设为首页  |   加入收藏  |   无障碍浏览  |    语言: 繁体中文  |   English
当前位置: 首页 > 绩效资讯 > 工作动态 > 图片新闻

双城记:不同的绩效管理体系如何应用市民反馈

发布时间:2018-11-12

编者按:

2018年9月,IBM政府运营中心高级研究员,美国行政科学院院士、联邦政府改革小组召集人,美国自然科学基金会预算与管理顾问委员会委员John Kamensky(约翰·卡曼斯基)来杭参加“新时代的政府绩效管理:国际经验和中国创新”研讨会,并作了题为“美国地方政府绩效管理新趋势”的主题发言。

会上,市考评办(绩效办)主任伍彬作了《公众参与是中国特色政府绩效管理的基本路径》的主题演讲,结合杭州的探索实践,分享了社会公众参与政府绩效管理的具体做法和体会,引起了John Kamensky的高度关注。

John Kamensky回美国后,将纽约和杭州两地政府绩效的现状、体系、如何收集市民反馈、成效及下一步工作进行比较研究后,于2018年11月5日和7日,分两次在IBM中心网站发表博客《A Tale of Two Cities: How Different Performance Management Systems Use Citizen Feedback》(<双城记:不同的绩效管理体系如何运用市民反馈>)。

文中,John Kamensky得出结论:在绩效管理系统和市民反馈方面,杭州框架结构化程度比纽约更高、参与程度更深。

John Kamensky实践经验丰富,此前曾任职于美国联邦审计署,为1993年《政府绩效与结果法案》的制定发挥了关键作用,其后担任副总统戈尔领导的“政府再造委员会”副主任,推动了绩效管理在美国政府的建设和发展。他编写了9本著作,发表了一系列有关领导力、绩效管理、循证决策以及政策改革方面的文章。目前致力于构想2040年美国政府的未来前景。

现将《A Tale of Two Cities: How Different Performance Management Systems Use Citizen Feedback》(<双城记:不同的绩效管理体系如何运用市民反馈>)全文及译文刊录如下:

1.png 2.png

(原网页内容)

  3.png 4.png

(浏览器翻译后网页内容)

 

5.png

6.png 7.png

8.png 9.png

A Tale of Two Cities:

How Different Performance Management Systems Use Citizen Feedback

 

There’s been a decades-long movement in the U.S. to increase citizens’ involvement in government, and for government services to be more citizen-centric. As a result, we expect to see such initiatives in cities across the U.S., but what about in China? Interestingly, there is a real commitment in some cities in China to listen, and respond, to their citizens.

 

I recently visited the City of Hangzhou, China, the capital of a coastal province north of Shanghai and the southern terminus of the ancient Grand Canal waterway, which originates in Beijing, 700 miles to the north.  It has a population of more than 9 million, which is about the same size as New York City, the U.S.’s largest city. Hangzhou is one of the leaders in China on using performance information to manage and to listen to its citizens.

 

We often make assumptions about how governments in other countries run, and sometimes when we learn more, we are surprised. Here’s a comparison between these two cities of comparable size, in very different political systems – and how they have created performance management systems that both inform and respond to their citizens.

 

How New York City Assesses Agency Performance and Citizen Feedback?

 

Forty years ago, New York City launched its cutting-edge Mayor’s Management Report “to equip New Yorkers with the information they need to hold their government accountable,” according to the Mayor’s Office of Operations.

 

The City was a pioneer in measuring municipal performance in the 1970s, and in holding its agencies accountable and providing publicly available status reports.

 

The City also was an early adopter of on-the-ground observation teams to validate selected measures being reported, such as street conditions, neighborhood cleanliness, and the conditions of city-run facilities. Today, it supplements these key agency-level measures with interactive neighborhood maps to make it easier for citizens to readily compare conditions in different parts of the city.

 

In recent years, the 51-member elected City Council has even begun piloting the use of participatory budgeting in neighborhoods around the City.  For example, this year a number of City Council members have allocated $1 million in their own districts so that community citizens can decide how dollars would be allocated for projects in their local neighborhoods.

