Broad PM System

8/7/2019 Broad PM System

1/22

Performance Management System for Central Offices

Prince Georges County Public Schools

Broad Residency Capstone Paper

Jeff Kang, TBR VI

Spring 2010


2/22

Performance Management in the Central Office (PGCPS)

Abstract

Prince Georges County Public Schools (PGCPS) has been building a performance

management system for its schools and central office departments since 2007. My role has

been to lead the 3-year plan for central office implementation. This paper will describe the

tools and processes that are being used to lay the foundation for a comprehensive

performance management system. While significant efforts have been dedicated to the

establishment of performance management systems for schools and instructional staff, the

paper will focus primarily on the central offices. Since 2008, over 50 departments and offices

have developed performance plans, key performance indicators, and they have engaged in adistrict-wide management process (similar to School Stat or City Stat). Subsequent plans

include the further development and alignment of central office budgeting processes as well

as the central office evaluation systems.


3/22


Background and Introduction

Prince Georges County Public Schools (PGCPS) is the 18 th largest district in the

country, and is located in Maryland directly to the east of Washington, DC. PGCPS serves

nearly 130,000 students and employs approximately 19,000 instructional and support staff.

The student population is predominantly African American (73%) and Hispanic (19%), and

there are roughly 47% students are eligible for free and reduced lunch, and 11% are English

language learners. PGCPS is second only to Baltimore City as the lowest performing district

in Maryland, and like many urban districts, it has seen a large number of superintendents and

leadership changes in the past several decades. When Dr. John Deasy and Dr. William Hite

arrived in 2006 as the superintendent and deputy superintendent, respectively, they helped

the district to adopt a theory of action called Managed Performance Empowerment (MP/E).

MP/E aims to drive performance outcomes by rewarding high-performing organizations and

individuals with more autonomy and flexibility. The district recognized the need for an

accountability system that would support this theory of action, and so it began a

comprehensive Performance Management initiative in late 2007. In 2008, Dr. Hite took over

as superintendent when Dr. Deasy departed for the Gates Foundation, and the board and

community looked to him to carry this vision to the next level.

With assistance from several foundations and consulting firms, PGCPS developed a 3-

year implementation plan that would achieve system-wide reform through a set of


4/22


district-wide initiatives, and a system of performance-driven rewards and incentives for

employees.As s a first year Broad Resident in 2008, my role was to establish a performance

management system in the central office with a focus on department-level performance and

accountability. The goal for 2008-9 was to establish a set of department-level dashboards and

data-driven meeting protocols for a pilot set of departments (HR and Purchasing and

Warehouse). In 2009-10, we re-vamped the process and implemented an annual process for

all departments to build performance plans, dashboards, performance management reviews,

and to link these processes to a performance-based budget. I have since been staffed on this

multi-year initiative as my primary assignment, and will likely continue to maintain

ownership of certain elements as I continue on as a permanent employee.

Situation

District-wide: While the district has seen modest growth in student achievement over the

past several years, district representatives share that a growing concern has stemmed from the

lack of transparency, reliable data, accountability, and sound management practices. Part of

this has been attributed to high turnover in executive leadership, an overwhelming number of

initiatives, and a long history of compliance-driven practices.

Central Office Departments: Organizationally, PGCPS is both large and hierarchical.

There are roughly 60 departments in the central office that provide a range of direct and


5/22


remained in silos, and some employees have mentioned that in the past, there was a greater

level of collaboration and better service to the schools. Recent budget cuts have underscoredthe need to measure the performance and efficiency of departments. It had become common

practice to provide a standard budget increase year-over-year to offices without properly

assessing their value and impact to the system, even with the understanding that service

quality and customer satisfaction was on the decline.

Central Office Employees: As one of the largest employers in the county, PGCPS

comprises a large and steady workforce that has outlasted a long list of leadership teams and

initiatives. Specifically, many employees in the central offices have worked in various

different schools and offices throughout their tenure, and many have extensive knowledge of

system operations and history. While the visions and missions of various leadership teams

have cycled through over the years, a constant force of influence has always remained:

compliance for local, state and federal funding streams. More often than not, employees are

much better versed in the mandates dictated by funding sources such as Title I and IDEA

than they are by any initiatives introduced by the executive team or Board of Education.

Furthermore, the implementation of their employee evaluation system is spotty at best. Many

employees have not received an evaluation in the last several years, and those who have do

not feel that it is a meaningful process. District employees first needed to understand the

reason to move from a compliance-driven culture to a performance-driven culture, but they

also needed significant leadership buy-in and support, tools, and training to make this work.


6/22


systems to manage and measure individual performance. Others, such as Chicago and

Charlotte-Mecklenburg (CMS), have focused more on and department-level accountability

and better data systems. The approach for central offices in PGCPS is closer to that adopted

by Chicago and CMS, but with a clear understanding that a performance management system

is not complete without proper processes for individual accountability and evaluation.

Starting in 2007, PGCPS worked extensively with a number of management and

technical consulting firms to plan implementation for the central offices. In 2008, the

Michael and Susan Dell Foundation (MSDF) and the Broad Foundation agreed to provide $6

M in funding over a 3-year period to support the establishment of a performance

management system. PGCPS immediately used part of that funding on consultants to help

develop the strategy and implementation plan. The consultants helped to develop an RFP for

the data warehouse, and also researched other districts and approaches to establish a

comprehensive performance management system. MSDF and Broad also provided technical

assistance, and in the summer of 2008, the work for central office had been planned to

develop central office dashboards for a pilot set of departments that would be supplemented

by training sessions. Furthermore, relationships with consultants and funders have allowed

PGCPS to review and connect with other practices and findings in other districts.

We have continued to research specific districts, organizations, and local and state

agencies that have adopted a strategic planning process and accountability system that is

data-driven and emphasizes continuous improvement. This has included calls and visits to


7/22


Size and Scope: In his public address to the community in the fall of 2009, Dr. Hite

stated his top five priority areas: Student Achievement, Secondary School Reform, Teacher

Effectiveness, Improved Service, and Performance Management. He views performance

management as the primary lever for all reforms in the district, so the goal is for the initiative

to build a culture and mentality around the entire system through a core set of tools and

processes.

Performance management in the central office connects to the budgeting process

(Performance-Based Budgeting), management process (bi-annual performance reviews), and

will be linked to individual evaluations and accountability. While the initiative and concept

touches nearly all elements of the school system, the cost of implementation has been

relatively small. I am the sole FTE dedicated to the central office work stream working

without a substantial budget, and thus far I have worked with shared time from the budget

and accountability offices to establish this system, along with heavy involvement from

division and department leadership. In the beginning of 2010, the Office of Performance

Management was created to oversee and institutionalize changes brought on by our initial

project team. From a budget perspective, this was not an additional cost; it was a shift in

duties for several staff members, but it emphasizes the investment made by the leadership to

this work.

Contribution


8/22


the school system. This team is now being formalized into a permanent team led by a Chief

Performance Officer who oversees all performance management work in the district.

In the last two years, my role has evolved through three stages: execution, facilitation,

and leadership. For the first six to nine months, I was brought in to execute the pilot plan laid

out by the project team and consultants. I arrived in late August 2008, and began building

dashboards for pilot departments in September and training staff in October. This continued

through the spring of 2009, until we realized significant gaps in our approach and content. I

then worked with the executive cabinet and a small working team in 2009 to lead us to a new

approach and set of deliverables for 2009-10. As a facilitator, I largely connected our

findings and research from other organizations to come to an agreed upon approach for the

next fiscal year while pulling the vision from the executive team. And in the last six to nine

months of my residency, Ive continued to execute, facilitate and now lead the direction of

our central office performance management system with more ownership and trust from the

executive team. We are now building new tools, processes and professional development

offerings and looking to leadership for continued guidance and feedback.

Process and Timeline for Year 1 (Pilots): In year 1, we developed basic dashboard

templates that captured performance measures for Human Resources and Purchasing and

Warehouse. This involved several weeks of interviews and facilitated sessions to determine

the measures and the annual performance targets. Significant time was spent overcoming

data access and data quality issues, which still persist today. We also spent the fall providing


9/22


This was largely scoped and planned by the consulting team prior to my arrival, and accepted

by the executive cabinet and respective department directors at the start of the process.

