THE NEED FOR PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

m LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Terrv L- Busson, Eastern Kentucky University

The article makes the case for evaluatirai sp*?cifie to local

government. The article examines the impact of Proposition
13 in CalifOTnia with an eye toward the usefuini^ss of program
and performance evaluaticm. In an era of resiiurce scarcity
there is a need for enhanced fserformance. Performance
evaluation is one way tat local government administrators to
enhance their programs and improve

The city manager of "Zenith," a small midwestern city, is raced with

a ma-or budget crisis. The cost of everything the city buys continues to
^ise, "the cost of providing services LS more expensive than ever and city
workers are expecting pay increases thut at least meet the cost of living.
All o:' these items would be difficult to cope with, but two other factors
make it almost impossible - a tax cap allowing no more than a 3% increase
in property taxes voted in by the state legislature and a 15% cutback in
federal monies provided to t'he city. The end result is that changes will
have to be made. Services must be redjced or cut out altogether, staffing
chang'es must be nmde, work assignmerts must be re-examined and poten-
tial new sources of revenue explored.
What does the managei- do, what services should be reduced or cut
out. whieh staff should be let go or reassigned, where should changes in
operations occur, and how should the decision making process proceed?
These are all questions that can be answered by the use of program and/or
peri'ormance evaluation.
The purpose of this paper will be to present the rationale for
performing evaluations, to describe the uses of evaluation, to consider
some of the steps necessary to eondud program and performance evalua-
tions, and to examine the benefits and abuses of evaluation. The paper is
not intended as an exhaustive treatment of any of tlie topics above, since
each has been the subject of several books on program evaluation (see, for
exaniple, Hatry, 1977, 1981; Nachmias. 1980). Rather this paper is intended
to convince the local government administrator of the need for, and useful-
ness of. program and performance evaluation.
Most local government administrators want to know if they are mak-
in£{ the best and most efficient use of their employees, money, equipment
and materiaL Further, these local government administratof^; want to be
able to evaluate new and existing programs and to examine the cost,
feasibility and long-term effects of these programs. The difficulty is ir
convincing the administrators that the benefits that can result from
program or performance evaluation are worth tlK-; time and effort required
to gain the knowledge and the skills required to conduct these evaluations,
This is where we find the <!ity manager of Zenith. He knows he must solve
the problem, but he doesn't know where to begin. Does he make aeross-the-
 u'd cuts or decisions based on political expediency? Wiil ne react t;>
those that make the most noise, or wiO he attempt to make tbe decisions
based on the best information availa!?ie for each prograin'?
The city manager of Zenith is suftering from some of ihe resuli.> ':•'
Proposition 13 which began in r'aiifornia and spread to dozens of other
es during- the past fe^

is useful to examine what tiappened

Proposition .13 in California.

n IJ and its 'nany oitsprin!^ m otncH* states

astrous results to many local governmcnls (Golden)., in
IS a sledge hammer on local govornnienl
ocal governments which had been raising taxes (usually property
K^et their service needs suddenly faced the loss of tip to one-
revenue. How did they react to this massive reduetiun?
•;alifornia governments waited' and hoped that the state treasury

ial and most ('alifornia cities had to make si

)!ten by ehmn
•ffset by various types of user fee^
elsarges.
It is notably apparent that ('aiifornia administraiors made lit tie

'or was much en'ori

10 loss of employees. Nor did they realize

that increased productivity would also allow administrators to reduce their
work force while at the same time maintaining the level of .service they
had at the time Proposition 13 was introduced. Without the knowledge thai

neir ses
counties in California had separate program eval'ialiori departme
e of doing either proE^ratn or performance evaluations/}
in using techniques of evaluation in order to make rational
IS to improve performance am}
';. No city has announced Mial
It IS

i s t r a t o r ' s o f f i c e . O o t h e o t h e r h a n d , in o r d e r t o '/."•;!L;:V-; •-.••: .,

A l a m e d a C o o n t y a b o l i s h e d t h e o f f i c e a n d r e l e a s e d all of i t s str:'': •->:-,r^i- -'•
T h e A l a m e d a e a s e is p a r t i c u l a r l y i r o n i c b e c a u s e in t ' T :;.--!• v. •;
p r i o r t o P r o p o s i t i o n 1 3 . i t s O f f i c e of P r o g r a m K v a l u a t i ••(• :.-?:' • -•, ••
 ^.valuaticm for Local Government 281

