In a previous blog, I explored the unique challenges of implementing performance management within community development. I highlighted two key factors that contribute to these difficulties. First, community development services are not consistently structured across local governments. They may operate at the county or municipal level, exist as independent departments, or be housed under code enforcement or economic development. Second, these departments are responsible for a wide range of services, from housing initiatives to managing nonprofit partnerships and workforce development programs, making it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons with other community development services.
In this blog, I will explore two practical strategies that community development practitioners can use to address these challenges and implement performance management within their departments, divisions, and units to drive better outcomes.
What is Performance Management?
Performance management is an ongoing, cyclical process of making evidence-informed decisions to improve public outcomes. These systems allow community development leaders to define the purpose of their services, identify priorities, set clear expectations, measure progress toward those expectations, and analyze the data from the measurement process to make data-informed decisions. Performance management systems can also help operationalize strategic plans by tracking progress toward meeting expectations and making subsequent decisions to continuously improve performance.
How is Performance Management Different from Program Evaluation?
Community development professionals are often more familiar with program evaluation than with performance management. Program evaluation is frequently mandated by federal agencies or external grant-making organizations such as foundations to assess the effectiveness of programs and the use of grant funds. These evaluations help answer critical questions, such as how well a job training program assisted former inmates in securing employment, or how Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds helped bring homes into compliance, ensuring that low-income homeowners remain safely housed.
Program evaluation generally involves one-time, in-depth analyses aimed at determining the effectiveness of a particular policy or program. In contrast, performance management is an ongoing, cyclical process that measures and analyzes resource allocation, activities, outputs, and the overall impact of the entire community development service. While program evaluation and performance management are distinct processes, they work hand in hand to help public managers make informed decisions and improve community outcomes.
For example, program evaluation enables managers to assess the impact of a specific CDBG-funded project, while performance management provides insight into broader issues like housing affordability and safety across the municipality or county. Program evaluation supports decision-making about whether to continue, adjust, or end a particular project. In contrast, performance management guides broader decisions, such as whether to allocate additional funding to assist low-income homeowners, collaborate with county social services for more effective solutions, or pursue new grants – actions that extend beyond the scope of any one grant or project. Together, these two systems give managers a more comprehensive understanding of how individual programs and initiatives collectively influence overall outcomes.
Leveraging Resources for Performance Management
Performance management depends on having the resources necessary to collect and analyze data. Gathering data can often be a demanding and time-consuming task, particularly when there are no available external sources the community development division can tap into. For instance, information about resource allocation such as operational and personnel costs can typically be obtained from the city or county budgeting department. However, it would probably fall upon the community development program staff to manually confirm the number of grant recipient households achieving code compliance or verify how many participants in a workforce development program have successfully secured employment.
This challenge becomes even more significant for small community development divisions staffed by only one or two full-time employees. Nevertheless, these services still need to justify their budgets, communicate operational details with city or county management, and demonstrate achievements to stakeholders. When resources for data collection and analysis are limited, these divisions can connect with other small community development services to exchange ideas on effective data practices. Additionally, they might collaborate with related departments within the municipality or county, such as planning, code enforcement, social services, or economic development, which may already possess relevant data. If feasible, they could also consider hiring a part-time data analyst or partnering with another department to dedicate a few hours each week from an existing analyst.
Conclusion
Community development services can greatly benefit from implementing a performance management system alongside program evaluation. By dedicating even modest resources to these efforts, community development services are better equipped to collect and analyze data, empowering them to make informed decisions that enhance outcomes.
Obed Pasha is a School of Government faculty member who focuses on performance management and directs the North Carolina Benchmarking Project.