 

How Is the City’s Performance System Organized? 

 

The City’s performance reporting system is coordinated through the Mayor’s Office of Operations, which prepares the legally-required annual Mayor’s Management Report. This report has evolved over the years from a highly-detailed and technical multi-volume set of reports to a single volume “people’s report card.” But at 450 pages covering 45 city agencies, the recently-released 2018 report is still a challenging read!

 

The performance-tracking and reporting unit within the Mayor’s Office of Operations consists of about 10-15 staff.  About half focus on cross-cutting city priorities such as “Vision Zero,” which is an initiative to reduce traffic accidents and deaths by engaging city agencies involved in street design, law enforcement, and safety campaigns. Vision Zero is one of nine cross-cutting initiatives. The rest of the performance unit staff divvy up monitoring performance within each of the 45 city agencies. There is a liaison within each agency responsible for being the point of contact with the Mayor’s Office, mainly for data gathering and transmission. 

 

The key performance indicators for each City agency are jointly developed and agreed upon by the performance unit and the agency. Sometimes the City Council can ask for metrics that they want information on, and sometimes the Mayor’s performance unit gets requests to collect certain types of performance data from the City’s budget office. Performance targets are typically set for key services – such as 6 hours to restore water to customers after a water main break -- but sometimes there is pushback from the agencies when targets are proposed.

 

Each city agency has its own data collection and reporting team that provides input into the development of the annual Mayor’s Management Report released each September (there is also a preliminary report published earlier in the year). There is a common format and agencies submit their data via the city’s Performance Management Application. 

 

Interestingly, while the City pioneered the use of the “Performance-Stat” approach in the early 1990s, this management-by-data approach is typically conducted by individual city agencies, but it is being done less formally than in the past. Its use depends on the leadership styles of politically-appointed agency commissioners.

 

How Does the City Collect Citizen Feedback? There is no systematic citizen satisfaction survey for the city or its services.  There are some neighborhood level and program-specific surveys conducted by city agencies or for specific initiatives, but not on a regular basis. For example, the Vision Zero initiative (traffic safety) created an on-line map where citizens could mark specific intersections that they saw as dangerous, and why. There were also extensive outreach efforts and neighborhood level meetings to obtain input. As a result, public feedback led to the installation of new stop signs, lights, and street reconfigurations.

 

A city-wide resident survey was last conducted in 2008 by the city government and has not been repeated.  However, a non-profit group, the Citizens Budget Commission, independently repeated the survey in 2017, sending surveys to 72,000 households. This produced community level data that was statistically valid even though it had only a 13 percent response rate.  The survey asked questions about quality of life as well as satisfaction with city services by different agencies.  It also allowed open-ended questions about agencies and improvements that could be made, which produced 20,000 written responses. According to Maria Doulis, vice president of the Commission, the City government expressed interest in the survey results but has not committed to conducting services regularly.

 

According to Doulis and former city officials, the City’s primary feedback mechanism is based on citizen calls to the City’s 311 service request system. This system tracks work requests for 14 City agencies, such as pot holes, rat control, and broken street light. The elected City Council sees itself as a proxy for more robust citizen feedback.  In addition, some individual City agencies undertake their own initiatives to gather feedback from their customers. For example, the City’s building code and zoning department has its own online customer survey on its homepage.

 

Next Steps.  The Mayor’s Office of Operations is currently undergoing a leadership change, but external observers such as the Citizens Budget Commission, say that the Office’s next step should be to develop better ties to the City’s budget development process, and to produce and report more real-time data that is useful to both elected leaders and citizens.

 

How the City of Hangzhou Assesses Agency Performance and Gathers Citizen Feedback

 

While the oversight of New York City’s performance system is run out of the Mayor’s office, in Hangzhou, an independent commission assesses agency performance and gathers extensive citizen feedback.  This is a leading-edge approach in China.  Most other Chinese cities operate more like New York City, with their performance management system and oversight being managed by a bureau within the city’s government, with more of a focus on compliance and less on problem-solving.

 

How Is Hangzhou’s Performance System Organized? In China, the Communist Party’s leaders outrank the mayor.  In Hangzhou’s city government, the local deputy party secretary heads an independent Comprehensive Evaluation Commission, which is also known as the Hangzhou Performance Management Commission. As a result, this commission has significant clout when it assesses and scores each city department annually.  The commission has a staff arm of about 40, the Office of the Comprehensive Evaluation Commission (OCEC). (Insert hotlink to details)

 

The Commission’s assessment of individual agencies is not unlike the assessments undertaken for the New York City Mayor’s Management Report, but the Hangzhou Commission’s report is organized around a 100-point scorecard that provides a summary score (New York City’s does not offer a summary score or ranking for its 45 departments).  The Commission’s scorecard for each city department is comprised of four components:

 

·  Public evaluation and feedback (50 points)

· An assessment of whether annual performance targets were met (45 points)

· An overall evaluation by city leaders (5 points)

· An assessment of innovation and excellence projects (bonus points)

 

Hangzhou began measuring citizen satisfaction in 2000, when it launched a campaign to “allow the pubic to select ‘satisfactory and unsatisfactory government agencies’,” according to the OCEC’s  staff director[微软用户2] , Wu Bin. This was a pioneering step at the time in China. Initially, the satisfaction rating comprised 5 percent of a city department’s evaluation score.  This has since expanded to a weight of 50 percent of the evaluation score, with a goal of moving to 60 percent.  Interestingly, the national government has since adopted a strong emphasis on citizen feedback as well.  The recent national19th Party Congress’s top priority is to be more people-centered and incorporate citizen satisfaction.

 

Public feedback is an important part of the city’s comprehensive evaluation system. City-level legislation in 2016 institutionalizes this cutting-edge approach, which:

 

• Provides multiple feedback mechanisms, including the OCEC’s performance website (Chinese only) and the use of social media channels.

 

• Publicly shares its performance data and evaluationsassessments – In 20152008, Hangzhou was the first city in China to publish an annual social evaluation report on the city’s website (Chinese only).(link to 2017 report – Chinese only).

 

• Publicly reports the results of follow-up to evaluationsassessments that showed a need for improved performance.

 

The new municipal law (English and Chinese) defines the governance system, administrative processes, and the role of citizens and third-party evaluators in the performance assessment process. It stipulates that public opinion “must be absorbed and applied in the whole process of performance management,” and that “public satisfaction should be taken as an important criterion for assessing government performance.”  The city’s goal, according to Mr. Wu, is to enhance “political trust and satisfaction from the public and consolidate the legitimacy of its governance.”

 

The Commission also conducts oversight of 13 surrounding districts and counties that fall under the jurisdiction of Hangzhou.  These surrounding districts and counties have their own performance management systems and separate scorecards.

 

Administrative Routines for Collecting Performance and Feedback Information.  Hangzhou city leaders have institutionalized several administrative routines in order to conduct its comprehensive evaluations that results in the annual scorecard for agencies.  These include:

 

• An annual citizens survey.  This is conducted via mobile phones, the mail, and in-person surveys of about 20012,000 households. Response rates to the surveys are in the high 90s, and are representative generated from a stratified random sampling of different geographic, economic, and demographic segments of the populationcharacteristics, with a response rate in the high 90s. In the past three years, 200,000 messages were sent to invite citizens to participate in the online survey, with an increasing respond rate. More citizens prefer to respond via their mobile phones.

 

Real-time customer satisfaction evaluationsassessments. These are completed by service recipients at public service windows in government agencies.

 

Face-to-face governance evaluations.assessments of government. Citizens can sign up to participate or to raise questions publicly on the local TV channels or via online portals such as the city’s official social media accounts.