The intent was to finish with a set of dashboard measures and a common management

process that could be repeated across all departments. This would in turn increase

accountability across the system while building a data-driven culture. The data warehouse,

once finished, would be able to make the collection and reporting of data much easier,allowing users to focus on improvements.

However, pilot implementation and success fell short for various key reasons. First, there

was not enough leadership buy-in and support within the pilot departments to make sure that

departments were implementing the process with fidelity. Development of performance

measures requires significant guidance from department directors and division chiefs to

ensure that the metrics and targets are in line with the overall strategic vision. The second

missing element was the lack of a district-wide strategy and performance expectations to

drive the goal-setting process for departments. At times, the selection of measures and targets

seemed arbitrary, and not enough efforts were made to benchmark and align to district-wide

priorities. Finally, the process itself was flawed for PGCPS. Dashboards and meeting

protocols alone are insufficient without a connection to a common vision and direction. The

training, while useful to users, was not targeted enough. Employees need to be trained in

more applicable topics such as backwards mapping to select the right measures, ensuring data

quality, and how to conduct a root-cause analysis.


10/22


increasing pressures of budget reductions and a strong sense of urgency from the

superintendent around building the skill and will for all district staff, we decided to modify

the approach and scale a limited set of processes to all departments in the next fiscal year,

while piloting a separate set of processes with a smaller set of departments.

One key lesson that we learned from 2008-9 were that we needed increased buy-in and

ownership by the executive team to ensure that performance management practices was notperceived as an extra amount of work on the side. Goal-setting and data-driven practices had

to be seen as a central component to all offices at all levels. Therefore, one change was to

increase the level of exposure and accountability at the top of the organization. In 2009-10,

the executive cabinet would shift from an advisory role to a central active role in the

implementation of performance management practices. Another lesson was that we needed to

put the practice of dashboard reviews and meetings in a meaningful context, making it part of

their day-to-day functions. So for 2009-10, we set out to have each department develop

annual performance plans, identifying performance measures and setting targets and

improvement strategies. Finally, it just so happened that the CFO was looking for a way to

start implementing a budgeting process that made stronger ties between the performance of

cost centers and the associated funding decisions. The superintendent planned on zero-

basing the budget for FY 2011 in order to re-build department budgets based on a set of

planned objectives and core service offerings.

Year two has focused on building the following types of processes to support these need:


11/22


Process Description TimelineAnnualDepartmentPerformancePlans

All departments develop a 2-year performance plan to definekey core services, measures, targets and strategies in alignmentwith the districts Master Plan. Plans are reviewed and approvedby division Chiefs and the budget office. General trainingsessions and guidelines are developed for departments.

Aug-Sep 2009

PerformanceManagementPlanning andAnalysis Process(PMAPP)

All departments hold bi-annual data-driven managementdiscussions with Executive Cabinet (and select principals) toreview their core services performance measures and leadingindicators. This process allows for feedback on objectives, andemphasizes leadership response to deficiencies and gaps with

action plans and follow-up. Each department receives technicalsupport and assistance from the Performance Management Teamto prepare for the sessions.

Nov 2009 Apr 2010

PerformanceBased Budgeting(PBB)

Using the Performance Plans developed in the summer,departments plan and submit their FY 2011 budgets to supporttheir core service objectives and strategies. The budgetdocument now includes the same performance measures andtargets identified in each performance plan.

Oct Nov2009

Close-Out All departments close out their annual performance plans with abrief report of end of year outcome measures. Planning andtarget-setting begins for FY 2011.

Jun Jul 2010

Lessons Learned: While there are many nuisances, the very basic lesson that we have

learned is that we must first understand the history and the specific needs of our own district

before adopting a strategy and implementing an aggressive reform plan. In short, we may

have rushed to pilot processes without looking for our true pain points and gaps. We now see

the need to get a strategic plan and a district-wide vision in place to ensure alignment, and

dashboards and meetings will not have true meaning until we start there. We are also

continually struggling to balance proper planning and due diligence with a sense of urgency

and practicality. At times, piloting is the correct approach. At other times, we decided that

performance planning was the right thing to do, and while somewhat messy, we have learned


