平特三连肖买10赔多少
設為首頁  |   加入收藏  |   無障礙瀏覽  |    語言: 繁體中文  |   English
當前位置: 首頁 > 績效資訊 > 工作動態 > 圖片新聞

雙城記:不同的績效管理體系如何應用市民反饋

發布時間:2018-11-12

編者按:

2018年9月,IBM政府運營中心高級研究員,美國行政科學院院士、聯邦政府改革小組召集人,美國自然科學基金會預算與管理顧問委員會委員John Kamensky(約翰·卡曼斯基)來杭參加“新時代的政府績效管理:國際經驗和中國創新”研討會,并作了題為“美國地方政府績效管理新趨勢”的主題發言。

會上,市考評辦(績效辦)主任伍彬作了《公眾參與是中國特色政府績效管理的基本路徑》的主題演講,結合杭州的探索實踐,分享了社會公眾參與政府績效管理的具體做法和體會,引起了John Kamensky的高度關注。

John Kamensky回美國后,將紐約和杭州兩地政府績效的現狀、體系、如何收集市民反饋、成效及下一步工作進行比較研究后,于2018年11月5日和7日,分兩次在IBM中心網站發表博客《A Tale of Two Cities: How Different Performance Management Systems Use Citizen Feedback》(<雙城記:不同的績效管理體系如何運用市民反饋>)。

文中,John Kamensky得出結論:在績效管理系統和市民反饋方面,杭州框架結構化程度比紐約更高、參與程度更深。

John Kamensky實踐經驗豐富,此前曾任職于美國聯邦審計署,為1993年《政府績效與結果法案》的制定發揮了關鍵作用,其后擔任副總統戈爾領導的“政府再造委員會”副主任,推動了績效管理在美國政府的建設和發展。他編寫了9本著作,發表了一系列有關領導力、績效管理、循證決策以及政策改革方面的文章。目前致力于構想2040年美國政府的未來前景。

現將《A Tale of Two Cities: How Different Performance Management Systems Use Citizen Feedback》(<雙城記:不同的績效管理體系如何運用市民反饋>)全文及譯文刊錄如下:

1.png 2.png

(原網頁內容)

  3.png 4.png

(瀏覽器翻譯后網頁內容)

 

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[微軟用戶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.

 

譯文:

雙城記:

不同的績效管理體系如何利用市民反饋

績效管理是全球性的趨勢。同樣,吸收市民反饋并將其作為績效管理體系的一部分內容,這也是一種全球性的趨勢。有這樣兩個城市,它們的規模相當,但卻有著全然不同的政府形式。它們之間存在哪些共同之處與差異?我將分兩部分來討論這個問題。在上部分,我將集中關注紐約市的做法。在下部分,我將聚焦中國杭州市的做法。

在過去的幾十年間,一場運動在美國經久不衰。它致力于提升市民對政府的參與,同時鼓勵政府提供更多以市民為中心的服務。因此,我們期待在美國廣大城市中看到諸如此類的倡議。那么,在這方面,中國的情況又是如何呢?有趣的是,中國的一些城市正在真正地聆聽并回應市民的訴求。

我最近訪問了中國的杭州市。杭州是一個沿海省份的省會城市,位于上海的南邊。杭州也是中國古代大運河的終點,而大運河的起點是從杭州向北700英里外的北京。杭州的人口規模超過了900萬,大體上與美國最大城市紐約相當。杭州是中國利用績效信息管理和傾聽市民聲音的先鋒城市之一。

紐約市如何評估機構績效和市民反饋

10.png

四十年前, 紐約市發起了在當時首屈一指的“市長管理報告運動”。根據市長辦公室的說法,該運動的目的是“使紐約市民獲得他們必須獲得的信息,進而確保政府對他們負責”。

在上世紀70年代,紐約市在衡量市政府績效、確保政府機構責任性以及向公眾提供公開的狀況報告方面走在了全美的前列。

同時,該市較早引入了現場觀察隊,目的是核準那些經由報告并被采取的措施,比如街道狀況、街區整潔以及市政設施的狀況。現在,在這些關鍵的行動措施之外,它還增加了交互式的街區地圖,以方便市民更加輕松地對比城市不同區域的狀況。

近年來,由51人組成的城市委員會已經開始在全市的街區推行參與式預算試點。例如,在今年,若干城市委員會成員為他們自己所在的地區劃撥了100萬美元的資金,這樣一來,社區居民便可以自行決定如何將這些資金分配到他們所在街區的各個項目之中。

紐約市的績效體系是如何組織的?