 

· In-person visits to a services exhibit hall.  There is a civic center exhibit hall where citizens can learn how the city government provides services, what actions are being taken to improve them, and to ask questions and provide comments.

 

More specifically, some of the administrative routines used to set and manage performance targets for city departments include:

 

·Before setting annual performance targets for services provided by various city departments, the OCEC staff consult with external performance experts and each agency’s “performance information coordinators” on what they judge to be achievable levels of performance.

 

·There is dynamic tracking and management of the performance targets, with daily follow up and supervision by agency-level performance-information coordinators.

 

·The performance information coordinators are organized into a cross-agency network with the goal of transforming the city government, according to Mr. Wu, “from passively receiving public opinions to actively discovering public demands.”

 

· A part-time team of about 30 actively engaged citizens serve in an advisory role in interpreting public opinion data, the assessments by government performance supervisors, and actively publicize the results of agency assessments.

 

Separately, third party assessments are undertaken to assess the award of “bonus points” for agency innovation and excellence projects, as well to undertake special assessments for major projects or topics of hot interest. These third-party teams have reviewed more than 1,000 innovation and excellence projects.

 

How City Leaders Use Performance Information. The key of any performance system is not so much to collect and report information so much as it is to use it to inform decisions.  The Hangzhou government has done this by creating a follow-through mechanism for the public feedback that it receives:

 

·It assigns the collected opinions to relevant entities for develop improvements to performance problems, to set targets, and to provide feedback on progress.

 

·City agencies make public commitments regarding the achievement of their performance targets.

 

·The OCEC provides public transparency of the improvement process and resulting performance.

 

The OCEC also provides support for decision-making for public policies:

 

·It organizes an annual analysis of public opinions and reports it to the Communist Party’s local committee, the city’s municipal government, and OCEC.

 

·The report summarizes how performance problems identified in the previous year have been addressed and identifies potential priority areas for attention in the upcoming year.

 

In addition, data from departments’ daily performance information tracking and supervision systems are put into a “performance information database” and analyzed. If there is a recurring pattern, a “performance improvement notice” is issued to the relevant entity for action.

 

Results Achieved by Using Performance Information to Manage the City. City officials provided an example of how they used the results of citizen feedback to improve a failing function.  In 2010, citizens ranked “difficulty in seeing a doctor” as a significant problem, and the negative feedback doubled in the following year.  As a result, this issue was prioritized for “supervision and rectification” in 2012.  In response, the city’s health authorities changed their procedures significantly. 

 

For example, services began to be paid via insurance as opposed to lining up to pay in person at a charging window.  Health officials also improved the scheduling of appointments. The results of these reforms were publicly reported and by 2016, the issue of “difficulty in seeing a doctor” dropped to less than one percent of total negative responses on surveys– effectively eliminating the problem.

 

Probably even more significant, Hangzhou has become a magnet for the Chinese tech industry – it is the headquarters for Alibaba (China’s version of Amazon) – in large part because of its reputation as a well-run city that makes it easy for entrepreneurs to do business and startups. A 2018 study (English version) ranks 30 Chinese “cities of opportunity” in ten dimensions, and Hangzhou comes out on the top.  The study says that Hangzhou is now the e-commerce center of China.

 

Next Steps.  Interestingly, city officials see a similar next step as New York City, with a greater emphasis on performance-informed budgeting. The city’s budget office is becoming more involved with commission staff in target setting for the performance measures of city departments.

 

Conclusions. Some interesting observations between New York City and Hangzhou stand out when they are compared:

 

·There is a more structured framework and a greater investment in both performance management systems and in citizen feedback in Hangzhou than in New York City.

 

·Nevertheless, both cities see a need for a better link between their performance systems and their budget processes.

 

·In addition, both cities seem to be investing more in real-time data reporting systems, which should has the effect of making performance data more relevant to decision-makers and front-line managers.