12/22


13/22


i

APPENDICES


14/22


ii

APPENDIX: PGCPS Performance Management Project Work Streams

1

PerfMgmt Work Streams2008

Communication of the PerformanceManagement VisionCommunication of the PerformanceManagement Vision

Robust Data Collection Systems andWarehouseRobust Data Collection Systems andWarehouse

Metrics to Monitor and Guide On-going OperationsMetrics to Monitor and Guide On-going Operations

Processes to Monitor Operations andDirect Tiered ResponsesProcesses to Monitor Operations andDirect Tiered Responses

Initiative Implementation /Portfolio ManagementInitiative Implementation /Portfolio Management

Evaluation Frameworks, PerformanceStandards and Linked ConsequencesEvaluation Frameworks, PerformanceStandards and Linked Consequences

Understanding of PM system, expectations and call to actionUnderstanding of PM system, expectations and call to action

Access to actionable and timely informationthrough a single, robust database.

Access to actionable and timely informationthrough a single, robust database.

Key indicators for each level of the organizationthat are relevant and clearly tied to overall system goals.

Key indicators for each level of the organizationthat are relevant and clearly tied to overall system goals.

Process for using PM tools and makingdata driven decisionsProcess for using PM tools and makingdata driven decisions

Prioritize and manage the implementation of various district initiativesPrioritize and manage the implementation of various district initiatives

Positive and negative consequences linked to performancePositive and negative consequences linked to

performance

PGCPS started a 3-year PerfMgmt plan with grants from the Dell and Broad foundations Six major workstreams were designed to support critical areas


15/22


iii

APPENDIX: PGCPS Performance Management Tools and Processes

PerfMgmts Processes and Supporting Tools2009 - 2010

PMAPP (Schools)

PMAPP(Central Office)

Collaborative Planning

PortfolioManagementPerformance

Management

Data Quality

Communications andChange Management

Data WarehouseTOOLS

Performance Plans/School Improvement Plans

PROCESSES

Education Metrics/Scorecards

1


16/22


iv

APPENDIX: PGCPS Project Team Structure (2008)

PerfMgmt Project Team Structure2008

Steering Committee

Executive Cabinet Selected principals

Guide overall direction,track progress and drive

decisions

Parallel Teams

Communications Information Technology FIRST Teacher Effectiveness

Subject Experts

Teachers

Principals

Central Office

Subject Experts

Teachers

Principals

Central Office

Parents,Students, and

Community Stakeholders

Project Sponsors

Chief of Accountability Chief of IT

Direct guidance and sponsorship; functional and strategic expertise

PM Project Team

Performance Management Team Schools Central Office + EPMO Communications Data Warehouse

Portfolio Management Team

Execute day-to-day projects and activities, and collaboratewith consultants


17/22


v

APPENDIX: PGCPS Project Team Structure (2010)

Current PerfMgmt Team and Contacts2010

1

Stephanie Cameron

Project Manager

Data Warehouse

Stephanie Cameron

Project Manager

Data Warehouse

Performance Management Team

Dr. Duane ArbogastChief Academic Officer, SPONSOR

Wesley WattsChief Information Officer, SPONSOR

Lisa PriceProgram Manager

Sheila Jackson

Project Manager

Collaborative

Planning

Sheila Jackson

Project Manager

Collaborative

Planning

Andrea AllenLateefah Durant

Project Manager

PortfolioManagement

Andrea AllenLateefah Durant

Project Manager

PortfolioManagement

Bruce Hislop

Project Manager

Data Quality

Bruce Hislop

Project Manager

Data Quality

Tanzi West Barbour

Project Manager

Communications

Change Mgmt

Tanzi West Barbour

Project Manager

Communications

Change Mgmt

JenniferMartin-Johnson

Project ManagerPMAPP - Schools

JenniferMartin-Johnson

Project ManagerPMAPP - Schools

Jeff Kang

Project Manager

PMAPP -Central Office

Jeff Kang

Project Manager

PMAPP -Central Office

Dr. Duane ArbogastChief Academic Officer, SPONSOR


18/22


vi

APPENDIX: PGCPS Performance Management Framework

The PerfMgmt FrameworkDeveloped in 2008 2009

Set expectations and goals Articulate clear expectations Communicate evaluation process Agree on individual goals

