2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

A Framework for Indicators and Decisionmaking 141
task is no longer one of preparing a single plan that one expects to hold
constant, but rather developing the capacity to figure out how to change
the plan if B happens or C happens, instead of A as was first assumed.
Performance Management and Evaluation
The work defined above yields a plan (a particular scenario) that is
selected to guide operations at least initially. The next stage in the process,
which is also data intensive, is monitoring performance against that
plan. This first means collecting and displaying updated data on the program’s
outcome indicators that tell directly whether the key results are
being achieved.
In recent years there has been substantially increased emphasis on
“results-oriented” behavior in the social sector and performance measurement
to back it up. Those advocating this direction recognize that
it may require a major culture change for many social service agencies,
but they see much more quantification along these lines as essential if
underlying goals are to be met (Morino 2011). And new approaches to
measurement and assessment have been developed to help practitioners
assess performance more realistically; see, for example, results-based
accountability as proposed by Friedman (2005).
But, again, simply looking at changes in outcome measures is not
enough. It is also necessary at the same time to examine measures that
describe the actions that have been taken, which may or may not be fully
consistent with what the plan specified, and changes to the context indicators
(some exogenous event or trend may have deflected performance,
despite good work by the initiative team). In this phase, managers are
thinking through why the outcomes turned out as they did.
Ideally, the meeting in which the performance review takes place
should not just be about looking at the data and handing out praise
or blame. It should also be purposefully designed to include serious
thought about what worked, what did not, and why (explicitly referencing
and possibly amending the theory of change as appropriate). They
can then make midcourse corrections to the plan, or possibly revise it
dramatically, on the basis of that analysis. In other words, additional
scenarios should be formulated and tested, spurred on by the information
updates.
But this type of performance review does not happen often enough. In
fact, public-sector agenda management in America has been criticized of