But, we wished to preface this presentation with a discussion of the development of county performance measures in MFIP, i.e., where do things stand, what are issues and considerations, and where are we headed. Legislation in 1997 identified seven performance measures and mandated that DHS report to the counties their performance under these measures beginning with the July-September 1998 quarter. Some of the measures in law could not be used for technical reasons. We have been meeting with a group of counties and employment services providers in an effort to develop a consensus on measures that would be most appropriate and useful. The proposed legislation also would have DHS work with the counties to develop any additional measures desired.
Performance measures have two principal uses in Minnesota's county administered system.
In AFDC the federal and state governments sought to ensure that funds were used as intended by prescribing policy and procedure and by monitoring the compliance of practice to policy, mainly through Quality Control reviews. Welfare reform has brought basic change. The most important change is definition of purpose, i.e., what we are trying to accomplish through MFIP and in our administration of the program. A second use of performance measures is to assess information regarding whether key outcomes are being achieved. If our measures are well conceived and when our administration of performance measures are fully developed, instruction would not be limited to a record of results.