Performance Measurement and Leisure Management

Many indicators are developed through a rigorous process by which they are developed, defined and reviewed Lindsay et al. Data sources also need to be identified when developing and choosing a set of indicators, with the most common sources coming from healthcare enrolment, administrative data, clinical data and survey data. As Black has noted, this is not always the case Black Considerable efforts have been made to develop comparable indicators to enable cross-jurisdictional comparisons. An offsetting concern is the recognition that strategic scorecards also must include locally relevant indicators.

Editorial Reviews

Achieving the right mix between local relevance and the ability to compare across organizations is crucial. One ongoing issue is what sorts of indicators should be used. Proper application of this and similar frameworks may help to ensure a more balanced approach to what is measured and what matters. However, our review suggests that the factors important to those individuals providing clinical services to clients often differ from those important to program managers, payers or health systems Tregunno et al.

One class of indicators focuses on adverse outcomes, either at the individual level e. In selecting indicators, a key factor is the extent to which the elements affecting the measurement are under control of decision-makers. In addition, there may be differences in what would be done with information; although the information may be valuable, it is difficult to hold managers accountable for things they cannot control. One obvious example is geography, which will often affect travel costs or access. Another, which affects population health, is the extent to which the various determinants of health e.

Information may thus be helpful in affecting policy levers e. Another set of issues involves what will be done with the performance measures, including how they will be applied. Frequently, performance measurement involves setting performance targets and assessing the extent to which these are being met.

In turn, these may be used for funding e. External bodies may use the information to ensure accountability. Managers may use them to monitor activities and make policies. The way in which measures are likely to affect behaviour varies. Clearly, measurement is simplest if organizations produce a small number of services, have a limited number of goals, understand the relationship between inputs and results and can control their own outcomes.

A related set of factors relates to the organizational infrastructure Alexander et al. Even more alarmingly, measurement can lead to dysfunctional consequences, including focusing on measures rather than actual performance, impairment of innovation, gaming and creative accounting, potentially making performance worse Hamblin ; Leggat et al. Other effects can be subtle; one example is placing less emphasis on prevention than on treating existing problems. The extent to which these positive or negative effects are realized may be heavily dependent upon context. We found considerable differences in what sorts of performance measurement and management are actually being done, not just by jurisdiction which we expected but also by type of service.

We found heavy emphasis on surveillance and far less on explicitly using the indicator data for management. Additionally, there is more focus on processes of how services are provided than on outcomes. A number of rationales are provided for this state of affairs.

An excellent synthesis can be found in the proceedings of a WHO symposium, which stresses the importance of clarifying causality and the difficulty in holding providers accountable for outcomes that they cannot control. Risk adjustment methodologies can control for some, but not all, of this variation. Composite indicators can be useful, but only if transparent and valid. Similarly, it may be necessary to deal with random fluctuations before determining when intervention is needed to improve performance. One striking finding that emerged from our review of how performance measurement and management are used in public health was the extent to which they focused on clinical services addressed to individuals Smith et al.

Activities directed towards improving the health of populations, particularly those with a preventive orientation, tend not to be included. As one example, the chapter in the report of the WHO symposium purportedly devoted to population health focuses almost exclusively on clinical treatment, including heavy focus on tracer conditions. One concern arising from our review is that performance measurement approaches, by focusing so heavily upon the healthcare system, may skew attention away from important initiatives directed at improving the health of the population.

Omitting such areas from measurement systems, however, may falsely imply that they do not matter. Our review stresses the importance of being aware of unintended consequences. For example, in the UK pay-for-performance P4P , success tended to be measured as doing more of particular things e. In that connection, as Black has noted, it is important to recognize that most providers are professionals who want to do a good job. A second caveat is that we focused on published information; this may or may not reflect current activities in those jurisdictions.

Successful interventions are also more likely to have been published. To the extent that the health of a population is dependent on multiple factors, many beyond the mandate of the healthcare system both personal health and public health , however, our review suggests that too extensive a reliance on performance measurement may risk unintended consequences of marginalizing critical activities.

As ever, balance is key. The authors appreciate the contributions of their research partners and of the research team: National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Healthc Policy v. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer.

Correspondence may be directed to: This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract A systematic review of the introduction and use of outcome-based performance management systems for public health organizations found differences between their use as a management system which requires rigorous definition and measurement to allow comparison across organizational units versus for improvement which may require more flexibility. Materials and Methods Literature search We adapted Pawson et al.

Special offers and product promotions

Results Defining our terms Increasing attention is being paid to the use of information to improve performance. Althoughthe management and sometimesownership of a significantminorityof local authoritysportsfacilitieshastransferred to charitabletrusts,thesetruststypically receive continuingsubsidiesfrom local authorities.