 

译文:

双城记:

不同的绩效管理体系如何利用市民反馈

绩效管理是全球性的趋势。同样,吸收市民反馈并将其作为绩效管理体系的一部分内容,这也是一种全球性的趋势。有这样两个城市,它们的规模相当,但却有着全然不同的政府形式。它们之间存在哪些共同之处与差异?我将分两部分来讨论这个问题。在上部分,我将集中关注纽约市的做法。在下部分,我将聚焦中国杭州市的做法。

在过去的几十年间,一场运动在美国经久不衰。它致力于提升市民对政府的参与,同时鼓励政府提供更多以市民为中心的服务。因此,我们期待在美国广大城市中看到诸如此类的倡议。那么,在这方面,中国的情况又是如何呢?有趣的是,中国的一些城市正在真正地聆听并回应市民的诉求。

我最近访问了中国的杭州市。杭州是一个沿海省份的省会城市,位于上海的南边。杭州也是中国古代大运河的终点,而大运河的起点是从杭州向北700英里外的北京。杭州的人口规模超过了900万,大体上与美国最大城市纽约相当。杭州是中国利用绩效信息管理和倾听市民声音的先锋城市之一。

纽约市如何评估机构绩效和市民反馈

10.png

四十年前, 纽约市发起了在当时首屈一指的“市长管理报告运动”。根据市长办公室的说法,该运动的目的是“使纽约市民获得他们必须获得的信息,进而确保政府对他们负责”。

在上世纪70年代,纽约市在衡量市政府绩效、确保政府机构责任性以及向公众提供公开的状况报告方面走在了全美的前列。

同时,该市较早引入了现场观察队,目的是核准那些经由报告并被采取的措施,比如街道状况、街区整洁以及市政设施的状况。现在,在这些关键的行动措施之外,它还增加了交互式的街区地图,以方便市民更加轻松地对比城市不同区域的状况。

近年来,由51人组成的城市委员会已经开始在全市的街区推行参与式预算试点。例如,在今年,若干城市委员会成员为他们自己所在的地区划拨了100万美元的资金,这样一来,社区居民便可以自行决定如何将这些资金分配到他们所在街区的各个项目之中。

纽约市的绩效体系是如何组织的?

该市的绩效报告系统由市长办公室负责协调,同时,根据法律要求,市长办公室要负责准备每年的《市长管理报告》。这些年来,该报告的内容也发生了改变,从最初极为繁琐且高度技术性的多卷本报告演变为现在单一卷本的“人民报告卡”。即便如此,对于读者而言,最近刚刚发布的2018年报告仍旧充满挑战:它总共450页,涉及45个市级机构!

在市长办公室中,负责绩效追踪与报告的部门大约有10到15名工作人员。其中,约有一半的工作人员负责跨部门的城市重点项目。“零视点”倡议就是这方面的一个例子。通过与涉及道路设计、执法以及安全教育的市级部门的沟通,该项目旨在降低交通事故以及因交通事故致死的数量。在纽约市,“零视点”是九个跨部门倡议之一。该部门的其余人员根据分工将对45个市级机构的绩效进行监督。每个市级机构会指派一位联系人,主要就数据采集与传输等问题与市长办公室保持沟通联系。

考核每个市级机构绩效的关键指标需要由绩效管理部门与被考核机构共同认可并确定。有时,城市委员会可能会索要其成员想要了解的指标的信息;有时,城市预算办公室会要求市长的绩效管理部门去收集特定类型的绩效信息。绩效目标通常针对的都是关键的服务——例如,在水管发生爆裂后,需要在六小时内恢复向市民供水。但是,有些时候,特定的考核目标在提出后,会遭到被考核机构的抵制。

每个城市机构都设有自己的工作组,负责数据收集和报告工作。这些工作组会为每年《市长管理报告》的起草提供数据与素材。《市长管理报告》在每年的九月份发布(报告初稿的发布时间要比这个更早一些)。数据的提交采用统一模板。各个机构通过城市绩效管理申请系统提交各自的数据。

有意思的是,尽管上世纪90年代的纽约市在运用“绩效统计方法”方面走在了全美的前列,这一通过数据进行管理的方法实际上却是由个别市级机构所采用。但是,市级机构现在正式采用这一方法的频率要低于过去。机构负责人——他们通过政治任命而产生——的领导风格是运用这一方法的前提条件。

纽约市如何收集市民反馈?

