Administrative performance evaluation must be based on sufficient information, so information must be collected comprehensively and effectively in the process of performance evaluation. In order to collect information more comprehensively and effectively, it is necessary to adopt a set of scientific information collection methods. The information collection method of administrative performance evaluation refers to the sum of a series of information collection methods adopted in the process of administrative performance evaluation. Specifically, there are mainly the following methods:
1, using the method of official records
Official records include: the number of items repaired, the amount of water treated, the tonnage of garbage collected and other records that can be used to measure the amount of work completed; The quality of service can be measured by the number of complaints received, the number of traffic casualties, the number of crimes and arrests, and the number of alarms received by fire and police departments.
2. Methods of training observers
This method is to train observers and let them evaluate the quality of service. This method is especially suitable for quality evaluation. For example, evaluate the cleanliness of the street, the road conditions of the street, the maintenance of parks and sports fields, and the appearance of houses. Who can be an observer? If the evaluation procedure is simple, ordinary civil servants and college students can take the exam, and complex evaluation requires specialized personnel. Some people who have been engaged in inspection work, such as inspectors of solid waste and supervisors of work quality, can become quality observers.
The measures to ensure the accuracy of observer evaluation are as follows: ① providing grade standards; ② Experiment once before use; ③ The evaluators selected should be independent of the organizations being evaluated; (4) Check the evaluation of observers regularly to ensure the evaluation quality; ⑤ Train new observers, and then train observers when new problems arise.
3. Survey method of public satisfaction
Public satisfaction survey usually adopts questionnaire survey, through which the following information can be obtained: (1) the investigation of victims can obtain more accurate information than the official criminal record; Public participation or utilization rate (for parks, entertainment facilities, libraries, public transportation, etc.). ); Judging the tourism situation from the charging and parking records; Investigate people who receive social services and obtain information such as employment time and salary increase after training; The number of people who received practical help from social service departments; Wait a minute.
Questionnaire survey can also directly obtain the public's evaluation of service quality, such as: satisfaction with entertainment institutions and cultural activities, access to library services and their quality, satisfaction with the cleanliness of community environment, sense of security against crime, convenience and quality of public transport services.
The methods to ensure the accuracy of citizen opinion survey are as follows: ① avoiding sampling error and selecting samples reasonably; ② Adopting random sampling; ③ The sample should be representative and include all public types; (4) Adopting appropriate interview techniques to improve the recovery rate; ⑤ Fully train and supervise the interviewers; ⑥ The questionnaire should be distributed to at least some people with different education levels; ⑦ Carefully design the contents of the questionnaire to avoid ambiguous and biased questions.
The survey methods used are: letter survey, personal interview, telephone interview and the comprehensive application of various interview techniques.
4. Special data collection methods
Some performance measurements require special equipment to obtain information, such as the measurement of air, water and noise pollution. The measurement of pavement smoothness is also an example. After obtaining the relevant technical data, it should be transformed into a concept that people can generally understand.
(B) quantitative measurement methods of administrative performance evaluation
Evaluation has two interrelated aspects: monitoring the results of public administration operation by various methods; Apply certain values to determine the value of these achievements to specific individuals, groups and the whole society. These two interrelated aspects mean that any evaluation report has two premises, namely facts and values. The fact is a series of administrative performance information introduced above, and the value is our evaluation index system.
Administrative performance evaluation mainly includes four contents: administrative economic cost measurement, efficiency measurement, benefit measurement and fairness measurement, and each measurement must rely on a series of performance indicators. The measurement method of administrative performance evaluation refers to the sum of the methods used to measure the economic cost, efficiency, benefit and fairness of administrative management in the process of administrative performance evaluation. Determination is generally divided into qualitative determination and quantitative determination. This paper mainly introduces the quantitative determination methods of the first three items.
1, economic rationality evaluation method
On the premise of certain performance, saving administrative input as much as possible will make administrative management more economical, otherwise it will be uneconomical and may also cause waste. The lower the administrative investment, the higher the administrative performance under the condition of completing certain administrative tasks with good quality and quantity. On the contrary, the higher the administrative input, the lower the administrative performance. The evaluation method of economic rationality refers to an evaluation method to determine whether administrative management is economic and reasonable by measuring administrative input.
(1) method for measuring cost-input ratio
This refers to an evaluation method to measure administrative performance by measuring the proportion of funds as administrative costs to manpower, material resources and equipment in the process of administrative management. The cost of administrative management is manifested in funds, but the direct investment of administrative organs in management activities is not necessarily funds, but manpower, material resources and equipment generated by the transformation of funds. Cost-input ratio is the conversion rate of existing funds to input.
(2) The ratio of management expenses to business expenses.