Historically,performanceindicatorsfor public sector sporthave been poor. The conspicuouslead came from the Audit Commission,with an emphasison financial indicators,mainlydirectedat economyandefficiency. Forexample,in the Audit Commissionindicatorswere per capitaexpenditure,runningcosts, anddebt charges on a varietyof differentsportsfacilities;per capitaincome on the same facilities;the cost of differencebetweenthe local authority'snet expenditureon sportandthe aver- age in the relevant"family"of authorities;and cost recovery Audit Commission, Yet, the Audit Commissionwas well awareof the limitationsof such perfor- mancemeasurement,publishinga seminalworknot only criticizingthe measurement of performancein local authoritysportbutalso underpinningpracticessuchas the set- ting of specific measurableobjectivesandthe targetingof subsidies AuditCommis- sion, Fornonfinancialperformancemeasurement,no clearlead was establisheduntilthe late s.

On mattersof access andequityin the use of publicsectorsportsfacilities in the United Kingdom,only piecemeal data was availableon participationby the socioeconomicallydisadvantaged. The only meta-analysisof local authoritysports This content downloaded by the authorized user from The GeneralHousehold Survey reportedsportsparticipationstatisticsevery 3 or 4 years from to , but this data was not specific to public sector sport, and much participationhas traditionally occurredin voluntarysportsclubs.

The main sources of dataon participationin local authoritysportsfacilities were thereforeoccasional and often unpublisheduser sur- veys specific to individualfacilities or local authorities. A furtherdimensionto performancein public sectorsport,especiallygiven the sub- sidies thataredevotedto it, is the wider social andeconomic benefitsoften claimedto derive from sports participation.

Here, there is again only piecemeal data, commonlyfromoccasionalacademicstudies,butno consistentperformanceinforma- tion. In particular,thereis no evidence relatingspecificallyto the role of public sector sportsfacilities in generatingsuch broadbenefits, largely because such benefits pur- portedlyemanatefrom any sportsparticipation,regardlessof the supplyingsector. In the absenceof appropriateevidence, such benefits arenot quantified,andprovisionto stimulatethem remainslargely an act of faith: Few [studies]look at longertermoutcomes,becauseof the difficultyof measuringthese, or of having the data or resources over a long enough period to make a rigorous assessment.

Academic reviews are cautiousaboutmakingany positive or negativejudgementon effectiveness, yet governmentsare much less inhibited to supportthe case. However,thereis also a lack of systematicmonitoring and evaluationof the outcomes of sport. Three of its majorrequirementsare the need to compareperformancewith othersimilarservices,the need to challengethe rationalefor the continuedprovisionof services andthe mannerin which services are delivered,andthe need to consultwith all relevantstakeholdersat importantstages of the review process.

The first two of these requirementsdemandevidence on perfor- mance and the third requirementprovides evidence of performance-particularly when customersare consulted,for example, in marketresearch. Best Value requires performanceplanning, which provides both the opportunityfor local authoritiesto take ownershipof performancemeasurementfor their services and the threatthat if they fail to do so, the consequences for external auditing and validation will be detrimental.

RELS 541 - Management Strategies for Recreation and Leisure Services Organizations

Best Value policy is supportedby statutoryperformanceindicators. However, becausethey cover a broadarrayof public services, of which sportis one of the small- est, the statutoryperformanceindicatorsdo not providea comprehensiveassessment This content downloaded by the authorized user from Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for Sport, BV Spendper headof populationon culturalandrecreationalfacilities BV Percentageof residentsby targetedgroupsatisfiedwith the authority'sculturaland recreationalactivities I a The numberof swims and othervisits per 1,00 population I lb The net cost per swim or visit 13 The numberof sportspitchesavailableto the public 14 Totalnet spendingper headon sportand recreationand parksandopen spaces Note.

Of the sevenBest Valueperformanceindicators in representing"key national interest issues" relevantto Culturaland RelatedServices,two wererelevantto sportshallsandswimmingpools butweremuch more genericthansport BV1 16 and BV1 19, see Table 1. The remaining performanceindicatorsin Table 1 are from the Audit Commission,reflecting"otherareaswherethereis a needforfurthernationalandlocal performanceinformation" Departmentof Environment,Transportand the Regions andAuditCommission, Outof 23 AuditCommissionperformanceindicators for culturalandrecreationalservices,just 4 arerelatedto sportsfacilitiesin some way.

II a is a measureof throughput relatedto local authoritypopulation,a measureof serviceeffectiveness. I Ib and14are efficiency indicators,measuringsubsidyper visit or per head of population. However,in , the AuditCommissionperformanceindicatorshavebeen abandoned"to reduce the performanceinformationrequirementsupon Best Value authorities" Departmentof Environment,TransportandtheRegions, Onlyone newnationalperfor- mance indicatorrelevant to sport is proposed, for onwards.

