University of Michigan Gateway Ford School

The Michigan Public Policy Survey (MPPS)
  • Fall 2011 Data Tables
  • « Back to Michigan Public Policy Survey Home

    Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Fall 2011 Wave of the MPPS Broken down by jurisdiction type, population size, and region of the state:

    Table of Contents


      Does the Jurisdiction Use Data

      1. Jurisdiction uses internal data
      2. Jurisdiction uses external data
      3. Jurisdiction does not use internal or external data

    Among Jurisdictions That Currently Use Data

      Among Data Users: History of Data Use

    1. Whether jurisdiction uses performance data on ad hoc basis or systematically
    2. How long jurisdiction has been using performance measures
    3. Among Data Users: Extent Jurisdiction uses Different Types of Data Internally

      1. Measures of inputs
      2. Measures of workload
      3. Measures of efficiency
      4. Measures of effectiveness
      5. Measures of citizen satisfaction
    4. Among Data Users: How Jurisdiction Performance Measures Developed

      1. Developed in-house
      2. Designed by a consultant
      3. Patterned after a model
      4. Developed with assistance of organizations
    5. Among Data Users: Sources from Which Jurisdiction Gathers External Data

      1. U.S. Census Bureau
      2. Michigan Department of Treasury website
      3. Michigan Association of Counties
      4. Michigan Municipal League
      5. Michigan Townships Association
      6. Regional organizations
      7. Private organizations, consultants, etc.
      8. Informal exchanges of information with other jurisdictions
    6. Among Data Users: Perceived Effectiveness of Using Data

      1. Perceived effectiveness for improving management decisions
      2. Perceived effectiveness for guiding budgeting decisions
      3. Perceived effectiveness for identifying cost savings
      4. Perceived effectiveness for improving program or service quality
      5. Perceived effectiveness for guiding individual program/department planning
      6. Perceived effectiveness for guiding overall strategic planning
      7. Perceived effectiveness for guiding compensation decisions
      8. Perceived effectiveness for effectiveness of using data for negotiating with unions
      9. Perceived effectiveness for improving communication with the jurisdiction's council/board
      10. Perceived effectiveness for improving accountability and transparency
      11. Perceived effectiveness for improving civic participation among the public
      12. Perceived effectiveness for public relations/promoting the jurisdiction
    7. Among Data Users: Public Sharing of Data

    8. Is performance data shared publicly
      1. Shares data through jurisdiction-wide reports
      2. Shares data through specific agency/program/department reports
      3. Shares data through press releases
      4. Shares data through government newsletters
      5. Shares data through posting to local government website
      6. Shares data through performance dashboard
    9. Among Data Users: Support or Opposition

      1. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's council/board
      2. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's managers
      3. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's non-managerial employees
      4. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's citizens
      5. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's business community
    10. Among Data Users: Potential Problems in the Use of Data

      1. Costs required to collect and use performance data
      2. Ability to obtain external data
      3. Ability to analyze performance data
      4. Ability to tie performance data to jurisdiction’s goals
      5. Ability to keep measures current
      6. Ability to implement change in response to data findings
    11. Among Data Users: Value of Data Practices

      1. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for the jurisdiction
      2. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for local governments in general
    12. Likelihood that jurisdiction will cut back or expand performance measurement activities within next 12 months

    Among Jurisdictions That Do Not Currently Use Data

      Among Non-Data Users: History & Future Data Use

    1. Jurisdiction engaged in data-driven decision making in the past
    2. Jurisdiction considering new uses of data in decision making
    3. Whether jurisdiction is likely to use performance data on ad hoc basis or systematically
    4. Among Non-Data Users: Likelihood of Using Data for Specific Purposes

      1. For improving management decisions
      2. For guiding budgeting decisions
      3. For identifying cost savings
      4. For improving program or service quality
      5. For guiding individual program/department planning
      6. For guiding overall strategic planning
      7. For guiding compensation decisions
      8. For use in negotiating with unions
      9. For improving communication with the jurisdiction’s council/board
      10. For improving government accountability and transparency
      11. For improving civic participation among the public
      12. For use in public relations/promoting the jurisdiction
    5. Among Non-Data Users: How Jurisdiction Performance Measures Likely to be Developed

      1. Developed in-house
      2. Designed by a consultant
      3. Patterned after a model
      4. Developed with assistance of organizations
    6. Among Non-Data Users: Value of Potential External Assistance

      1. Local or regional performance data
      2. State performance data
      3. National performance data
      4. Consultants for designing measures
      5. Models or templates for designing measures
      6. Training on collection, analysis and use of measures
      7. Funding support to develop and/or implement measures
    7. Among Non-Data Users: Future Data Use & Support or Opposition

    8. Likelihood that jurisdiction will adopt new uses of data within next 12 months
      1. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's council/board
      2. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's managers
      3. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's non-managerial employees
      4. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's citizens
      5. Support or opposition from jurisdiction's business community
    9. Among Non-Data Users: Potential Problems in the Use of Data

      1. Costs required to collect and use performance data
      2. Ability to obtain external data
      3. Ability to analyze performance data
      4. Ability to tie performance data to jurisdiction’s goals
      5. Ability to keep measures current
      6. Ability to implement change in response to data findings
    10. Among Non-Data Users: Value of Data Practices

      1. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for the jurisdiction
      2. Are performance measurement and management activities worthwhile for local governments in general

    Among All Respondents

      Performance Dashboard

      1. Perceived effectiveness of a local government dashboard for jurisdiction's accountability and transparency
      2. Perceived effectiveness of a local government dashboard for jurisdiction's performance
      3. Perceived effectiveness of a local government dashboard for jurisdiction's ability to benchmark
    1. Status of jurisdiction's performance dashboard
    2. Likelihood that jurisdiction will revise measurement categories on its performance dashboard
    3. Citizen's Guide to Local Government Finances

      1. Perceived effectiveness of a citizen's guide for jurisdiction's accountability and transparency
      2. Perceived effectiveness of a citizen's guide for jurisdiction's performance
      3. Perceived effectiveness of a citizen's guide for jurisdiction's ability to benchmark
    4. Status of jurisdiction's citizen's guide
    5. Likelihood that jurisdiction will revise measurement categories on its citizen's guide
    6. Economic Vitality Incentive Program

    7. Familiarity with the Economic Vitality Incentive Program
    8. Jurisdiction's eligibility for Economic Vitality Incentive Program
    9. Jurisdiction certified in accountability and transparency
    10. Jurisdiction will certify in collaboration/consolidation/service sharing
    11. Jurisdiction will certify in employee compensation
    12. Familiarity with the Economic Vitality Incentive Program assistance grants
    13. Likelihood that jurisdiction will apply for an Economic Vitality Incentive Program grant

    MPPS Home




    MPPS Resources



    Question Database


    Data Tables


    Reports


    Questionnaires


    Individual Study Pages




    More on the MPPS




           closup@umich.edu  | 
    735 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI. 48109-3091  | 
    ph: 734-647-4091  | 
    © 2014 Regents of the University of Michigan      
    University of Michigan Gateway Ford School Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy