Table of Contents

    Does the Jurisdiction Use Data

    1. Jurisdiction uses internal data
    2. Jurisdiction uses external data
    3. Jurisdiction does not use internal or external data
  1. Among Jurisdictions That Currently Use Data

    Among Data Users: History of Data Use

  2. Among data users: Whether jurisdiction uses performance data on ad hoc basis or systematically
  3. Among data users:

    1. Among data users: How long jurisdiction has been using performance measures
  4. Among Data Users: Extent Jurisdiction uses Different Types of Data Internally

    1. Measures of inputs
    2. Measures of workload
    3. Measures of efficiency
    4. Measures of effectiveness
    5. Measures of citizen satisfaction
  5. Among Data Users: How Jurisdiction Performance Measures Developed

    1. Developed in-house
    2. Designed by a consultant
    3. Patterned after a model
    4. Developed with assistance of organizations
  6. Among Data Users: Sources from Which Jurisdiction Gathers External Data

    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
  7. Among Data Users: Perceived Effectiveness of Using Data

    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
  8. Among Data Users: Public Sharing of Data

  9. Is performance data shared publically
    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
  10. Among Data Users: Support or Opposition

    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
  11. Among Data Users: Potential Problems in the Use of Data

    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
  12. Among Data Users: Value of Data Practices

    1. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for the jurisdiction
    2. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for local governments in general
  13. Likelihood that jurisdiction will cut back or expand performance measurement activities within next 12 months
  14. Among Jurisdictions That Do Not Currently Use Data

    Among Non-Data Users: History & Future Data Use

  15. Jurisdiction engaged in data-driven decision making in the past
  16. Jurisdiction considering new uses of data in decision making
  17. Whether jurisdiction is likely to use performance data on ad hoc basis or systematically
  18. Among Non-Data Users: Likelihood of Using Data for Specific Purposes

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

    1. Developed in-house
    2. Designed by a consultant
    3. Patterned after a model
    4. Developed with assistance of organizations
  20. Among Non-Data Users: Value of Potential External Assistance

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

  22. Likelihood that jurisdiction will adopt new uses of data within next 12 months
    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
  23. Among Non-Data Users: Potential Problems in the Use of Data

    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
  24. Among Non-Data Users: Value of Data Practices

    1. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for the jurisdiction
    2. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for local governments in general
  25. Among All Respondents

    Performance Dashboard

    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
  26. Status of jurisdiction's performance dashboard
  27. Likelihood that jurisdiction will revise measurement categories on its performance dashboard
  28. Citizen's Guide to Local Government Finances

    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
  29. Status of jurisdiction's citizen's guide
  30. Likelihood that jurisdiction will revise measurement categories on its citizen's guide
  31. Economic Vitality Incentive Program

  32. Familiarity with the Economic Vitality Incentive Program
  33. Jurisdiction's eligibility for Economic Vitality Incentive Program
  34. Jurisdiction certified in accountability and transparency
  35. Jurisdiction will certify in collaboration/consolidation/service sharing
  36. Jurisdiction will certify in employee compensation
  37. Familiarity with the Economic Vitality Incentive Program assistance grants
  38. Likelihood that jurisdiction will apply for an Economic Vitality Incentive Program grant