This is BVPI"percentage of residentswho haveparticipatedin a local sportingactivity or event,or haveattendeda local sportingfacilityin the last threemonthsor in the last year. Therefore,the lead indicatorsprovidedby the Departmentof Environment,Trans- portandtheRegionsandtheAuditCommissionhavepoorlyservedperformancemea- surementin public sectorsport.

As a result,therewas a need for moresport-specific initiativesto enhancethequalityof performanceinformationavailablenationally.

One such initiative,from SportEngland,is analyzedin the following section. Sport England's National Survey Sport Englandcommissionedthe first nationalsurvey of local authoritysports facilities, which was conductedin The surveywas conductedin one week in November,attimesof publicuse nottimesof exclusiveschools'use at randomly selectedlocal authoritysportshallsandswimmingpools in England.

Itsampled,again randomly,morethan40, customersfor user profilesand activities,frequencyof visit,journeydetails,andtake-upof priceconcessions.

• Scoil na Bainisíaochta Fáilteachais agus na Turasóireachta.
• Performance Measurement Management Konstantinos Alexandris PDF C7da4df01 | Love Automotive.
• The Singer: Historical Hollywood Erotica, Adult Nightclub Romance, 1930s;
• Spinal Trauma - An Imaging Approach.
• Omy Opossums?

In addition,datawas collected on the facilities'programmingand managementpolicies. This content downloaded by the authorized user from In addition,it providedthe first, much-needed,nationalevidence of partici- pation in sportshalls and swimming pools, includingparticipationby key socioeco- nomic and demographicgroups SportEngland, This demonstratedwhat had long been suspected: With the adventof the government'sBest Valuepolicy for public sector services, Sport England quickly realized the potential for generating national performance benchmarksfor sports halls and swimming pools, using the national survey data.

Hence, a furtherstudywas commissionedby SportEnglandto constructperformance indicators and estimate national benchmarksfor these indicators Sport England, This study used the nationalsurveydatatogetherwith facilities' annualfinan- cial and usage data. In addition, National Census data provided demographicand socioeconomic profiles of each center's catchmentarea, defined as minutedrive time.

The National Benchmarking Service for Sports Halls and Swimming Pools The frameworkfor the performancemeasurementstudy was used subsequentlyas the basis for a continuing National BenchmarkingService for Sports Halls and Swimming Pools, which began in the autumnof This is a quantitative,data benchmarkingservice, which replicates the data collection of the original research exercise for each client facility undertakingthe service. For each sports center,this data collection comprisesthe following: The key dimensions of the service are performanceindicators,comparisonfami- lies, and benchmarks,all of which are summarizedin Table2.

The selectedperformanceindicatorswere chosen only afterconsiderableempirical testing and consultationwith industryrepresentatives-Sport England'sBest Value SoundingBoard. The selected performanceindicatorshadto meet the following crite- ria, most of which are standardrequirements. First, indicatorsneeded to be easy to interpret,to maximizethe probabilitythatthey would be used by local authorityman- agers,officers, andmembers.

Earning Through Learning | Capacity, Surplus and Performance Measurement

Typically,they arein the formof ratios,which arebetter than absolute values for comparisonsacross centers and over time because they are This content downloaded by the authorized user from SocioeconomicgroupsD and E are the lowest of six categoriesin the UnitedKingdom. This measuresthe extentto whichvisits by a mar- ket segmentmatchits importancein the catchmentpopulation. Interpretation is very straightforward, meetingthe firstselectioncriterion.

A ratiovalueof 1 meansthatvis- its by a grouparerepresentativeof theirimportancein the local population,less than I is underrepresentative,and greaterthan 1 is overrepresentative. Second, the indicatorsmeasureoutputsmore than inputs, the majorexception beingexpenditureindicators,whichconcerninputsbecausetheymeasureeconomy. A consciousdecision was madeto not incorporateimpactmeasuresinto the array. This This content downloaded by the authorized user from Forpracticalpurposes,it wouldhavebeen a dis- serviceto offerpoorimpactmeasuresandthe developmentof suchmeasuresis left, for the moment, in the academicdomain.

The thirdcriterionfor selection of indicatorswas that they should cover a broad range of performancedimensions-service effectiveness e. How am I going to afford that? Some capital expenditures like buildings necessitate additional operational funds for staffing, maintenance, etc. Another way to handle spending limits is to require any additional monies spent to come from another line in the budget. This allows for flexibility but keeps that total amount budgeted for expenditures the same.

Perhaps postage rates went up, and the organization might decide to increase the postage budget. Without looking back at how money was spent relative to expectations, those adjustments cannot be made. Similarly, by looking at budgets over the time, organizations can compare expected and received income from year to year. Budgets also indicate what organizations value. Another use for budgets is to set benchmarks as goals and to monitor progress towards that goal. Commonly benchmarks are tied to funding levels in the next budget cycle. When benchmarks are used, they are both part of the planning process before the fiscal year and also used to analyze the success of specific programs or departments after the fiscal year has ended.