commended for reducing tbe county budget by some 5 million dollars. Its
office, established m 1975, was charged with "evaluating existing programs^
emphasizing planning as a part of endeavors, relating resource allocation to
program performance and effectiveness, and providing positive direction
for the improvement of service delivery." From the very beginning the
Aiameda Office of Program Evaluation established a ix)liey of cooperation
and involvement with all county departments in the evaluation process,
I'he goal of this evaluation unit was "to make program evaluation a signifi-
cant part of the policy-making and management system/'
Tho Alameda County Program Evaluation Office revised previous
studies and conducted new ones in an attempt to suggest changes that
ivould be cost effective for the service delivery system. Their goal was to
'^eliminate waste and promote increased performance and productivity,"
find thus minimize the need to either reduce services cr to make significant
reductions in the size of the work force..
But when it became apparent that Proposition 13 would probably pass,
instead of calling on the Office of Program PIvaluation. .^lameda County
Officials overreacted to the proposed lass of 20% of the budget. No one
waited to see what the state was going to do. Instead,
Immediately began to cut programs and staff.
Most areas of the budget had their constituencies,
or lacked internal support, found that they woul
nated altogether. Second, because the lociil neswspapers did not
the work of the Office of Program Evahjation, they made the office-
with other "soft" non-service programs—into w^ipping boys, prime
examples of high management costs and waste in ioeal government. In fact,
newspapers asked that the elimination of smch programs come
'6 direct services were reduced.. -\s a result, the battle
centered on meeting the demand for immediate services, with
or no concern for the long-term ramifications of Propostiion
term rational decision-making analysis was out; snort-term emotional
react'on was in. Also out was the Otfice of Program Evaluation.
1-he real crisis for locai government in California will come during
the next few years when the state, facing a budget deficit, reduces its
efforts to "bail-out" local governinenis. This reduction will force most local
governments to make difheult choices concerning how much to reduce
services and how much to increase user fees and service charges.
During the past two decades new services, programs and policies have
exparded rapidly not oniy for local governments in California, but for local
governments throughout the country. I^ow well do thsy work? What needs
are they meeting? Are they meeting the intended needs? These questions
tiave not been answered satisfactorily, particulariy because of lack of
perfonnance measurements and ongoing- program measurements and evalu-
ation, Local governments have been either unabie or unwilling to expend
the fjnds necessary to assess either how efi'icient o.;' how effective their
service programs are. Because of high costs, poor service, and the difficul-
ty of seeing results there have recently been nationwide demands for tas
cuts, budget cuts, and even the abolition of entire programs. Many of these
cuts were demanded because governments and agencies could not evaluate
the v*orth of their programs; nobody knew which programs to save anc
which to aboUsh—since nobodv knew *^or sure which programs were
 •H' t o (= -Sliofis it IS necessary to iissciiss iwo

/low of a specific i^over

aspects of a program, i
and most important of a tho
n. The purpose of the ^ aluation is to
^termine how we is doing, what It was i ed to do, arid
targe num!)er of studies ffTP avflilablp for al government
jials to examine e The oroblern K not a b of studies, bul
fcpfs fnp f"xaniolp HatfV
1979: PAR, 1979).

1, Comparison of before and after data — compares program

results measured at two pomts m time: the period before the
program was implemented, iinii at some appropriate Time
after implementation.

with actual post-program data -~ compares actual post

program data with estimates projected from n nuinber o
time periods prior to the programs,
•n segments not

with data on other

segment' ti bv tt\c Program,
>ernT ion — compares siirdiar
'e serveci by a program;
1 in different wavs)*
The critical factor is that the comparison group.'-; aro
assigned (before program implementation) so
r the pfogf

lepends on mmis tiiciors. ^.VSii.le

performance is both an individual and a group phenoinenon. cnvironmcntpJ
variables effect the determinants of performance ™ ahility and/or motiva
tion (Wholey). The following model will demonstrate tlie environmenLa] am
individual determinants of perfornmnce.
 Eval

Prog
Fellow workere
Compensation Performance
Working conditions
Training
Method of evaluation Motivation

The number of units or amount of work completed tells as very little

.•ibout how to compare performance unless, (1) the units or the work are
identical, (2) the conditions under whic'r the units are produced or the work
performed are identical, and (3) the quality of the production is identical,
is is a very complex and difficult matter, but a great deal o(
can be done, although some of it will have to be done in an
or unscientific manner. Son:e propositions h&ve very few identifi-
able imits of output. While the output of most programs can be measured, it
is often very difficult tc compare programs or accurately measure program
or performance if the goals and objectives are not clearly identified.