Applyconsequences Reward

excellence Hold people

accountable forperformance

C2C2

Conductperformance reviews Conduct reviews Provide actionable

feedback basedon evaluation

C1C1

Track progress Provide performance

data for analysis

B1B1

Support professionalgrowth Engage in data-driven

decision-making toimprove performanceand foster owndevelopment

B3B3

Develop andimplementinterventions

Use data to identifybest interventions

B2B2

Data

Follow-through

Instruction-al and

profession-al growth

Set expectations and goals

Studentachievement

AA

BBCC

AA Set expectations and goals Articulate clear expectations Communicate evaluation process Agree on individual goals

Applyconsequences Reward

excellence Hold people

accountable forperformance

C2C2

Conductperformance reviews Conduct reviews Provide actionable

feedback basedon evaluation

C1C1

Track progress Provide performance

data for analysis

B1B1

Support professionalgrowth Engage in data-driven

decision-making toimprove performanceand foster owndevelopment

B3B3

Develop andimplementinterventions

Use data to identifybest interventions

B2B2

Data

Follow-through

Instruction-al and



Studentachievement

AA

BBCC

Data

Follow-through

Instruction-al and



Studentachievement

Studentachievement

AA

BBCC

AA


19/22


vii


20/22


viii

APPENDIX: Example PM Framework Applied

Updated PerfMgmt FrameworkFrom Principal Summit in Summer 2009

1

11

2233

Example: Staff EvaluationsExample: Staff Evaluations

Hold meeting with employeeDefine role and key projectsSet annual performance goals

Employee creates projectand work plansExecute and measureprogressManager providescoaching and feedback

Ongoing check-ins on plansand executionMid-year evaluationAnnual evaluation of goalsand projectsFollow-through withfeedback and recognition


21/22


ix

APPENDIX: Central Office PM Vision (Presented to Departments in Fall 09)

Focus of Central Office PerfMgmt in 2009-10Launching focused processes for All Departments

1

Department-wideGoals, Measures

and Standards

Data Tools,Dashboards and

Reports

Provide Better Data and Tools

Performance-Driven Culture and Increased Management Capacity

Effective Data UseProtocols

Effective IndividualPerformanceManagement

Central OfficePerformanceManagement

Set performanceobjectives, targetsand metrics

Systems to supportdata-driven decisions

Use protocols to reviewmetrics, take action,

provide support, and followthrough

Link performance toconsequences, rewardsand supports

PerformancePlans

PerformanceBased Budgeting

Central OfficePMAPP


22/22


x

APPENDIX: Performance Plan and PMAPP (Presented to Departments in Fall 09)

PMAPP helps us manage performance acrossthe system

School Improvement PlanningProcess

(SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN)

Performance ManagementAnalysis and Planning Process

(PMAPP CENTRAL OFFICE)


(PMAPP SCHOOLS)

Prioritized Resources &Activities Aligned to School

Needs

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

REQUESTS

SUPPORT

ANNUAL FEEDBACK ANNUAL FEEDBACK

Targets, Strategies & Needs

BRIDGE TOEXCELLENCE

MASTER PLAN

Departmental PerformancePlanning Process

(PERFORMANCE PLAN)

ONGOING FEEDBACK,PLANNING AND

RESPONSE

School Improvement PlanningProcess

(SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN)


(PMAPP CENTRAL OFFICE)


(PMAPP SCHOOLS)

Prioritized Resources &Activities Aligned to School

Needs

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

REQUESTS

SUPPORT

REQUESTS

SUPPORT

ANNUAL FEEDBACK ANNUAL FEEDBACK ANNUAL FEEDBACK ANNUAL FEEDBACK

Targets, Strategies & Needs

BRIDGE TOEXCELLENCE

MASTER PLAN


(PERFORMANCE PLAN)


(PERFORMANCE PLAN)

ONGOING FEEDBACK,PLANNING AND

RESPONSE

Schools: Quarterly PMAPPmeetings at area level and withExec Council.

Departments: >50 departmentsholding bi-annual PMAPP sessionswith Exec Council.

Documents

Broad PM System