Meaningful performance assessment requires context, which is achieved through comparison. Comparing the cost per acre maintained to that of another jurisdiction is a form of benchmarking. This method creates an efficiency measure (cost per unit of service) and compares it against a peer, providing a basis for judging whether the division's performance is relatively efficient or inefficient. This approach moves beyond simply measuring inputs (like funds or staff) or overly broad outcomes (like general citizen satisfaction) to provide a specific, comparable, and actionable assessment of the grounds maintenance division's operational performance.

A. A single measure of citizen satisfaction for the entire department is too broad and not specific enough to evaluate the grounds maintenance division alone.

B. Evaluating funds spent is an input measure; it does not assess the efficiency or effectiveness of the maintenance work performed with those funds.

C. Analyzing staffing levels is an input measure, not a performance outcome, and provides no insight into the quality or efficiency of the work.

1. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). (1994). Concepts Statement No. 2: Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. Section 57 discusses measures that relate efforts to accomplishments, defining efficiency measures as those that relate an entity's efforts (costs) to its outputs of goods and services (e.g., cost per acre maintained). This supports option D as a valid efficiency measure. Paragraph 7 notes that inputs (like funding and staffing in options B and C) are measures of effort but not of performance itself.

2. Ammons, D. N. (2012). Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards (3rd ed.). M.E. Sharpe. Chapter 1, "The Case for Performance Measurement and Benchmarking," emphasizes that performance data gains meaning primarily through comparisons. The book explicitly advocates for comparing performance on efficiency measures, such as "cost per park acre mowed," with other jurisdictions to provide the necessary context for meaningful assessment (p. 11-12).

3. Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance Measurement: Getting Results (2nd ed.). The Urban Institute Press. Chapter 8, "Making Comparisons: The Key to Performance Measurement," states that "comparisons are essential for managers and elected officials to make sense of performance data" (p. 157). It identifies comparisons with other jurisdictions as a primary method for interpreting performance, directly supporting the methodology in option D.