This refers to an evaluation method to measure administrative performance by measuring the proportion of administrative expenditure in total expenditure. For public service organizations, the expenses directly used for service objects are business expenses, while the operating expenses of service organizations are management expenses. Because of the different nature of the two kinds of expenses, the ratio between them has become a sign to measure administrative and economic costs. For example, in the early 1980s, the British government reviewed the use of the special fund for forest protection. It is found that every 65,438+000 pounds in the special fund includes 90 pounds of administrative expenses, and the actual expenditure on tree restoration is less than 65,438+00%. Most of the special funds are used to purchase office facilities and equipment, and pay employees' salaries and travel expenses. This is a typical uneconomical example.
(3) per capita input measurement method
This refers to an evaluation method to measure administrative performance by measuring the per capita cost of residents in administrative areas. The per capita investment here is not the per capita expenditure of the staff of the administrative agency, but the per capita expenditure of all members of the jurisdiction in a specific field. For example, the British police performance index includes the content of "per capita net investment in police work" and adopts the method of apportionment calculation. As taxpayers, citizens are actually the undertakers of these inputs. Taking this measure as a performance evaluation index, we can clearly see the tax use and actual effect of administrative organs, and it is an effective tool for citizens to supervise the government. In addition, we can also compare the per capita net investment of police departments in different aspects with that of police departments in different areas in the same aspect. These are all evaluation methods to measure per capita input and make effective comparison.
(4) unit cost measurement method
This refers to an evaluation method to measure administrative performance by measuring the cost required for each unit of administrative workload. The concept of unit cost involves input and output, so it is not only the display of economic level, but also the display of efficiency level.
(5) the determination of economic improvement space
This refers to an evaluation method to measure administrative performance by determining whether there is room for economic improvement when completing an administrative task. The way to determine the possibility of saving or to seek the field of saving is to determine the space for economic improvement. Through investigation and analysis, it is found that with the support of existing manpower, equipment and financial resources, the existing administrative performance still has a lot of room for improvement, which can save investment, which can explain the low administrative performance from the opposite side. If we find that only by vigorously implementing personnel replacement or training, updating existing equipment and increasing financial input can we promote the improvement of economic performance, which shows that the current level of economic performance has been fully exerted.
2. Cost-benefit evaluation method
In administrative activities, as in economic activities, any income always needs to pay a certain cost. The relationship between cost and benefit constitutes the so-called efficiency. When the cost is fixed, the higher the income, the higher the efficiency; In the case of a certain income, the higher the cost, the lower the efficiency. Cost-benefit evaluation method refers to an administrative performance evaluation method, and analysts determine its efficiency by comparing the monetary cost of administrative activities with the total monetary income.
Cost-benefit analysis has been widely used in many different public projects and projects. It was first used for dam construction and water supply, including cost-benefit analysis of hydropower, flood control, irrigation and entertainment. This analysis method has the following characteristics:
First of all, it tries to measure all the costs and benefits that a public project may bring to society, including many intangible parts that are difficult to measure with monetary costs and benefits.
Secondly, if the net income of a policy or project (that is, the total income minus the total cost) is greater than zero and higher than that of other public or private investment schemes, it is considered to be efficient. Therefore, this method embodies an economic rationality.
Third, the private market is generally used as the starting point and reference for the evaluation of public projects. The opportunity cost of public investment is usually calculated by considering the possible income from investing in the private sector.
Cost-benefit analysis has many advantages: first, both costs and benefits are measured in the same currency, so that analysts can subtract costs from benefits, which is impossible in the cost-benefit analysis mentioned later. Second, the cost-benefit analysis enables us to transcend the limitations of a single policy or project and link the benefits with the income of the whole society. This is also possible, because individual policies and projects can be expressed in money at least in principle. Finally, cost-benefit analysis enables analysts to compare projects in a wider range of different fields, such as health and transportation, because the net benefits are expressed in money and can be compared.
The specific operation of the method can be divided into the following steps:
First, estimate the costs and benefits.
The key to using this analysis is to consider all the costs and benefits that a policy or project may bring. In order to avoid omission, we can list the costs and benefits in categories.
(1) Internal and external costs and benefits. When analysts and project decision makers define target groups, they can roughly define internal costs and benefits as well as external costs and benefits. Internal costs and benefits are those borne by the project investment and management entities. For example, building a gymnasium in the central area of a city, as a part of urban reconstruction and development projects, will generate costs and gain benefits within the urban area, including construction costs and rental income. The project may also have external costs and benefits. It is a positive overflow or a negative overflow outside the target boundary. For example, because the facilities of the gymnasium are among the best in the surrounding areas, it is possible that sports fans around the city will come to carry out sports activities, and the original surrounding sports facilities will be idle.
(2) Costs and benefits can be measured directly and indirectly. Costs or benefits may be tangible or intangible. Tangible means that costs and benefits can be calculated by direct market prices, while intangible means that costs and benefits must be calculated indirectly by using estimated market prices.
