The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)

Fall 2011 Data Tables

« Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Fall 2011 Wave of the MPPS Broken down by jurisdiction type, population size, and region of the state:

Table of Contents

Does the Jurisdiction Use Data

2. 1. Jurisdiction uses internal data
   2. Jurisdiction uses external data
   3. Jurisdiction does not use internal or external data

Among Jurisdictions That Currently Use Data

Among Data Users: History of Data Use

3. Whether jurisdiction uses performance data on ad hoc basis or systematically
4. How long jurisdiction has been using performance measures

Among Data Users: Extent Jurisdiction uses Different Types of Data Internally

5. 1. Measures of inputs
   2. Measures of workload
   3. Measures of efficiency
   4. Measures of effectiveness
   5. Measures of citizen satisfaction

Among Data Users: How Jurisdiction Performance Measures Developed

6. 1. Developed in-house
   2. Designed by a consultant
   3. Patterned after a model
   4. Developed with assistance of organizations

Among Data Users: Sources from Which Jurisdiction Gathers External Data

7. 1. U.S. Census Bureau
   2. Michigan Department of Treasury website
   3. Michigan Association of Counties
   4. Michigan Municipal League
   5. Michigan Townships Association
   6. Regional organizations
   7. Private organizations, consultants, etc.
   8. Informal exchanges of information with other jurisdictions

Among Data Users: Perceived Effectiveness of Using Data

8. 1. Perceived effectiveness for improving management decisions
   2. Perceived effectiveness for guiding budgeting decisions
   3. Perceived effectiveness for identifying cost savings
   4. Perceived effectiveness for improving program or service quality
   5. Perceived effectiveness for guiding individual program/department planning
   6. Perceived effectiveness for guiding overall strategic planning
   7. Perceived effectiveness for guiding compensation decisions
   8. Perceived effectiveness for effectiveness of using data for negotiating with unions
   9. Perceived effectiveness for improving communication with the jurisdiction's council/board
   10. Perceived effectiveness for improving accountability and transparency
   11. Perceived effectiveness for improving civic participation among the public
   12. Perceived effectiveness for public relations/promoting the jurisdiction

Among Data Users: Public Sharing of Data

9. Is performance data shared publicly
10. 1. Shares data through jurisdiction-wide reports
    2. Shares data through specific agency/program/department reports
    3. Shares data through press releases
    4. Shares data through government newsletters
    5. Shares data through posting to local government website
    6. Shares data through performance dashboard

Among Data Users: Support or Opposition

11. 1. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's council/board
    2. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's managers
    3. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's non-managerial employees
    4. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's citizens
    5. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's business community

Among Data Users: Potential Problems in the Use of Data

12. 1. Costs required to collect and use performance data
    2. Ability to obtain external data
    3. Ability to analyze performance data
    4. Ability to tie performance data to jurisdiction’s goals
    5. Ability to keep measures current
    6. Ability to implement change in response to data findings

Among Data Users: Value of Data Practices

13. 1. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for the jurisdiction
    2. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for local governments in general
14. Likelihood that jurisdiction will cut back or expand performance measurement activities within next 12 months

Among Jurisdictions That Do Not Currently Use Data

Among Non-Data Users: History & Future Data Use

17. Jurisdiction engaged in data-driven decision making in the past
19. Jurisdiction considering new uses of data in decision making
20. Whether jurisdiction is likely to use performance data on ad hoc basis or systematically

Among Non-Data Users: Likelihood of Using Data for Specific Purposes

21. 1. For improving management decisions
    2. For guiding budgeting decisions
    3. For identifying cost savings
    4. For improving program or service quality
    5. For guiding individual program/department planning
    6. For guiding overall strategic planning
    7. For guiding compensation decisions
    8. For use in negotiating with unions
    9. For improving communication with the jurisdiction’s council/board
    10. For improving government accountability and transparency
    11. For improving civic participation among the public
    12. For use in public relations/promoting the jurisdiction

Among Non-Data Users: How Jurisdiction Performance Measures Likely to be Developed

22. 1. Developed in-house
    2. Designed by a consultant
    3. Patterned after a model
    4. Developed with assistance of organizations

Among Non-Data Users: Value of Potential External Assistance

23. 1. Local or regional performance data
    2. State performance data
    3. National performance data
    4. Consultants for designing measures
    5. Models or templates for designing measures
    6. Training on collection, analysis and use of measures
    7. Funding support to develop and/or implement measures

Among Non-Data Users: Future Data Use & Support or Opposition

24. Likelihood that jurisdiction will adopt new uses of data within next 12 months
25. 1. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's council/board
    2. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's managers
    3. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's non-managerial employees
    4. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's citizens
    5. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's business community

Among Non-Data Users: Potential Problems in the Use of Data

26. 1. Costs required to collect and use performance data
    2. Ability to obtain external data
    3. Ability to analyze performance data
    4. Ability to tie performance data to jurisdiction’s goals
    5. Ability to keep measures current
    6. Ability to implement change in response to data findings

Among Non-Data Users: Value of Data Practices

27. 1. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for the jurisdiction
    2. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for local governments in general

Among All Respondents

Performance Dashboard

28. 1. Perceived effectiveness of a local government dashboard for jurisdiction's accountability and transparency
    2. Perceived effectiveness of a local government dashboard for jurisdiction's performance
    3. Perceived effectiveness of a local government dashboard for jurisdiction's ability to benchmark
30. Status of jurisdiction's performance dashboard
31. Likelihood that jurisdiction will revise measurement categories on its performance dashboard

Citizen's Guide to Local Government Finances

33. 1. Perceived effectiveness of a citizen's guide for jurisdiction's accountability and transparency
    2. Perceived effectiveness of a citizen's guide for jurisdiction's performance
    3. Perceived effectiveness of a citizen's guide for jurisdiction's ability to benchmark
35. Status of jurisdiction's citizen's guide
36. Likelihood that jurisdiction will revise measurement categories on its citizen's guide

Economic Vitality Incentive Program

38. Familiarity with the Economic Vitality Incentive Program
39. Jurisdiction's eligibility for Economic Vitality Incentive Program
40. Jurisdiction certified in accountability and transparency
41. Jurisdiction will certify in collaboration/consolidation/service sharing
42. Jurisdiction will certify in employee compensation
45. Familiarity with the Economic Vitality Incentive Program assistance grants
46. Likelihood that jurisdiction will apply for an Economic Vitality Incentive Program grant

MPPS Home

---

• See the MPPS home page

MPPS Resources

---

Data Tables "Core" Fiscal Tracking Items Fall 2011 MPPS Data Spring 2011 MPPS Data More tables Fall 2010 MPPS Data Spring 2010 MPPS Data Fall 2009 MPPS Data Spring 2009 MPPS Data

---

Reports State funding incentives increase local collaboration but also raise concerns (March 2012) Officials react to funding incentives (January 2012) Fiscal health continues decline, though some trends have eased in 2011 (October 2011) More reports Public sector unions in Michigan: their presence and impact according to local government leaders (August 2011) Assessments of state's direction and state policymaker job performance (August 2011) Local government and environmental leadership (July 2011) Local leaders mostly positive on intergovernmental cooperation (March 2011) Local government pay and benefits (February 2011) Support for economic gardening (November 2010) Coping with fiscal, service, and staffing pressures (August 2010) Promoting participation in the U.S. Census (August 2010) Fiscal stimulus package impacts (May 2010) Fall 2009 key findings (April 2010) Low trust in Lansing (March 2010) Spring 2009 key findings (October 2009)

---

Questionnaires Fall 2011 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2011 MPPS Questionnaire Fall 2010 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2010 MPPS Questionnaire More questionnaires Fall 2009 MPPS Questionnaire Spring 2009 MPPS Questionnaire

---

Individual Study Pages Fall 2011 Spring 2011 More study pages Fall 2010 Spring 2010 Fall 2009 Spring 2009

---

More on the MPPS

---

• MPPS Coverage in the news and media
• See the MPPS regions as used for breakdowns in reports and in the data tables
• How to cite MPPS data

closup@umich.edu   |

735 South State Street, Suite 5310. Ann Arbor, MI. 48109-3091   |

phone: 734-647-4091   |

© 2012 Regents of the University of Michigan