MPPS Fall 2011 data tables

Back to the Michigan Public Policy Survey Homepage Search all Fall 2011 data tables

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

 

    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

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

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

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

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

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

Among Data Users: Public Sharing of Data

  1. Is performance data shared publicly
    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

    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

    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

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

  1. Jurisdiction engaged in data-driven decision making in the past
  2. Jurisdiction considering new uses of data in decision making
  3. 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

    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

    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

    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

  1. 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

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

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

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
  1. Status of jurisdiction's performance dashboard
  2. Likelihood that jurisdiction will revise measurement categories on its performance dashboard

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
  1. Status of jurisdiction's citizen's guide
  2. Likelihood that jurisdiction will revise measurement categories on its citizen's guide

Economic Vitality Incentive Program

  1. Familiarity with the Economic Vitality Incentive Program
  2. Jurisdiction's eligibility for Economic Vitality Incentive Program
  3. Jurisdiction certified in accountability and transparency
  4. Jurisdiction will certify in collaboration/consolidation/service sharing
  5. Jurisdiction will certify in employee compensation
  6. Familiarity with the Economic Vitality Incentive Program assistance grants
  7. Likelihood that jurisdiction will apply for an Economic Vitality Incentive Program grant

« Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home