A Revision of Statutes Governing Service Delivery Performance
- Staff
- Aug 4
- 6 min read
This project aims to establish a comprehensive methodology by applying a strategy to Minnesota’s statutes that facilitates the provision of the highest quality human services to state residents with the greatest need. We designed this process to revise a set of statutes related to a council that advises the Commissioner on the effectiveness of human services delivery. We employed process mapping to identify where issues in the statutes arise and how they are structured. The articles detailing these analyses can be found in “Legislative Analysis: Part I, Part II, and Part III (1) (2) (3).” The analytical results offered us insights and recommendations for revising the statutes, as outlined below.
The Minnesota Department of Health and Human Services obtains funding and directs these resources through legislative channels to create social service programs, overseeing their implementation for state residents. County and agency administrators take into account various factors—cultural, demographic, economic, ethical, legal, political, and technological—when deciding how to fulfill their goals. The primary aim is to ensure that individuals in need receive adequate support and that the services provided are of high quality.
Recommendations
The legislative analysis has underscored the importance of these changes to the relevant parts of the 2023 Minnesota Statutes 402A that referred to the duties of the human services performance management council:
“Subd. 1a. Balanced set of program measures. A “balanced set of program measures” is a set of measures that, together, adequately quantify achievement toward a particular program’s outcome. As directed by section 402A.16, the Human Services Performance Council must recommend to the Commissioner when a particular program has a balanced set of program measures”.
(modified) Subd. 1a. Balanced set of program measures. A “balanced set of program measures” is a set of measures that, together, adequately quantify achievement toward a particular service recipient's outcome. As directed by section 402A.16, the Human Services Performance Council must advise the Commissioner when a specific program does not have a balanced set of program measures.
“Subd. 4a. Essential human services program. An “essential human services program” for the purposes of remedies under section 402A.18, means the following programs”:
(modified) Subd. 4a. Essential human services program. An "essential human services program" for remedies under section 402A.18 means the conveyance by which the State provides funding, process design, and training to service delivery:
“Subd. 4b. Measure. A “measure” means a quantitative indicator of a performance outcome”.
(modified) Subd. 4b. Measure. A "measure" refers to a quantitative indicator of how a service delivery results or performance achieves the desired recipient outcome.
“Subd. 4c. Performance improvement plan. A “performance improvement plan” means a plan developed by a county or a service delivery authority that describes steps the county or service delivery authority must take to improve performance on a specific measure or set of measures. The performance improvement plan must be negotiated with and approved by the commissioner. The performance improvement plan must require a specific numerical improvement in the measure or measures on which the plan is based and may include specific programmatic best practices or specific performance management practices that the county must implement”.
(modified) Subd. 4c. Performance improvement plan. A "performance improvement plan" refers to a plan developed by a county or service delivery authority that outlines the steps the county or service delivery authority will take to enhance performance in a specific measure or set of measures. This remedial performance improvement plan must be negotiated with and approved by the Commissioner. The performance improvement plan must require a specific numerical improvement in the measure or measures on which the plan is based and may include specific best practices and training or certain performance management practice that the county proposes to implement.
“Subd. 4d. Performance management system for human services. A “performance management system for human services” means a process by which performance data for essential human services is collected from counties or service delivery authorities and used to inform a variety of stakeholders and to improve performance over time”.
(modified) Subd. 4d. Performance management system for human services. A “performance management system for human services” means a system that assists the Commissioner in facilitating the delivery of the highest quality human services to State’s residents with greatest need. The system acts to develop, improve and set performance measures and standards, and monitor the performance of service delivery with data and information from counties, service delivery authorities and essential human services programs. This system includes support given to the human services performance council in fulfilment of its duties.
“402A.16 HUMAN SERVICES PERFORMANCE COUNCIL”
“Subd 2. Duties. The Human Services Performance Council shall”:
“(2) annually review the annual performance data submitted by counties and service delivery authorities”;
(modified) (2) annually review the service delivery performance for the year with data and information submitted by the counties, service delivery authorities and department essential human services programs.
