Performance Measures For Public Participation Methods

2y ago
9 Views
2 Downloads
1.00 MB
31 Pages
Last View : 19d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Carlos Cepeda
Transcription

Performance Measuresfor Public Participation MethodsFinal reportPRC 17-89 F

Performance Measuresfor Public Participation MethodsTexas A&M Transportation InstitutePRC 17-89 FJanuary 2018AuthorsGreg GriffinGretchen StoeltjeTina GeiselbrechtChris SimekBen EttelmanMadison Metsker-GalarzaCopies of this publication have been deposited with the Texas State Library in compliance with theState Depository Law, Texas Government Code §441.101-106.2

Performance Measures for Public Participation MethodsIt has become increasingly important for public agencies to be transparent in how they meet theircustomers’ needs. The public, their customers, pay for these services through taxes and fees. Itstands to reason that they should be sure they are getting a good value for their money. One wayto do this is by measuring performance, not only for core duties like planning, programming andinvesting, but also for more policy-oriented work like public engagement.Public engagement can be designed to integrate the views, concerns, and issues of the public intothe decision-making process. By including the affected public early in the process, agencies canplan, design and build projects and programs that reflect community values and increase citizenownership and buy-in. The result is increased agency credibility and more efficient and effectiveimplementation.This study illustrates how strategies of performance measurement can leverage the results ofpublic engagement activities in transportation development and operations. The researchidentifies eight best practices for evaluating public participation efforts: Coordinate Expectations as to what purpose the public engagement approach shouldserve. Designate Resources not only to implement public engagement activities, but also toevaluate them. Aim for Fairness to determine if outreach efforts are effective in reaching representativesamples of the public. Stay Flexible by designing evaluation techniques that suit the broadest possible range ofcircumstances. Distinguish Outputs from Outcomes, with the former describing the volume of feedbackon a particular project (number of participants or comments, for instance), and the lattercharacterizing how that feedback influenced the project. Use Quantitative and Qualitative Measures Consistently to ensure that each measuresupports clear understanding of changes in participation and action supporting desiredpolicies. Track Results over Time to evaluate changes in public sentiment and make adjustmentsto improve public participation. Keep It Simple – Start Small, and recognize that even the most modest efforts canproduce meaningful results if those efforts are consistently applied.Researchers present a set of sample performance measures in three categories: 1) those involvingobservation of participation by members of the public; 2) those requiring direct dialogue or other3

interaction with the public; and 3) those demonstrating how public engagement can affect agencygoals and/or project outcomes.4

Table of ContentsList of Figures . 6List of Tables . 6Executive Summary . 7Evaluating Engagement, Improving Results . 7Our Approach . 7Best Practices in Evaluating Public Engagement . 7Tiers of Performance Measures: Observe, Interact, Incorporate. 8Policy Implications . 9Introduction . 10Why Measure Performance? . 10Measuring Transportation Performance in Texas: House Bill 20 . 10Transportation Performance Management: A Short History . 11What about Public Engagement? . 14State and Federal Requirements for Public Engagement . 17Federal Rules . 17State Rules . 17Best Practices in Evaluating Public Engagement . 19Coordinate Expectations . 19Designate Resources . 21Aim for Fairness . 21Stay Flexible . 21Distinguish Outputs from Outcomes . 22Use Qualitative and Quantitative Measures Consistently . 22Track over Time . 23Keep it Simple—Start Small . 23Sample Performance Measures . 26Conclusion . 29References . 305

List of FiguresFigure 1. Three Tiers of Performance Measures. . 9Figure 2. Pavement Condition Performance Report, from WsDOT’s Gray Notebook. . 13Figure 3. Performance Management Structure. . 14Figure 4. Public Input into Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan, Visualized on theMnDOT Website. . 16List of TablesTable 1. Public Participation Spectrum, adapted from IAP2 (13). . 20Table 2. Summary Framework for Public Participation Performance Measurement. . 25Table 3. Taxonomy of Tiers of Performance Measures: Observe, Interact, Incorporate. . 266

Executive SummaryEvaluating Engagement, Improving ResultsPublic engagement is an important part of transportation project development, but measuring itseffectiveness is typically piecemealed. Performance measurement—described by the UrbanInstitute as the measurement on a regular basis of the results (outcomes) and efficiency ofservices or programs—is already widely used in the transportation field. This study illustrateshow policy can support continuous improvement of public engagement’s role in transportationdevelopment and operations by applying straightforward concepts of performance measurementto the complex interactions between the public, transportation agencies, and the policy makersaddressing Texas’ present and future needs. This study offers transportation organizations thetools to create a systematic approach to documenting and managing public engagementprocesses. This approach can both identify areas for improvement and demonstrate how thepublic’s engagement in the transportation decision-making process leads to more efficientproject or plan development. It can also be a mechanism to show the public how their input isused.Our ApproachThe Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) studied the challenges and opportunities ofperformance measurement in public engagement through four phases of research. First, TTIconducted a robust literature review of previous studies, in addition to the regulatoryrequirements and practices for public engagement in Texas transportation. Next, TTI looked atagencies outside of Texas to identify how they used performance measurement of their publicengagement practices to improve transportation outcomes, and what requirements they had inplace to foster consistent results. Focusing on the agencies with the most detailed and promisingapproaches, TTI conducted detailed case studies of transportation agencies at the state, regional,and city levels, including interviews with staff and document research. Findings from thisresearch supported the development of a framework for performance measurement of publicengagement in Texas. The final report includes eight best practices in evaluating publicengagement, and three tiers of performance measures.Best Practices in Evaluating Public EngagementThis research identified best practices from diverse sources and developed guidelines describingwhat methods work best and why. These eight best practices for evaluating public participationcan be applied throughout a project lifecycle: Coordinate Expectations. Designate Resources. Aim for Fairness.7

Stay Flexible. Distinguish Outputs from Outcomes. Use Quantitative and Qualitative Measures Consistently. Track Results over Time. Keep It Simple – Start Small.Tiers of Performance Measures: Observe, Interact, IncorporateTTI’s three tiers of performance measures for public participation begin with Observemeasures—these are primarily quantitative measures that can be implemented from staffobservation of activities. Interact measures involve interaction with the public or stakeholders.They measure how and whether people were engaged, and what kind of experience thoseparticipants had. Incorporate measures address how the agency used public engagement resultsto affect transportation planning or services—the outcome of the public’s involvement, andevidence of impact.8

Figure 1. Three Tiers of Performance Measures.Policy ImplicationsPerformance measures for public engagement provide a new mechanism for understanding theimpact of substantial efforts by agency staff and the public to improve transportation. Anindividual agency can identify which investments in public engagement yield the best results.When multiple agencies implement similar measures, results can be compared to identify whichpublic participation methods were most effective in a wide range of circumstances. Officials canuse these performance measures to understand how transportation agencies work with the publicand to build policies that reflect the needs and values of Texans.9

IntroductionWhy Measure Performance?In recent years, public scrutiny and accountability for public agency performance and spendinghave steadily increased. Methods of accessing and disseminating information are more availablethan ever. At the same time, agencies are experiencing ongoing budgetary constraints whiledemand for public services is increasing. In this context, it has become increasingly important forpublic agencies to be transparent in how they meet their customers’ needs. The public, theircustomers, pay for these services through taxes and fees. It stands to reason that they should besure they are getting a good value for their money. One way to do this is by measuringperformance. Performance can be measured for core duties like planning, programming andinvesting. But it can also be effective and important for more policy-oriented work like publicengagement.This report begins with a discussion of recent legislative developments in Texas that signal anincreased focus on performance measurement and reporting. In 2015 the 84th Texas Legislaturepassed House Bill 20, which requires the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to beginmeasuring and reporting on the performance of agency functions. The report then provides adiscussion of performance measurement in general, and the role of state and federal requirementsfor public involvement. The report offers a set of eight best practices gleaned from the researchand provided in a systematic implementation framework, showing when and where those bestpractices would come into play in a planning process. Finally, the report provides a set of sampleperformance measures, presented in tiered levels that span a range of complexity, effort, andexpense.To develop this report, researchers examined the public engagement activities at severaltransportation agencies to determine what activities those agencies regularly conducted and howwell established and robust the programs were. The research also determined whether thoseactivities were regularly evaluated and, if so, how.The terms “public engagement” and “public involvement” and “public participation” tend to beused interchangeably in this field. This report uses “public engagement” but it should beunderstood that it applies to discussions that may use either term.Measuring Transportation Performance in Texas: House Bill 20In 2015, the 84th Texas Legislature increased the statutory requirements for measuring TxDOT’sperformance. That year, the Legislature passed House Bill 20, requiring that the TexasTransportation Commission develop and implement a performance-based planning andprogramming process. The purpose of this legislation was to provide a process for the executiveand legislative branches of government to be able to determine whether TxDOT is meeting its10

