Performance Reporting at the State and Local Level

1

• Performance Reporting at the State and Local
  Level
• Association of Government Accountants
• Professional Development Conference
• Washington, D. C.
• June 29, 2004

2
What Will Be Covered-I Hope

• Some History
• Current Status
• AGAs Certificate Program
• Who you can look to
• The possible future

3
Some History

• FASBs initial study
• GASBs initial projects
• Other efforts
• ICMA
• Federal Government
• Sloan Foundation grants

4
Some History

• FASBs initial study
• GASBs initial projects
• Other efforts
• ICMA
• Federal Government
• Sloan Foundation grants

5
GASBs Suggested Criteria

• The external report on performance
• The performance information to support
• Communication of the performance information

6
The External Report on Performance

• Purpose and scope
• Major goals and objectives statement
• Involvement in establishing goals and objectives
• Multiple levels of reporting
• Analysis of results and challenges
• Focus on key measures
• Reliable information

7
The performance information to support

• Relevant measures of results
• Resources used and efficiency
• Citizen and customer perceptions
• Comparisons for assessing performance
• Factors affecting results
• Aggregation and disaggregation of information
• Consistency

8
Communication of the performance information

• Easy to find, access, and understand
• Regular and timely reporting

9
The External Report on Performance

• Purpose and scope
• Major goals and objectives statement
• Involvement in establishing goals and objectives
• Multiple levels of reporting
• Analysis of results and challenges
• Focus on key measures
• Reliable information

10
The performance information to support

• Relevant measures of results
• Resources used and efficiency
• Citizen and customer perceptions
• Comparisons for assessing performance
• Factors affecting results
• Aggregation and disaggregation of information
• Consistency

11
Communication of the performance information

• Easy to find, access, and understand
• Regular and timely reporting

12
Certificate of Excellence in SEA Reporting Program

• Purpose how well government informs public about
  its performance
• Two phases
• Pilot year
• Implementation year
• No cost to governments that participate--initially

13
Review Process

• Review guidelines
• Based on GASBs 16 criteria
• Review teams
• 3 persons plus one--me
• Train reviewers
• Review reports individually discuss collectively
• Present recommendations results

14
Pilot Year Governments

• Austin
• Bellevue
• Charlotte
• Detroit
• Franklin County
• Kansas City
• King County
• Maricopa Cty
• MoDOT
• Montgomery Cty

• Multnomah Cty
• New York City
• Oregon DHS
• Oregon SU
• Palo Alto
• Phoenix
• Portland
• Prince William Cty
• San Diego
• Washington, DC

15
Pilot Year Results

• Reviews
• Points
• Recommendations
• Governments reactions
• What they said
• How they feel
• Post mortem
• Possible changes

16
Pilot Year Results

• Reviews
• Points
• Recommendations
• Governments reactions
• What they said
• How they feel
• Post mortem
• Possible changes

17
Governments ReactionsWhat They Said

• In general, the review comments were very
  helpful.
• We found most of the recommendations very
  helpful.
• Overall comments are helpful.
• Valuable learning experience, recommendations
  were helpful.
• It was quite useful.

18
Governments ReactionsHow They Feel

• 14 want to participate again
• 5 do not want fee
• 88-overall participation beneficial
• 76-comments were valuable
• 88 will adopt recommendations

19
Possible Changes

• Review Process
• Review Guidelines
• Suggested Criteria Support
• Scoring/Awards Process

20
Governments ReactionsWhat They Said

• In general, the review comments were very
  helpful.
• We found most of the recommendations very
  helpful.
• Overall comments are helpful.
• Valuable learning experience, recommendations
  were helpful.
• It was quite useful.