specific to each of the city's results. The review teams first went over the result map to ensure that each member of the team was grounded in the city's specific definition of the result. Next, the review teams were given a report detailing every program that gave itself a score for the particular result under review The teams met to discuss: whether they understood the programs they were reviewing; whether they agreed with the scores; whether they required further testimony or evidence to help them better understand the score given; and whether the score should stand, or if the team should recommend increasing or decreasing it. All programs were evaluated in this manner until a final recommendation was made regarding the final 11 '111111 1111,11,0211M What made San Jose's approach noteworthy is that in addi- tion to including peers within the organization to review the scores, the city also invited the local business community, citizens representing their local neighborhood commissions, and labor leaders. According to San Jose's City Manager's Office,"The participants found the effort informative as to what the city does; they found it engaging with respect to hearing staff in the organization discuss how their programs influence the c ity's results- and, most interesting they fo and it fun.'' Lastly it is important to recognize that community stake- holders could be apprehensive about engaging in an evalua- tion that could result in losing support for their program. Even though program directors, or citizens who benefit from a par- titular program, might u nde rstand why their program weren't ranked highly, they still won't be pleased with that outcome. Organizations must ask if the end result of their efforts in pri- oritizing programs is simply that finish line when it is clear what programs should be cut. Organizations such as the City of Lakeland have used prioritization not only to balance their budgets in a meaningful way but also to understand how pro- grams that might appear less relevant to the city as a whole might in fact be very relevant to other community stakehold- ers. These stakeholders might actually take responsibility for supporting or preserving a program. There are often opportu- nities to establish partnerships with other community institu- tions such as businesses, schools, churches, and non-profits. Intended Result: A logical and well-understiolod product of a transparent process — no surprises. 7. Allocate Resources. Once the scoring is in place, resources can be allocated to the offer /pr g rams. There are a number of methods for allocating resources. One method is to order the offers/programs according to their prioritization within a given priority result area and draw a line where the cost of the offers/programs is equal to the amount of revenue available (see Exhibit 2). Revenues can be allocated to each result area based on historical patterns or by using the priori- ty's relative weights, if weights were assigned.Those offers/pro- grams that are above the line are funded, and those that are below the line are not. Discussion will ensue about the offer /program on either side of the line and about moving them up or down, reorganizing them to move them above the line (e.g., lowering service levels), or even shifting resources among priority results. An alternate method, used by the City of Lakeland, is to organize the offers/programs into tiers of priority (i.e., quar- tiles) and then allocate reductions by tier. For example, pro- grams in the first tier might not be reduced,while programs in the lowest tier would receive the largest reductions. The pro- grams could be forced to make the reductions assigned, or the reductions could be aggregated as a total reduction amount for each department, based on the programs within its purview (with the implication being that the department would weight its reductions toward the lower-priority pro- April 2010 1 Government Finance Revi 15