Section 2: Evaluation Roadmap

Performance Measures

The development of TJC performance measures is the next step after developing your theory of change model. Performance measurement refers to the “regular and systematic collection of quantitative information that will empirically demonstrate results (outcomes) of activities (e.g., modified policies, practices, new program activities). Performance measurement connects indicators (i.e., quantitative measures) with specific agency or jurisdictional objectives (i.e., expected outcomes).”¹

Performance measures determine the type of data you must collect to measure your short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes and are thus directly connected to your theory of change model. Reports of these data and outcomes should be readily available to assist decision makers in resource allocation and implementation strategy.

David Osborne and Ted Gaeble, in Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector²identify the power of performance measures:

What gets measured gets done.
If you don’t measure results, you cannot tell success from failure.
If you can’t see success, you can’t reward it.
If you can’t reward success, you’re probably rewarding failure.
If you can’t see success, you can’t learn from it.
If you can demonstrate results, you can win public support.

Innovating agencies use performance measures to improve performance but they also recognize that for desired behaviors to replace old habits or behaviors, they must be reinforced. Below are several examples of actions or rewards to reinforce desirable organizational behaviors or actions:

Paying for performance: Use performance measures as a basis to determine and reward effectiveness.

The New York City Department of Corrections, for example, employs performance-based contracts with its transitional service providers. Service providers bill the NYC DOC for individual clients, and the billing structure relies on a pay scale that ties increased fee amounts with continued client involvement. Performance-based contracts provide strong incentives for service providers to be aggressive in their efforts to maintain client engagement.

Managing for Performance: Use performance measures to improve outcomes through the following steps: identify problems, analyze them, locate the root cause, and develop and implement the solution.
Budgeting for Results: Use performance measures and information to allocate resources. As table 1 indicates, results-based budgeting is outcome driven, promoting ongoing evaluation and interagency collaboration.

Table 1. Traditional Budgeting vs. Budgeting for Results³

Incremental or Traditional Budgeting	Results-based Budgeting
Focus is on the allocation of “new monies” only	Focus is on nearly all monies or the entire budget (excepting certain obligations, such as debt)
Concentration is on inputs (what you buy), that is, “objects of expenditure”	Concentration is on outputs (what results are expected)
Narrow or marginal decisionmaking	Comprehensive or enterprise-wide decisionmaking
Subjective based	Objective based
Preserving the status quo	Determining new, creative approaches to problems and needs
Agency or bureaucracy driven	Outcome driven
Promotes restraints, restrictions, and red tape	Encourages flexibility and ingenuity
Control orientation	Planning and management orientation
Emphasizes compliance and preserving legality	Emphasizes performance and innovation
Stresses audit trails and conformity	Stresses program evaluation and improvement
Involves agency heads, elected officials, and advocacy groups	Involves everyone wanting to participate, especially those wearing a “citizen’s hat”
Encourages and perpetuates single-agency programs	Encourages intra- and interagency cooperation among programs and activities

Begin by developing TJC performance measures for each of your theory of change model’s short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes. This needs to be done before you develop your data collection plan to make sure your strategy for collecting data supports each performance measure used in your self-evaluation. There must be a clear and compelling link between your initiative’s objectives, outcomes, performance measures, and indicators, and the data you plan to regularly collect and analyze.

Many people believe that rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration rates are the only ways to measure successful transition strategies. Although long-term public safety is paramount, there are other important process and system outcomes to measure to enhance public safety and efficiency.

The TJC initiative has developed a menu of performance measures that reflect and support the initiative’s broad goals to increase public safety, improve reintegration outcomes, and effect systems change. To help you with this process, we have identified the following system-level, public safety, and reintegration TJC initiative outcomes and performance indicators:

System-Level Outcomes

Screening, assessment, referrals, engagement, service utilization, and completion

Public Safety Indicators and Outcomes

Reduced reoffending, reduced jail stays, and increased time between jail stays

Reintegration Indicators and Outcomes

Reduced substance use, reduced homelessness and increased housing stability, increased employment and employment stability, and improved physical or mental health

The menu of TJC performance measures located at the end of this module offers several indicators (actual measures) for each above measure. The process measures, although difficult to track, should be a priority for each jurisdiction as they will allow progress to be monitored on an ongoing basis. Depending on the agreed upon definitions (e.g., indicators selected, specified time frame for measurement), the public safety and reintegration measures can take a long time to demonstrate progress and success. The process measures represent intermediate outcomes that should be monitored closely, keeping in mind that if the associated activities are targeted and implemented correctly, they should positively affect reintegration and public safety outcomes.

3 of 6

¹ Rossman, Shelli B., and Laura Winterfield. 2009. Coaching Packet: Measuring the Impact of Reentry Efforts. Silver Spring, MD: The Center for Effective Public Policy, p. 8.

²Osborne, David, and Ted Gaeble. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

³Office of the Governor. 2005. The FY 2005-06 Executive Budget. Columbia, SC:
Author.