(3) Primary and secondary costs and benefits. The primary cost or benefit refers to the cost or benefit related to the most important project goal, and the secondary meaning is just the opposite. For example, the main goal of gymnasium construction is to meet the upcoming sports meeting in this city, so the primary costs or benefits include construction costs and sports meeting income. Because if the city is small and there are some gyms, the utilization rate after the game is estimated to be low, and its maintenance cost and daily rent are only secondary costs and benefits.
(4) Net income value and redistributed income. The question here is whether the cost-benefit balance will increase the overall income or just cause the transfer of resources between different groups of people. The net income value refers to the actual increase of net income (total income-total cost), while the redistribution of income refers to the transfer of income "money" to another group at the expense of one group, but it does not increase the net income value. The benefits brought about by these two changes are called physical benefits and monetary benefits respectively. For example, the construction of the gymnasium may bring a net profit of 6.5438+0 million yuan in addition to the cost during the sports meeting, which is the net income value, that is, the real welfare; In addition, if the income of the gymnasium has been increasing after the sports meeting, and the usage of other sports facilities in the city has decreased accordingly, resulting in a decrease in its income (assuming that the increase of the former is almost equal to the decrease of the latter), then the income obtained by the gymnasium is redistributed and its welfare is "monetary". Because the two cancel each other out without changing the net income value.
3. Cost-benefit evaluation method
Cost-benefit evaluation method is a method for evaluators to make suggestions by quantifying the total cost and total effect of various policies or administrative programs and comparing them. Unlike cost-benefit analysis, which tries to measure all factors with a unified unit of value, cost-benefit analysis uses two different units of value. Cost is measured by money, while income is measured by unit products, services or other means. Due to the lack of a unified unit of measurement, the concepts of net efficiency and net income cannot be used to evaluate here. However, a cost-benefit and benefit-cost ratio can be calculated, for example, a ratio of cost/health service volume or a ratio of health service volume/cost.
Compared with the cost-benefit ratio, these ratios have different meanings in general. On the one hand, it tells us how many products or services 0 yuan can produce for every 65,438+investment, or how much each unit of products and services needs. On the other hand, the cost-benefit ratio tells us how many times the benefit is more than the cost under certain circumstances. If there is net income, the cost-benefit ratio must be less than 1. This does not apply to the cost-benefit ratio. It has different meanings in different situations.
Cost-benefit analysis is especially suitable for the most effective use of resources to achieve the goal that can not be expressed by income. In the United States, it has been used in judicial, human resources training, transportation, health, national defense and other fields. It has the following obvious characteristics:
First of all, because it avoids the problem of measuring income in monetary units, it is easier to apply than cost-benefit analysis.
Second, because it rarely relies on market prices, it rarely uses the logic of maximizing private sector profits. For example, it rarely considers whether the benefits outweigh the costs or whether different investments in the private sector can generate more profits.
Third, it is especially suitable for evaluating externalities and intangible costs or benefits, because these effects are difficult to measure with money.
The general focus of the cost-benefit evaluation model is:
(1) lowest cost evaluation
After determining the expected income, the lowest cost of completing the scheduled income is found through empirical analysis. If the cost of administrative performance is higher than this minimum cost, it is considered that the benefit of administrative performance is relatively low.
(2) Maximum benefit evaluation
After determining the maximum allowable cost limit (usually budget limit), we can find out the possible maximum benefit by evaluating different operating modes. If the administrative performance is lower than this benefit, the administrative benefit is relatively low.
(3) marginal benefit evaluation
Marginal income refers to the extra income obtained by spending a certain cost (variable cost) in addition to the existing cost (fixed cost). For example, suppose the government spends 10000 RMB on compulsory education every month to maintain a class of 20 students in the school, and the current per capita cost is 500 yuan. Here 10000 yuan is a fixed cost, and 20 people receive compulsory education to benefit (minimum benefit). If the cost of 500 yuan is increased, the class can be increased to 23 students, and the average cost of the last three students is less than that of 200 yuan. Because for the same teacher, there is almost no big difference between teaching 20 people and teaching 23 people, and the salary cost of teachers will not increase too much. In addition, the cost of teaching equipment such as blackboard and chalk will not increase too much. Originally, according to the fixed cost calculation, increasing the investment in 500 yuan can only increase 1 person to receive compulsory education, but in fact, three people have been added and two people have received compulsory education, which is the marginal benefit generated by the new cost. When using marginal benefit analysis method to evaluate performance, if the quantity and cost of services or products can be expressed by two continuous scales, the marginal benefits of two (or more) schemes can be calculated. For example, the cost of providing public safety services by the two police stations can be measured by the following two scales: the cost related to hourly inspections; Number of crimes against property reported, stopped, investigated and closed. A continuous cost-benefit function can be established for two police stations. Generally speaking, the scheme that exceeds the required minimum benefit and has the lowest cost-benefit ratio often has greater marginal benefit.