該市的績效報告系統由市長辦公室負責協調,同時,根據法律要求,市長辦公室要負責準備每年的《市長管理報告》。這些年來,該報告的內容也發生了改變,從最初極為繁瑣且高度技術性的多卷本報告演變為現在單一卷本的“人民報告卡”。即便如此,對于讀者而言,最近剛剛發布的2018年報告仍舊充滿挑戰:它總共450頁,涉及45個市級機構!

在市長辦公室中,負責績效追蹤與報告的部門大約有10到15名工作人員。其中,約有一半的工作人員負責跨部門的城市重點項目。“零視點”倡議就是這方面的一個例子。通過與涉及道路設計、執法以及安全教育的市級部門的溝通,該項目旨在降低交通事故以及因交通事故致死的數量。在紐約市,“零視點”是九個跨部門倡議之一。該部門的其余人員根據分工將對45個市級機構的績效進行監督。每個市級機構會指派一位聯系人,主要就數據采集與傳輸等問題與市長辦公室保持溝通聯系。

考核每個市級機構績效的關鍵指標需要由績效管理部門與被考核機構共同認可并確定。有時,城市委員會可能會索要其成員想要了解的指標的信息;有時,城市預算辦公室會要求市長的績效管理部門去收集特定類型的績效信息。績效目標通常針對的都是關鍵的服務——例如,在水管發生爆裂后,需要在六小時內恢復向市民供水。但是,有些時候,特定的考核目標在提出后,會遭到被考核機構的抵制。

每個城市機構都設有自己的工作組,負責數據收集和報告工作。這些工作組會為每年《市長管理報告》的起草提供數據與素材。《市長管理報告》在每年的九月份發布(報告初稿的發布時間要比這個更早一些)。數據的提交采用統一模板。各個機構通過城市績效管理申請系統提交各自的數據。

有意思的是,盡管上世紀90年代的紐約市在運用“績效統計方法”方面走在了全美的前列,這一通過數據進行管理的方法實際上卻是由個別市級機構所采用。但是,市級機構現在正式采用這一方法的頻率要低于過去。機構負責人——他們通過政治任命而產生——的領導風格是運用這一方法的前提條件。

紐約市如何收集市民反饋?

 

640.webp.jpg

紐約市并沒有任何針對該市或市政府的服務而展開的市民滿意度調查。一些市級機構會發起一些街區層面的基于特定項目的民意調查,或者,這樣的民意調查也有可能出于特定的倡議而發起。但是,這些民意調查都是不定期的。例如,“零視點”倡議(針對交通安全)創建了一個在線的地圖,市民們可以在這個地圖上標記那些他們認為危險的路口并說明原因。為了獲取信息,相關部門會竭盡所能地主動與市民接觸并召開街區會議。最終,公眾的反饋引導有關部門安裝新的禁行牌和路燈以及進行街道改造。

市政府最后一次進行全市范圍的居民調查是在2008年,此后再也沒有重新進行過類似的調查。然而,在2017年,一個叫“市民預算委員會”的非盈利組織獨立進行了新的居民調查,共向7.2萬戶居民發放了調查問卷。盡管該調查僅有13%的回復率,但是,它還是為我們提供了社區層面的有效統計數據。該調查問卷的問題包括居民對于生活質量以及對市級機構提供的城市服務的滿意度。在改進市級機構工作的建議方面,該調查問卷還提供了一些開放式問題,這最終帶來了2萬多條的書面建議。根據“市民預算委員會”副主席瑪麗亞?多利斯的說法,紐約市政府表現出對于該民意調查結果的興趣,但是,它并沒有承諾會定期進行民意調查。

根據多利斯和前市政府官員的說法,紐約市最主要的民意反饋機制是市民致電城市311服務請求系統。該系統追蹤處理對14個市級機構的服務請求,比如修理坑洼的道路、控制老鼠以及修理毀壞的街燈。由選舉產生的城市委員會把自己定位為更強有力的市民反饋的代理人。此外,一些個別的市級機構主動收集市民的反饋信息。例如,城市建筑基準與分區部在其官方網站頁面上設立了在線客戶調查。

下一步

現在,市長辦公室正經歷著領導層更替。但是,諸如“市民預算委員會”這樣的外部觀察者認為,市長辦公室的下一步計劃應當是更好地介入城市預算編制過程,同時,收集和報告一些對民選領導人和市民而言都有用的實時數據信息。

在本部分(下部分),我將聚焦中國杭州市的做法。在上一部分,我已經重點關注了紐約市的做法。

杭州市如何評估機構績效以及如何收集市民的反饋

12.png

在紐約,市長辦公室負責監督績效體系的運轉。與之相比,杭州卻是由一個獨立的委員會負責評估機構績效以及廣泛收集市民反饋。這種方式在全中國也是首屈一指的。大多數中國城市采用了類似于紐約市的做法,即由市政府內部的一個機構來負責績效管理體系的運轉與監督——這種方式更多地聚焦于執行,卻較少關注問題的解決。

杭州的績效體系是如何組織的?

在中國,黨的書記是城市的“一把手”。以杭州市政府為例,該市的黨委副書記領導著一個獨立的綜合考評委員會,也稱為績效管理委員會。因此,在每年對市級機關的評估和考核方面,該委員會發揮著重要的影響力。綜合考評委員會辦公室(考評辦)是綜合考評委員會的辦事機構,擁有大約40名工作人員(譯者注:含下屬事業單位)。

綜合考評委員會對單個機構的考評與紐約市《市長管理報告》中的考評內容大同小異。但是,杭州市綜合考評委員會的報告是圍繞一個評分表組織起來的——這個滿分100分的評分表能夠以分數形式簡單呈現各個機構的績效(紐約市并不針對其45個市級機構進行打分或排名)。綜合考評委員會用以考評每個市級機構的評分表包括四部分內容:

社會評價(50分)

目標考核(45分)

領導考評(5分)

創新創優(加分項)

杭州市于2000年開始測評市民的滿意度。根據綜合考評委員會辦公室伍彬主任的說法,杭州市在當時發起了一項“允許公眾選擇滿意和不滿意政府機構”的運動(譯者注:即“滿意單位不滿意單位”評選活動)。在當時的中國,這可是具有開創性的一件事。起初,滿意度測評在市級機構考評中的權重為5%。此后,這一權重逐漸攀升到50%,而最終的目標是將它在市級機構考評中的權重提高到60%(譯者注:原文表述略有出入。目前在杭州綜合考評中,加上目標考核中第三方評估等要素,社會評價的實際權重超過50%,但并非作者理解的60%)。有意思的是,此后中央政府也開始極力強調市民反饋的重要性。在前不久召開的中共十九大上,一個優先任務便是要更加“以人民為中心”,同時要提升市民的滿意度。

公眾的反饋意見是杭州市綜合考評體系的一個重要組成部分。2016年,杭州市通過立法形式對其先進的考評方式予以制度化,其主要內容包括:

提供多種反饋機制,包括綜合考評委員會辦公室的網站(僅有中文內容)以及利用自媒體的渠道;

公開績效信息與績效考評結果——在2008年,杭州成為第一個在其城市網站上發布年度社會評價報告的中國城市(2017年報告鏈接——僅有中文內容)。

對于那些考評結果顯示績效亟待改善的方面,公開(有關機構)的后續整改情況。

杭州市新出臺的法律(譯者注:指2016年正式實施的《杭州市績效管理條例》)界定了治理體系與行政過程的內涵,確定了市民和第三方考評者在績效考核過程的作用。該法律規定,“績效管理機構每年度組織社會公眾對績效責任單位的總體工作情況通過問卷調查等方式進行滿意度評價并征求意見”,“績效管理機構應當建立公眾評價意見反饋機制”。伍先生認為,杭州市的目標是要提升“社會公眾的政治信任度與滿意度,強化城市治理的合法性”。

綜合考評委員會同時負責對杭州市下轄的13個區縣進行監督。這些區縣擁有自己的績效管理體系和專門的評分卡。

績效信息和反饋信息的采集機制

為了推進綜合考評工作(綜合考評結果最終體現為各機構每年在評分表上的得分情況),杭州市的領導業已將與綜合考評相關的若干常規行政工作予以制度化,具體包括以下涉及社會評價與反饋的常規渠道:

年度市民調查

年度市民調查通過郵件和面對面調查方式進行。調查的對象是大約1.2萬戶家庭,它們是通過隨機分層抽樣方法(考慮不同的地理、經濟和人口學特征)而挑選出來的。在年度市民調查中,被調查者的回復率保持在90%的高水平。與此同時,在過去的三年中,(每年)還向市民發送20萬條手機短信,邀請他們參與在線調查。在線調查的回應率也不斷提升。現在,越來越多的市民更愿意通過手機參與調查。

實時用戶滿意度評估

這項評價由服務對象在政府部門的公共服務窗口進行。

面對面評價政府

(譯者注:指“公述民評”面對面電視問政)

市民可以登記參與地方電視臺的“面對面電視問政”節目或是在電視節目中公開提出問題,也可以通過在線平臺(比如市政府的官方社交媒體賬號)提出問題。

實地訪問服務大廳

(譯者注:這里指設在市民中心的“績效杭州”展示廳)

杭州市設有一個市民服務中心,市民可以在這里了解市政府如何提供服務、市政府采取了哪些措施改善服務并可以在這里提問和發表評論。

更具體地說,有一些常規行政做法被用于設置和管理市級部門的績效目標,它們包括:

◆在確定市級部門的年度績效目標之前,考評辦將向外部績效專家以及績效信息員咨詢,征求他們對于可以實現的績效水平的看法。

◆對績效目標進行動態追蹤與管理。績效信息員負責對績效目標的日常跟蹤與監督。

◆伍先生表示,為了推進城市治理轉型提升,市考評辦建立了一個政府績效的社會監督網絡,“由被動接受公眾意見轉向主動發現公共需求”。

◆大約30位熱心市民組成了一個兼職團隊。這個兼職團隊發揮了社情民意信息員、政府績效監督員和綜合考評宣傳員的作用。

此外,第三方評估的目的是確定是否要對機構創新創優項目進行“加分”,以及對重大項目或是關注度較高的事項進行專項評估。目前,第三方業已對超過1000個創新創優項目進行了評估。

城市領導人如何運用績效信息

 

13.png

任何績效體系的關鍵與其說是收集和報告信息,不如說是如何在決策過程中利用這些信息。在這方面,杭州市政府創立了一個完整的機制,以處理它所收集到的公眾反饋信息:

◆將收集到的社會意見轉給相關機構,要求后者糾正績效問題、設立整改目標并就整改目標落實情況進行反饋。

◆市級機關就其績效目標的實現向社會作出公開承諾。

◆考評辦保證整改過程以及整改后的績效情況的公開透明。

同時,考評辦還為公共政策的決策提供支持:

◆考評辦每年會對社會意見進行分析,并將分析結果報告給杭州市委、市政府以及杭州市綜合考評委員會。

◆考評辦每年會對社會意見進行分析,并將分析結果報告給杭州市委、市政府以及杭州市綜合考評委員會。

考評辦的分析報告總結了過去一年中發現的績效問題如何得到解決,同時提出了未來一年中應當予以重點關注的潛在問題。

此外,每個機構日常的績效信息追蹤與監督系統都會收到很多信息,這些信息會被整合進“數字考評”系統,并會被分析運用。如果發現了一些反復出現的問題,相關部門就會收到一份“績效改進通知”,并被要求整改。

利用績效信息

進行城市治理所取得的成效

在如何利用市民反饋信息改進政府績效方面,杭州市的官員們給我舉了一個例子:在2010年的社會評價中,市民突出反映了“看病煩”,次年這一問題的負面反饋信息又增加了一倍。為此,這一問題被確定為2012年的重點整改目標。作為回應,市衛生部門革新了就醫流程。例如,開始通過具有社會保障功能的市民卡支付醫療費用,不需要到收費窗口排隊交費。醫療衛生部門的官員們同時也改進了預約程序。這些改革結果得到了公開報道。在2016年的市民調查中,受訪者中僅有不到1%的人反映“看病煩”問題——實際上意味著這一問題已經得到有效解決。

或許更為重要的是,杭州已經成為中國高新科技產業的聚集地——杭州是阿里巴巴(相當于中國版的亞馬遜)的總部所在地——之所以如此,很大程度上是因為杭州擁有城市治理方面的良好聲譽,這為企業家們的經商和創業活動提供了便利。2018年的一項調查(英文版),從十個方面對30個“機遇之城”進行排名,杭州市名列前茅(譯者注:指根據普華永道與中國發展研究基金會最新聯合發布的第五期《機遇之城》報告,除超大城市外,杭州在26 座城市的評估排名中位列榜首)。該項調查認為,杭州現在是中國電子商務的中心。

下一步

有趣的是,在未來發展方面,杭州市的官員與他們的紐約同行竟然不謀而合,更加強調以績效為導向的預算。在為政府部門設定績效考核目標時,杭州市財政預算辦公室與杭州市綜合考評委員會辦公室工作人員的合作越來越密切。

 

結論

比較紐約和杭州之后,可以發現一些有趣的觀察結果:

在績效管理系統和市民反饋方面,杭州結構化程度比紐約更高、參與程度更深。

然而,兩個城市都意識到,需要深化績效體系與預算過程之間的聯系。

此外,這兩個城市似乎都在加大對實時數據報告系統的投入——這將使得績效數據對決策者和一線管理人員更有意義。

 

智能小助手智能小助手

會話開始
頭像 效效

您好!我是智能小助手,為您提供智能查詢服務。您可以在這里輸入關鍵詞查詢相關欄目或內容,也可以根據我的提示輸入身份類型或相應數字,讓我為您推薦常用鏈接。
請問您是:

平特三连肖买10赔多少 北单比分奖金计算器500 20选5 江西快三 河北麻将游戏4人打 nba比分在线 金彩彩票2019年最新 麻将作弊手法 丰禾棋牌怎么样 江西时时彩 新快3