By Jason Mercier
Special to the PostGlobe
The State Auditor’s Office acts as the eyes of citizens to help ensure state and local governments are operating in an accountable, transparent and effective manner. To help lead by example, staffers in the Auditor’s Office met last week to focus on strategic planning and performance measures planning for the agency.
I had the opportunity to sit in on the sessions and was very impressed with the direction the office is heading.
Earlier this year, the Office of Financial Management issued an assessment of the performance measures the Auditor’s Office was using for its activities. The Financial Management office said:
With two possible exceptions, the current performance measures in the Performance Measure Tracking System should be replaced with outcome/result measures that are more relevant to a budget/policy development audience. In particular, survey results and the cost of performing the audits in relation to the size of the audited entity are better as internal performance management perspectives. This assessment offers suggestions about the types of measurement topics that would tell a more complete and compelling performance story.
The Auditor’s Office responded by holding the performance measure planning sessions last week. Here is some of the information discussed at that session :
A performance measure is a quantifiable expression of the amount, cost or result of activities that indicate how well, and at what level, services are provided.
Performance measures provide a snapshot of current performance capabilities and track whether actual performance is getting better, staying the same or getting worse over time.
What isn’t a performance measure?
- Statements of what you intend to do or how you intend to do it (goals, objectives and strategies)
- Performance questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no”
- A timeline of when something will be accomplished
- The responses from a survey
What are the Attributes of Good Performance Measures?
- Relevance – Useful to an external audience of stakeholders to assess the level of accomplishment
- Understandability – Clear, concise and easy for a nonexpert to understand
- Comparability – Do the data, targets and footnotes provide the reader with enough context to tell whether performance is getting better, worse or staying the same?
- Timeliness – Are the data current and reported frequently enough to be of value in assessing accountability and making decisions?
- Consistency – Is the data collection method standardized, and is the operational definition for data calculations adhered to?
- Reliability – Is the information verifiable, free from bias and a faithful representation of what it purports to represent?
- Performance – Is actual performance in reference to the stated targets getting better, worse or staying the same over time?
All agencies (state and local) should undergo the same type of self-reflection as the Auditor’s Office to help improve their performance measures. Doing so will allow elected officials to have access to meaningful performance data to help guide budget decisions.
Jason Mercier is the director of the Center for Government Reform at the Washington Policy Center. He serves on the executive committee of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force and is a contributing editor of the Heartland Institute’s Budget & Tax News.Mercier also serves as treasurer on the board of the Washington Coalition for Open Government and was an adviser to the 2002 Washington State Tax Structure Committee.