“(3) review and advise the commissioner on department procedures related to the implementation of the performance management system and system process requirements and on barriers to process improvement in human services delivery”;
(modified) (3) review and advise the Commissioner on department procedures related to the implementation of the human services performance management system and its requirements and to barriers to improvement of human services delivery processes.
“(4) advice the commissioner on training and technical assistance needs of county, service delivery authority and department personnel”;
(modified) (4) advice the Commissioner on training and technical assistance needs of county, service delivery authority and department essential human services program personnel.
“(6) consider appeals from counties and service delivery authorities that are in the remedies process and make recommendations to the commissioner in resolving the issue”;
(modified) (6) consider appeals from counties and service delivery authorities that are in the remedial process and make recommendations to the Commissioner on resolving the issue.
“(7) convene working groups to update and develop outcomes, measures and performance thresholds for the performance management system and, on an annual basis, present these recommendations to the commissioner, including recommendations on when a particular essential human services program has a balanced set of balanced set of program measures in place”;
(modified) (7) participate in working groups to improve and develop measures, standards and performance thresholds in the performance management system and, on an annual basis, present the update and recommendations to the Commissioner.
“(10) submit an annual report to the legislator and the commissioner, which includes a comprehensive report on the performance of individual counties or service delivery authorities as it relates to system measures; a list of counties or service delivery authorities that have been required to create performance improvement plans and the areas identified for improvement as part of the remedies process; a summary of performance improvement training and technical assistance activities offered to county personnel by the department; recommendations on administrative rules or state statutes that could be repealed in order to improve service delivery; recommendation for system improvements, including updates to system outcomes, measures and thresholds; and a response from the commissioner”.
(modified) (10) publish an annual summary human services management system report to the residents of the State, and a comprehensive report supplementary to the annual report.
The annual report for state residents on the performance of their human services delivery system includes: the Commissioner's statement page; human services delivery performance summary on results of the year’s delivery operations and changes to the 5-year trend by current year service delivery performance; short discussion of operational and external factors that caused the changes in delivery performance; and a short discussion on any changes on the department’s strategic and operational plan to mitigate the effects of adverse factors and barriers.
the supplementary report to the annual report of the annual human services measurement management report includes: a list of counties or service delivery authorities that have been required to create performance improvement plans and the areas identified for improvement in the remedies process; a summary of performance improvement training and technical assistance activities offered to county personnel by the department; recommendations on administrative rules or state statutes that could be repealed in order to improve service delivery; recommendation for system improvements, including updates to system performance measures and standards.
We are extremely grateful for the advice, interviews, and tutorials that contributed to the development of this series in legislative analysis.
By the Staff, www.mgmtlaboratory.com 2025.
References:
Analysis of Statutes Governing Service Delivery Performance. Part III. www.mgmtlaboratory.com. Jul, 2025.
Analysis of Statutes Governing Service Delivery Performance. Part II. www.mgmtlaboratory.com. Jan, 2025.
Analysis of Statutes Governing Service Delivery Performance. Part I. www.mgmtlaboratory.com. Dec, 2024.
Performance Management and Organizational Structure. www.mgmtlaboratory.com. Aug, 2021
Essential Human Services; County Delivery; State-County Results, Accountability and Service Delivery. Chapters 402A.01 to 402A.50. www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2023/cite/402A. 2023.
Minnesota Department of Human Services: A Case Study in Management Control Systems. www.mgmtlaboratory.com. Nov, 2019.
Process Mapping in Continuous Improvement of Public Service. www.mgmtlaboratory.com. Jun, 2019.
Where has MIS Gone? www.mgmtlaboratory.com. Feb, 2018.
Program Completion and Management Action Delay. www.mgmtlaboratory.com. Nov 2017.
Within a Six-Sigma continuous improvement project, analytical tools are grouped into those in the “Data Door” or those in the “Process Door.” Process mapping is an analytical tool in the process door.
Mgmtlaboratory.com staff and affiliated management consultants are experienced in managing private and public organizations and using management tools. Non-profit entities and governments may inquire at contact@mgmtlaboratory.com about its free online consulting service on continuous improvement and other service administration tools.