In the past, many smaller governments viewed benchmarking as a process that essentially compared apples to oranges. Many believed that, since their needs and operations were unique, comparisons would not be fair to constituents.

What they may not have realized was that the benchmarking process itself is not the same as establishing a benchmark.

A benchmark is a standard of performance. The benchmarking process helps agencies identify high performance levels in other organizations and the methods they are using to achieve those levels. The agencies may then be able to apply these methods to their own situations.

Undertaking this process can be rewarding, especially in a time when government officials are seeking management tools to help them do more with fewer financial resources. Some are outsourcing essential services; others are pursuing public/private partnerships or selling or leasing assets that are underutilized.

Before any of these options are considered, it is important to assess the performance and determine the market value of the services or assets in question. Benchmarking can help provide the data needed for making informed decisions.

Performance auditing can also be a very useful tool. It gives governments a way to measure what a particular agency is doing, how well it is doing it, and how much it is spending to do it. By evaluating an agency or the services it provides, officials can quantify results, establish accountability and benchmark their performance against that of similar entities.

In Essex County, N.Y., population 37,000, benchmarking has been an integral part of a management study of the county's human services departments, done in a special project on behalf of the New York State Association of Counties.

Last year, the county looked at the health, mental health, social services, aging and probation departments.

The process began with a self-assessment by each department, focusing on staffing and organization, information technology, financial management and service delivery. Department heads were then interviewed to further identify and understand each department's purpose, functions, finances and expectations.

Using similarly sized counties as models, a report was created outlining how Essex County's human services departments could operate more efficiently and cost effectively. Among the findings:

* The county's cost per-congregate-care meal was more than 50 percent higher than the peer average. Implementing competitive bidding would save the county more than $100,000 annually; and

* The county's home relief caseload was more than 50 percent higher than the peer average. Shifting cases to other welfare programs reimbursed at a higher rate by the state or federal governments could save a considerable amount of money.

Other recommendations included more sharing of services among departments and greater development of inter-municipal agreements with neighboring counties.

This is one example of how "big-city" benchmarking has helped a small county. In fact, the experience of Essex County highlights the trend toward rethinking the delivery of services provided by governments of all sizes.

The more governments that are part of this trend know about themselves, the better they will be able to continue meeting citizens' needs. Management tools like benchmarking and performance auditing help to document performance and operational strengths and weaknesses. With this kind of knowledge, local governments can take advantage of opportunities for improvement and savings.