goals and objectives. The legislation requires that the Commission develop and implementperformance metrics and measures in support of three of the agency’s major activities: Strategic planning in the statewide transportation plan (STP), the rural transportationplans (RTPs), and the unified transportation program (UTP). The evaluation of decision-making on projects selected for funding in the UTP andstatewide transportation improvement program (STIP). The evaluation of project delivery for projects in the department’s letting schedule.The legislation also requires that the Commission “periodically” review performance measuresand metrics in order to accomplish the following: Assess how well the transportation system is performing and operating in accordancewith the requirements of 23 USC Section 134 or 135, as applicable. Provide the department, Legislature, stakeholders, and the public with information tosupport decisions in a manner that is accessible and understandable to the public. Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of transportation projects and services. Demonstrate transparency and accountability. Address other issues the Commission considers necessary (1).These actions were important first steps in creating a performance measurement system to guideand align departmental decision-making with strategic goals. Although TxDOT reports a numberof system performance measures to the Legislature and the Legislative Budget Board each year,as required by Texas Transportation Code § 456.008 and 43 TAC § 16.203, these measures arenot tied to strategic goals and do not include measures for public engagement. The new Texaslaw provides a rationale and a framework for measuring the performance of project planning,selection, and delivery activities against previously established goals.The 2015 legislation also requires that TxDOT begin to develop and implement performancereports to assure transparency and accountability. This research found that some of the mosteffective public engagement programs were housed in states with no statutory requirement tomeasure or evaluate the performance of these programs, but they did tend to take place inagencies with long-standing cultures of transparent public engagement and policies ofaccountability. HB20’s emphasis on strategic planning, accountability, and transparency offer afoundation upon which to build such a culture.Transportation Performance Management: A Short HistoryOver at least the last 10 years, the use of performance measures by transportation agencies hassteadily increased, some through their own volition and some by mandate. Typically,transportation agencies have measured and tracked many of the scientific and engineered11

elements of transportation including bridge structuralintegrity, pavement quality, sign maintenance, andother system elements. Often performance of theseassets is measured in terms of resources used to buildand maintain them. Measuring and trackingperformance over time can improve planning,construction, maintenance, and operations. Ifregularly practiced, this monitoring can, in turn, helpto manage resources and improve transparency. TheWashington State Department of Transportation hasset the standard for accessible and regularperformance reporting with its Gray Notebook, aquarterly report of system and agency performance.See Figure 2.Washington State Department ofTransportation’s Gray NotebookIn May 2001, following a period oflow public confidence for its lack oftransparency, the Washington StateDepartment of Transportation(WSDOT) published its first GrayNotebook (GNB), a performancereporting tool which measures andreports agency and transportationsystem performance. The statedpurpose of the GNB is to keepWSDOT accountable to theGovernor, the Washington Statecitizens, legislators, andtransportation organizations.Published quarterly, the GNB iscredited with bringing about anincreased confidence in WSDOT inthe form of two major revenuepackages in 2003 and 2005 thatfunded 16 billion worth of projects,as well as a citizen defeat of a repealof the 2005 gas tax increase (2).Figure 2 shows one of severalperformance reports for pavementcondition reported in the GNB (3).12

Figure 2. Pavement Condition Performance Report, from WsDOT’s Gray Notebook.More recently, there have been moves to expand performance management to areas of agencyactivity beyond technical responsibility and resource allocation. More and more agencies arestarting to align performance measures with strategic planning and decision-making. Aperformance management system that is tied to an organization’s strategic goals can identifyappropriate measures, set targets, report on the measures, and use those results to make informeddecisions that align with agency goals (4). This process can help transportation agencies makethe best use of their resources and provide evidence of the need for additional funding. Figure 313

from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP) report on TransportationPerformance Measures: Insight from Practitioners illustrates how a performance managementstructure aligns the various aspects of project development and delivery.Figure 3. Performance Management Structure.What about Public Engagement?Public engagement can also be evaluated, and it is valuable to do so for several reasons. Publicperception is one of those reasons. Whether or not the public perceives a state agency as beingmanaged effectively and efficiently can have

Measuring Transportation Performance in Texas: House Bill 20 In 2015, the 84th Texas Legislature increased the statutory requirements for measuring TxDOT’s performance. That year, the Legislature passed House Bill 20, requiring that the Texas Transportation Commission develop and implement a performance-based planning and programming process.

Related Documents:

Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original

10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan

service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största

Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid

LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .

och krav. Maskinerna skriver ut upp till fyra tum breda etiketter med direkt termoteknik och termotransferteknik och är lämpliga för en lång rad användningsområden på vertikala marknader. TD-seriens professionella etikettskrivare för . skrivbordet. Brothers nya avancerade 4-tums etikettskrivare för skrivbordet är effektiva och enkla att

Den kanadensiska språkvetaren Jim Cummins har visat i sin forskning från år 1979 att det kan ta 1 till 3 år för att lära sig ett vardagsspråk och mellan 5 till 7 år för att behärska ett akademiskt språk.4 Han införde två begrepp för att beskriva elevernas språkliga kompetens: BI

**Godkänd av MAN för upp till 120 000 km och Mercedes Benz, Volvo och Renault för upp till 100 000 km i enlighet med deras specifikationer. Faktiskt oljebyte beror på motortyp, körförhållanden, servicehistorik, OBD och bränslekvalitet. Se alltid tillverkarens instruktionsbok. Art.Nr. 159CAC Art.Nr. 159CAA Art.Nr. 159CAB Art.Nr. 217B1B