 

640.webp.jpg

纽约市并没有任何针对该市或市政府的服务而展开的市民满意度调查。一些市级机构会发起一些街区层面的基于特定项目的民意调查,或者,这样的民意调查也有可能出于特定的倡议而发起。但是,这些民意调查都是不定期的。例如,“零视点”倡议(针对交通安全)创建了一个在线的地图,市民们可以在这个地图上标记那些他们认为危险的路口并说明原因。为了获取信息,相关部门会竭尽所能地主动与市民接触并召开街区会议。最终,公众的反馈引导有关部门安装新的禁行牌和路灯以及进行街道改造。

市政府最后一次进行全市范围的居民调查是在2008年,此后再也没有重新进行过类似的调查。然而,在2017年,一个叫“市民预算委员会”的非盈利组织独立进行了新的居民调查,共向7.2万户居民发放了调查问卷。尽管该调查仅有13%的回复率,但是,它还是为我们提供了社区层面的有效统计数据。该调查问卷的问题包括居民对于生活质量以及对市级机构提供的城市服务的满意度。在改进市级机构工作的建议方面,该调查问卷还提供了一些开放式问题,这最终带来了2万多条的书面建议。根据“市民预算委员会”副主席玛丽亚•多利斯的说法,纽约市政府表现出对于该民意调查结果的兴趣,但是,它并没有承诺会定期进行民意调查。

根据多利斯和前市政府官员的说法,纽约市最主要的民意反馈机制是市民致电城市311服务请求系统。该系统追踪处理对14个市级机构的服务请求,比如修理坑洼的道路、控制老鼠以及修理毁坏的街灯。由选举产生的城市委员会把自己定位为更强有力的市民反馈的代理人。此外,一些个别的市级机构主动收集市民的反馈信息。例如,城市建筑基准与分区部在其官方网站页面上设立了在线客户调查。

下一步

现在,市长办公室正经历着领导层更替。但是,诸如“市民预算委员会”这样的外部观察者认为,市长办公室的下一步计划应当是更好地介入城市预算编制过程,同时,收集和报告一些对民选领导人和市民而言都有用的实时数据信息。

在本部分(下部分),我将聚焦中国杭州市的做法。在上一部分,我已经重点关注了纽约市的做法。

杭州市如何评估机构绩效以及如何收集市民的反馈

12.png

在纽约,市长办公室负责监督绩效体系的运转。与之相比,杭州却是由一个独立的委员会负责评估机构绩效以及广泛收集市民反馈。这种方式在全中国也是首屈一指的。大多数中国城市采用了类似于纽约市的做法,即由市政府内部的一个机构来负责绩效管理体系的运转与监督——这种方式更多地聚焦于执行,却较少关注问题的解决。

杭州的绩效体系是如何组织的?

在中国,党的书记是城市的“一把手”。以杭州市政府为例,该市的党委副书记领导着一个独立的综合考评委员会,也称为绩效管理委员会。因此,在每年对市级机关的评估和考核方面,该委员会发挥着重要的影响力。综合考评委员会办公室(考评办)是综合考评委员会的办事机构,拥有大约40名工作人员(译者注:含下属事业单位)。

综合考评委员会对单个机构的考评与纽约市《市长管理报告》中的考评内容大同小异。但是,杭州市综合考评委员会的报告是围绕一个评分表组织起来的——这个满分100分的评分表能够以分数形式简单呈现各个机构的绩效(纽约市并不针对其45个市级机构进行打分或排名)。综合考评委员会用以考评每个市级机构的评分表包括四部分内容:

社会评价(50分)

目标考核(45分)

领导考评(5分)

创新创优(加分项)

