WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Overview of Performance Measurement. Learning Objectives By the end of the module, you will be able to: Describe what performance measurement is, and.
Advertisements

Greater Minnesota Transit Investment Plan PAC December 14, 2010.
Settlement Program Logic Model
1 Our priorities for the next three years Close Critical Service Gaps Increase availability of culturally appropriate services and serve more children.
Mobility Management Increasing Independence for Community Members.
TRANSPORTATION & EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CHECKLIST National Resource Center for Human Service Transportation Coordination (NRC)
TCRP Project J-6, Task 71 Rural Transit Achievements: Assessing the Outcomes of Increased SAFETEA-LU Funding for Rural Transit INTERIM FINDINGS – TOWN.
GETTING THERE The Vehicle To Participation!!!!
Evaluating Physical Activity Intervention Programs Thomas Schmid, PhD Physical Activity and Health Branch CDC Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
The Planning Perspective Presented by Joel Eisenfeld – KFH Group.
Developing Earmark Grant Performance Measures: Grant Proposal Section 3 Deanna Khemani.
Molly Chamberlin, Ph.D. Indiana Youth Institute
Best-Fit Evaluation Strategies: Are They Possible? John Carlo Bertot, John T. Snead, & Charles R. McClure Information Use Management and Policy Institute.
Wasatch Mobility Management Foster, organize and guide local and regional coordination efforts that directly or indirectly improve access and mobility.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services How will I get there? Transportation Resources in Massachusetts Presentation.
Together We Ride - Mobility Management Center for Santa Clara County Together We Ride.
White House Conference on Aging Transportation Policy Committee Testimony January 8, 2005 Looking Forward… Growing Older Public Transportation: Providing.
Cross Border Animal Health Plan of Action – Kenya and Uganda Four Strategic areas 1. To improve prevention, management and control of cross border animal.
Minnesota Council on Transportation Access Moving Transit Forward with Coordination, Action and Advocacy 9/19/11.
FTA Research Recipient Workshop Joblinks Employment Transportation Initiative May 15, 2008.
NON-TRADITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES WHEN ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL:
Transportation Coordination & Federal Transportation Administration Programs Marianne Freed, MSW/LSW Office of Transit Ohio Department of Transportation.
06/20/2007 Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) Update on FTA New Initiatives on Transportation Services.
Human Services Coordinated Transportation Plan Thursday July 20, 2006 GF City Hall Rm A102.
WESTAT COORDINATION 101: HOW TO MAKE IT WORK FOR YOU Coordination 101: How to Make Coordination Work for You Jon E. Burkhardt September 27, 2006 Community.
Evaluation Assists with allocating resources what is working how things can work better.
EVALUATION 101: HOW CAN WE DEMONSTRATE PROGRAM RESULTS? Jon E. Burkhardt, Westat Dr. David J. Bernstein, Westat Prepared for the National Center on Senior.
May 30, 2008 Community Integration Commission 1 DRPT Initiatives on Transportation Services For Older Adults, People With Disabilities.
SAFETEA-LU Elderly & Persons with Disabilities (5310) Job Access Reverse Commute (5316) New Freedom (5317)
Introductions Introduction to TCAG Federal Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Responsible for long-term planning for all modes of surface transportation.
SAFETEA-LU The Transportation Reauthorization Bill passed in 2005 Added New Federal Transit Administration Programs Revised some existing programs Final.
SAFETEA-LU Implementation FTA Program Rollout Federal Grant Programs JARC, New Freedom, and Elderly Individuals & Individuals with Disabilities Program.
CalACT Conference California Mobility Management Project JARC/New Freedom Grants San Diego, California March 19, 2009 California Alliance of Information.
United We Ride: Where are we Going? December 11, 2013 Rik Opstelten United We Ride Program Analyst.
1 Transportation Policy and Performance: The challenges and opportunities of performance-based programs Deputy Administrator Therese McMillan Federal Transit.
Overview of the U.S. DOT Priority ITS Initiative Mobility Services for All Americans James A. Bunch Mitretek Systems APTA Bus and Paratransit Conference.
Business Logistics 420 Public Transportation Lecture 23: Transit System Performance Evaluation.
Professionalizing Mobility Management: Developing Standards and Competencies Julie Dupree, Easter Seals Association of Travel Instruction Conference August.
Region X Local Human Service Transit Coordination Plan Public Workshop RDC Title Date Location Insert transit photo from your community here.
ITS Tools for Coordination Mobility Services for All Americans Yehuda Gross USDOT ITS Joint Program Office CalACT 2007 Spring Conference & Expo April 2007.
Mobility Options Project New Frontiers to Enhance Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Individuals with Disabilities with a Non-traditional.
Greater Minnesota Transit Investment Plan TAC November 17, 2010.
Evaluating Ongoing Programs: A Chronological Perspective to Include Performance Measurement Summarized from Berk & Rossi’s Thinking About Program Evaluation,
Module II: Developing a Vision and Results Orientation Cheri Hayes Consultant to Nebraska Lifespan Respite Statewide Sustainability Workshop June 23-24,
Using Logic Models in Program Planning and Grant Proposals The Covenant Foundation.
A New Transit and Mobility Vision. A New Relationship TRANSIT REVENUE TRANSIT DEMAND.
Sustainability Planning Framework and Process Cheri Hayes Consultant to Nebraska Lifespan Respite Statewide Sustainability Workshop June 23-24, 2015 ©
1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.
Access For All Adaptable Models Concurrent Sessions Harnessing Technology to Augment Community Mobility Gwo–Wei Torng Mitretek Systems Community Transportation.
Kathy Corbiere Service Delivery and Performance Commission
1 Cross-Cutting Issues 5310-JARC-New Freedom U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration SAFETEAU-LU Curriculum August 7, 2007.
Senate Select Committee on Aging and Long Term Care Final Report and Progress in 2015 Suzanne Reed, Chief of Staff Senator Carol Liu (Chair)
Community Transportation Association of Idaho Supporting, Coordinating and Promoting Mobility in Idaho Workforce Development Council February 24, 2010.
1 Section 5317: New Freedom Program (NFP) David Schneider Federal Transit Administration ESPA National Steering Committee Meeting September 27, 2007.
NYSDOT RURAL & SPECIALIZED TRANSIT CONFERENCE THE CHALLENGE.
Local Mobility Management Network Mobility Plan Update for LMMN 4C Burley, Idaho August 31, 2010.
Giving Them our Best: 4-H Professional Development Logic Model Outcome: 4-H educators reflect quality, distinction and leadership in the field of youth.
Center for Urban Transportation Research | University of South Florida Performance Measurement.
ITS Coordination Tools: Perspectives from a Rural California Region Pam Couch, Executive Director Modoc Transportation - Alturas, CA
City of Olathe Taxi Coupon Voucher Program. Creation of Program – Now and Then Seniors verbalized need for affordable, dependable and safe transportation.
Public Transit & Transportation Network Companies
Logic Models How to Integrate Data Collection into your Everyday Work.
and Transportation Impacts
Descriptive Analysis of Performance-Based Financing Education Project in Burundi Victoria Ryan World Bank Group May 16, 2017.
Short term Medium term Long term
Early Childhood and Family Outcomes
Service Array Assessment and Planning Purposes
Aniko Laszlo, MassDOT/MBTA
Re-Thinking Transportation for Individuals with Disabilities
Performance Measurement
Presentation transcript:

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT WHY?  ACCOUNTABILITY  EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS  ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT A Summary of TCRP Report 88: A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance- Measurement System

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Traditional service efficiency indicators (e.g., operating expense per vehicle revenue mile and/or hour) and cost- effectiveness indicators (e.g., operating expense per passenger mile and/or passenger trip) are sometimes not linked to customer-oriented and community issues.

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES  INPUT – ADDRESSES THE SUPPLY OF RESOURCES  OUTPUT – ADDRESSES THE DELIVERY OF PROGRAMS  OUTCOME MEASURES – ADDRESSES THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE PROGRAM MEETS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT  Identify what is important  Provide information on current conditions and performance  Evaluate the success of programs  Provide a metric for communications  Serve as criteria for investment decisions

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT  PEER  TIME TEND

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Peer Analysis  “Similar Systems”  Rides  Productivity  Cost/trip  On-time Performance

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Time Trend Analysis Rides/Hour Year 2002

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT UNITED WE RIDE  LOGIC MODEL  This tool is designed to assist in the difficult work of coordinating systems and blending efforts across service delivery systems at the national, state, and community levels.  The Logic Model and Measures were developed by an “expert panel” following input of myriad stakeholder and advocacy organizations.  Logic models are a widely used tool for program planning and change management.

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT DEFINITIONS OF LOGIC MODEL  Situation  Inputs  Outputs  Indicators  Outcomes  Result

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT UWR LOGIC MODEL Situation Transportation Needs of Target Populations Inadequate Capacity to Meet Needs Inadequate Awareness of Resources Measurable Change In: Communities with coordinated transportation systems Communities with simple point of access Customer satisfaction Increased mobility, accessibility and ridership through the integration of transportation services and resources. 62 Federal Programs Funding Technology Consumers Travel Training Driver Training Needs and Resource Assessment. Action Plans Trainings Rides for Consumers Different Types of Transportation Services Pedestrian Access Technology Use Outcomes Result Inputs Outputs Indicators Gauge of Progress In: Number of Agencies Participating Number of Rides provided in coordinated system Number of Individuals reporting greater satisfaction Cross Cutting Performance Measures

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Overall Desired Impact Goal  Greater ability to autonomously participate in all aspects of life through increased access to transportation services for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes. The way communities will reach this long- term goal is to provide easier access to more rides with higher customer satisfaction in service quality for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes. The way communities will reach this long- term goal is to provide easier access to more rides with higher customer satisfaction in service quality for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes.

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Goal 1: MORE RIDES FOR TARGET POPULATIONS FOR THE SAME OR FEWER ASSETS.  Measure 1: Increase the # of rides for the same or fewer assets for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes. (Efficiency outcome)

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Goal 1  Definition: PM 1: To increase the number of communities and states reporting the use of shared resources (e.g., staff, equipment, funding, etc) between different agencies and organizations so that they can provide more rides for more people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes **. PM 1: To increase the number of communities and states reporting the use of shared resources (e.g., staff, equipment, funding, etc) between different agencies and organizations so that they can provide more rides for more people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes **.  Potential Related Indicators 1.1: Increase the number of individuals employed in a senior staff position to manage and coordinate all aspects of human service transportation for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes between multiple agencies and organizations. 1.1: Increase the number of individuals employed in a senior staff position to manage and coordinate all aspects of human service transportation for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes between multiple agencies and organizations. 1.2: Increase the number of agencies and funding sources by community or state participating in a coordinated human service transportation system. 1.2: Increase the number of agencies and funding sources by community or state participating in a coordinated human service transportation system. 1.3: To increase the number of coordinated human service transportation plans that are developed and implemented between multiple agencies at the state and local levels. (The indicator at the local level is the development and implementation of the plan; the potential national measure is the increase in the numbers of such plans). 1.3: To increase the number of coordinated human service transportation plans that are developed and implemented between multiple agencies at the state and local levels. (The indicator at the local level is the development and implementation of the plan; the potential national measure is the increase in the numbers of such plans). 1.4: To increase the number of rides for persons who are older, people with disabilities and individuals with limited incomes. 1.4: To increase the number of rides for persons who are older, people with disabilities and individuals with limited incomes. **Note: Communities and/or States implementing measures should consider collecting baseline data as appropriate. Selected measures may be included in studies conducted at the national level. **Note: Communities and/or States implementing measures should consider collecting baseline data as appropriate. Selected measures may be included in studies conducted at the national level.

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Goal 2 – SIMPLIFY ACCESS  Measure 2: Increase the # of communities with easier access to transportation services for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes. (Effectiveness outcome)

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Goal 2  Definition: PM 2: To increase the number of communities (e.g., urban, rural, other) which have a simplified point of access*-coordinated human service transportation system for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes so that they can have easier access to transportation services**. PM 2: To increase the number of communities (e.g., urban, rural, other) which have a simplified point of access*-coordinated human service transportation system for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes so that they can have easier access to transportation services**.  Potential Related Indicators 2.1: Increase the number of agencies, service providers and funding sources participating in a simplified point of access* to transportation services for consumers. 2.1: Increase the number of agencies, service providers and funding sources participating in a simplified point of access* to transportation services for consumers. 2.2: Increase the types of modes (e.g., bus, paratransit, taxi, volunteer, etc) included in a simple point of entry system implemented at the local level. 2.2: Increase the types of modes (e.g., bus, paratransit, taxi, volunteer, etc) included in a simple point of entry system implemented at the local level. 2.3: Increase the numbers of individuals with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and persons with limited incomes accessing transportation services within a simplified point of entry -coordinated human service system. 2.3: Increase the numbers of individuals with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and persons with limited incomes accessing transportation services within a simplified point of entry -coordinated human service system.  * Note: Simplified point of access is defined as an easy and single entry point for consumers who are accessing transportation services regardless of the target population, funding agency, transportation provider, or type of transportation service being provided.  **Note: Communities and/or States implementing measures should consider collecting baseline data as appropriate..

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Goal 3: INCREASE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION  Measure 3: Increase the quality of transportation services for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes (Customer Satisfaction outcome)

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Goal 3  Definition PM3: To increase the level of customer satisfaction reported in areas related to the availability, the affordability, the acceptability, and the accessibility of transportation services for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes**. PM3: To increase the level of customer satisfaction reported in areas related to the availability, the affordability, the acceptability, and the accessibility of transportation services for people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes**.  Potential Related Indicators 3.1: Increase the % of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes who feel that transportation services are more available. 3.1: Increase the % of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes who feel that transportation services are more available. 3.2: Increase the % of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes who feel that transportation services are more accessible. 3.2: Increase the % of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes who feel that transportation services are more accessible. 3.3: Increase the % of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes who feel that transportation services are more affordable. 3.3: Increase the % of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes who feel that transportation services are more affordable. 3.4: Increase the % of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes who feel that transportation services drivers are more courteous and helpful. 3.4: Increase the % of people with disabilities, older adults, children and youth, and individuals with lower incomes who feel that transportation services drivers are more courteous and helpful. **Note: Communities and/or States implementing measures should consider collecting baseline data as appropriate. **Note: Communities and/or States implementing measures should consider collecting baseline data as appropriate.

WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT Thoughts???  DO WE WANT TO BE MEASURED?  NO  GOOD MANAGERS KNOW SUCCESS AND FAILURE  HOW DO YOU MEASURE SUCCESS?