are made daily in every community. Frequently these deci-

sions are made on the basis of judgment or an intuitive understanding of the
community and its needs. This lack of information may mem that the
effects of choosing one alternative .^.ver another frequently eannot be
accurately described. This informal proees.s may work smoothly, but if t^,e^,
cannot prove the effectiveness of their programs and the efficiency of
rneir staffs, administrators may find their budget reduced, their programs
and staffs cut and their requests for adcitional money and staff denied.
Performance measurement can be used to atiswer the questions raised
by elected officials and taxpayers as \\ell as the questions encountered by
decision makers. Performance measurement for public services is a
management tool that can be useful for communities of any size and for
services of any type. What is involved in the performance process? How
cities use the process to their advardage?
Six major tasks are to be con.siderecJ in the performance nieasur

the goal(s) of tbe service(.s) and objectives of ths

r individual for reaching the goal(s).
2. [dentifving activities of the department or individuals for meeting
levels of effort jesourecs) and intended i'npacts
associated with activities.
performance ratios.
 (^oliectiop' Dcrforni
osirj^^ ifio sel ot meo.sor'es t-o assess i
Derforma.nce bv comparinc!^ planned vs. actua

ic need for, and useful applications of. program und iJerf

sation. Whiie the benefits can be many, it is important to die
Us and abuses of evaluation of which the admmistrator $]
>efofe the decision is made lo use evaiualion.

nsKKsred when oecKimg on whetrier i.u i-j.

tion i« the question of cost . W « long term prt^ces.s is desired* trier
staff is de gh the initial cost may soe.^n tugh, if S!
or one sho neededj then hirifig an outsi<le consult,'
most c actor must a^so be takeri into acco
Some designs can be very (sostly a
much more 1 than is really needed, lite admJ
nd obiectives In uiKlortaking the o'
evaluation office of his If not local p'overo ii
with a costiv evaluation

Program goals, objectives and aetivitiob are ofien stated uneic

or not at ali When this fioppens program or perform a nco ',*;jnn"
evaluated, since there is no standard by which to judge imf;
success or failure,
) s t i o n s t i i a t c a n XYC-, .i-r.,.;; ••.• ,,

i''''jRIlia!ion design

tions are designed for the eonvernence of the evaiuator <n

some cases for the administrator alone. When deciding on what lyi
of evaluation to use, the administrator would be weii served ?-
involving the officials of the program to be evaluated in tbe hwti
decision making process. This can assure that .'ill important i;ispoe
of the program will be exumineti mm the final evaluation report w:
be useful to the oro^ram officials as well as the adiTiinj

ICIUdeS !1Ot or.;

md tlie

nto con
the recommendations to be f^^aoe. An evahjatu;;: •;
conchjsio!)s that are supported by iiie data exair^'iei.
useful it fnusl consider the reality of the situation
alternative solutions tfu-it represent the
answer to the problej^^ at hand.
 for Local Government

mast be considered and unders",

sion 11:; made to undertake program or pt
the end result can be a costly expenditure
liie local governnsent and mean even mc»re rapid loss of support for existing
service provided by government.

This paper has presented the case for using program and performance
evaluation in the loeaJ govetnmeni {iecision-making process. Used correctly
and in a timely fashion, evaluation (!an be a tremendous asset to the
administrator. Program evaluation can be used to decide which programs
are neeting their goals, which are successful, winch are failures, what
changes should be made, and even to projeet the likely impact and cost of
proposed programs. Performance evsiluiition can be usied to mafce personnel
decisions, to evaluiite individual contributions to programs and to examine
the success of individual and program goals.
While the pitfalls aisd abuses of evaluation are many, the potential
possibilities outweigh the negative aspects involved. The Californifi
experience provides us with an example of what can happen when evalua-
tion is used, such as ir Alameda C-ountyj and what can happen when nc
evaluation process is available, and :1ecisions are made in a random rather
a rational manner.
While much progress has been made In t!ie use of evaluation at the
and state levels over tho past ten years, relatively little tnovernent
nas been seen at the local government evel. There h;is been an increase in
the use of single study evaluations done by outside eonsultants, but very
iittic long term ongoing evaluation or evaluations performed by in-house
units. Hopefully the arlicles in this volume will spark the interest of
in further examination of the potential of program and

Golden, Matt. Interviews wilh Mr. (lolden aiid other local govern men':
administrators in California conducted from 19'''9"]981. The author
wishes to thank Mr. Golden, former Director of P;'ogram Evaluation ftw
.^ilameda County, now a private eonsoltant in
, Harry P,. et"al. 19T7, How Effective Are
^rocedures for Monitormg the Effectivenes o( iVIunicipal
HVashington, DC: The Urban institute and the Internationa
\^anagement Association).
Harry P, et al. 1981. Practicsi. Program Evaluation
al Governments, 2nd eBTtioiT'TWashington, DC: The Urban
David (ed.). 1980. The Practice of Policv
St. Martin's), "''"'""" ^
PAR. 1977. Symposium on Policy Analysis in Gavern-nent: Alternatives to
•''Vluddling Through", Public Administration Review, vol. 37. no, 3
('4ay/June): 221-263.
PAR, 1979. Symposium on Policy Analysis in Slate and Local Goverufnent.
Public Administration Review, vol. 39, no. 1 'January/February): 12-45.