杭州市于2000年开始测评市民的满意度。根据综合考评委员会办公室伍彬主任的说法,杭州市在当时发起了一项“允许公众选择满意和不满意政府机构”的运动(译者注:即“满意单位不满意单位”评选活动)。在当时的中国,这可是具有开创性的一件事。起初,满意度测评在市级机构考评中的权重为5%。此后,这一权重逐渐攀升到50%,而最终的目标是将它在市级机构考评中的权重提高到60%(译者注:原文表述略有出入。目前在杭州综合考评中,加上目标考核中第三方评估等要素,社会评价的实际权重超过50%,但并非作者理解的60%)。有意思的是,此后中央政府也开始极力强调市民反馈的重要性。在前不久召开的中共十九大上,一个优先任务便是要更加“以人民为中心”,同时要提升市民的满意度。

公众的反馈意见是杭州市综合考评体系的一个重要组成部分。2016年,杭州市通过立法形式对其先进的考评方式予以制度化,其主要内容包括:

提供多种反馈机制,包括综合考评委员会办公室的网站(仅有中文内容)以及利用自媒体的渠道;

公开绩效信息与绩效考评结果——在2008年,杭州成为第一个在其城市网站上发布年度社会评价报告的中国城市(2017年报告链接——仅有中文内容)。

对于那些考评结果显示绩效亟待改善的方面,公开(有关机构)的后续整改情况。

杭州市新出台的法律(译者注:指2016年正式实施的《杭州市绩效管理条例》)界定了治理体系与行政过程的内涵,确定了市民和第三方考评者在绩效考核过程的作用。该法律规定,“绩效管理机构每年度组织社会公众对绩效责任单位的总体工作情况通过问卷调查等方式进行满意度评价并征求意见”,“绩效管理机构应当建立公众评价意见反馈机制”。伍先生认为,杭州市的目标是要提升“社会公众的政治信任度与满意度,强化城市治理的合法性”。

综合考评委员会同时负责对杭州市下辖的13个区县进行监督。这些区县拥有自己的绩效管理体系和专门的评分卡。

绩效信息和反馈信息的采集机制

为了推进综合考评工作(综合考评结果最终体现为各机构每年在评分表上的得分情况),杭州市的领导业已将与综合考评相关的若干常规行政工作予以制度化,具体包括以下涉及社会评价与反馈的常规渠道:

年度市民调查

年度市民调查通过邮件和面对面调查方式进行。调查的对象是大约1.2万户家庭,它们是通过随机分层抽样方法(考虑不同的地理、经济和人口学特征)而挑选出来的。在年度市民调查中,被调查者的回复率保持在90%的高水平。与此同时,在过去的三年中,(每年)还向市民发送20万条手机短信,邀请他们参与在线调查。在线调查的回应率也不断提升。现在,越来越多的市民更愿意通过手机参与调查。

实时用户满意度评估

这项评价由服务对象在政府部门的公共服务窗口进行。

面对面评价政府

(译者注:指“公述民评”面对面电视问政)

市民可以登记参与地方电视台的“面对面电视问政”节目或是在电视节目中公开提出问题,也可以通过在线平台(比如市政府的官方社交媒体账号)提出问题。

实地访问服务大厅

(译者注:这里指设在市民中心的“绩效杭州”展示厅)

杭州市设有一个市民服务中心,市民可以在这里了解市政府如何提供服务、市政府采取了哪些措施改善服务并可以在这里提问和发表评论。

更具体地说,有一些常规行政做法被用于设置和管理市级部门的绩效目标,它们包括:

◆在确定市级部门的年度绩效目标之前,考评办将向外部绩效专家以及绩效信息员咨询,征求他们对于可以实现的绩效水平的看法。

◆对绩效目标进行动态追踪与管理。绩效信息员负责对绩效目标的日常跟踪与监督。

◆伍先生表示,为了推进城市治理转型提升,市考评办建立了一个政府绩效的社会监督网络,“由被动接受公众意见转向主动发现公共需求”。

◆大约30位热心市民组成了一个兼职团队。这个兼职团队发挥了社情民意信息员、政府绩效监督员和综合考评宣传员的作用。

此外,第三方评估的目的是确定是否要对机构创新创优项目进行“加分”,以及对重大项目或是关注度较高的事项进行专项评估。目前,第三方业已对超过1000个创新创优项目进行了评估。

