By: Kenneth A. Smith, Ph.D., CPA
Kenneth A. Smith is a founding member of AGA’s Mid-Willamette Valley Chapter and an assistant professor of accounting at Willamette University. Ken served on the Assessment Committee of the Oregon Progress Board and is the academic adviser to AGA’s SEA Certificate Program.
Oregon has a long and proud tradition of performance reporting. Two colleagues and I recently completed a downloadable case study of state, county and nonprofit organizations engaged in human services over the past 20 years and want to share some insights.
The history of Oregon’s performance activities is closely tied to the history of the Oregon Progress Board, which started in 1989. The Progress Board has been involved in numerous performance-related activities including the trickle-down of performance measures into local government and nonprofit service providers. We find the introduction of performance measures seemed to help the nonprofits increase their capacity to perform as well as their actual performance. This is good news.
The case study focuses on two groups of programs: one has highly standardized protocols and uses common performance measures—the other has unique programs with each unique program using different performance measures. The standardized program is called Healthy Start, which provides intensive services for first-time mothers with infants from 0-2 years of age. It screens for those with high risk factors and provides comprehensive services to the child and family. This program was rigorously evaluated and reported upon. Funding from the state increased dramatically.
We call the other programs “discretionary.” They met multiple needs in divergent communities. One county in our study has the state capital with a population of over 150,000 while the other has one smallish city of 20,000 and large dispersion of residents in valleys, mountain and coastal areas. Both counties have first-birth mothers….and lots of other needs as well. Funding decreased for these unique programs over the past decade even though their reported performance increased in similar proportion to the standardized Healthy Start program.
This is mixed news—good that both programs improved and that funding went to a solid and effective program. But it’s concerning that money was shifted away from the discretion of the local and unique communities, especially since that discretion was resulting in quality outcomes.
There is also some really sad news—the Oregon Progress Board lost its funding in the recently passed budget. The website is still live as of yesterday, but the content is no longer being updated, nor is the Progress Board engaging in any of the myriad of support activities it had done over the past 20 years. More funding cuts are possible with ballot measures 66 and 67, so it seems unlikely the Progress Board will be operating in the near future. Several groups are working to revive the board and I’ll be quick to report any major change in status.
The Progress Board had many accomplishments and had just started some new initiatives with online reporting and analyzing data similar to the story “Local governments offer data to software tinkerers” reported in the New York Times on Monday. It is sad to see this 20-year old innovative institution fade away.
LESSONS LEARNED
We have learned that investments in performance capacity
over time will reap benefits across many organizations and individuals. We know
that understanding and communicating about performance is extremely
difficult—funders appear to focus on simple and easy to understand results such
as the standardized program above. We also know that it is hard to measure the
benefits of investments in performance capacity; some organizations never
invest—and some (like the state of Oregon) have chosen to cut back its
investment.
QUESTIONS
What do you think? Are you surprised to hear that a
standardized successful program got sizably more funding than a pool of unique
but also successful programs? Are budget cuts being directed at performance
activities and positions in your agency or jurisdiction? Are the current fiscal challenges a
catalyst for new measurement efforts, such as happened in Oregon 20 years ago?
Have you had success in getting support for investments in performance
capacity? How did you do it?