城市领导人如何运用绩效信息

 

13.png

任何绩效体系的关键与其说是收集和报告信息,不如说是如何在决策过程中利用这些信息。在这方面,杭州市政府创立了一个完整的机制,以处理它所收集到的公众反馈信息:

◆将收集到的社会意见转给相关机构,要求后者纠正绩效问题、设立整改目标并就整改目标落实情况进行反馈。

◆市级机关就其绩效目标的实现向社会作出公开承诺。

◆考评办保证整改过程以及整改后的绩效情况的公开透明。

同时,考评办还为公共政策的决策提供支持:

◆考评办每年会对社会意见进行分析,并将分析结果报告给杭州市委、市政府以及杭州市综合考评委员会。

◆考评办每年会对社会意见进行分析,并将分析结果报告给杭州市委、市政府以及杭州市综合考评委员会。

考评办的分析报告总结了过去一年中发现的绩效问题如何得到解决,同时提出了未来一年中应当予以重点关注的潜在问题。

此外,每个机构日常的绩效信息追踪与监督系统都会收到很多信息,这些信息会被整合进“数字考评”系统,并会被分析运用。如果发现了一些反复出现的问题,相关部门就会收到一份“绩效改进通知”,并被要求整改。

利用绩效信息

进行城市治理所取得的成效

在如何利用市民反馈信息改进政府绩效方面,杭州市的官员们给我举了一个例子:在2010年的社会评价中,市民突出反映了“看病烦”,次年这一问题的负面反馈信息又增加了一倍。为此,这一问题被确定为2012年的重点整改目标。作为回应,市卫生部门革新了就医流程。例如,开始通过具有社会保障功能的市民卡支付医疗费用,不需要到收费窗口排队交费。医疗卫生部门的官员们同时也改进了预约程序。这些改革结果得到了公开报道。在2016年的市民调查中,受访者中仅有不到1%的人反映“看病烦”问题——实际上意味着这一问题已经得到有效解决。

或许更为重要的是,杭州已经成为中国高新科技产业的聚集地——杭州是阿里巴巴(相当于中国版的亚马逊)的总部所在地——之所以如此,很大程度上是因为杭州拥有城市治理方面的良好声誉,这为企业家们的经商和创业活动提供了便利。2018年的一项调查(英文版),从十个方面对30个“机遇之城”进行排名,杭州市名列前茅(译者注:指根据普华永道与中国发展研究基金会最新联合发布的第五期《机遇之城》报告,除超大城市外,杭州在26 座城市的评估排名中位列榜首)。该项调查认为,杭州现在是中国电子商务的中心。

下一步

有趣的是,在未来发展方面,杭州市的官员与他们的纽约同行竟然不谋而合,更加强调以绩效为导向的预算。在为政府部门设定绩效考核目标时,杭州市财政预算办公室与杭州市综合考评委员会办公室工作人员的合作越来越密切。

 

结论

比较纽约和杭州之后,可以发现一些有趣的观察结果:

在绩效管理系统和市民反馈方面,杭州结构化程度比纽约更高、参与程度更深。

然而,两个城市都意识到,需要深化绩效体系与预算过程之间的联系。

此外,这两个城市似乎都在加大对实时数据报告系统的投入——这将使得绩效数据对决策者和一线管理人员更有意义。

 

智能小助手智能小助手

会话开始
头像 效效

您好!我是智能小助手,为您提供智能查询服务。您可以在这里输入关键词查询相关栏目或内容,也可以根据我的提示输入身份类型或相应数字,让我为您推荐常用链接。
请问您是: