The AGA Weblog

Performance Reporting in Oregon: Lessons from 20 Years

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?

As a Citizen...

By: Rebekah Stevens

Rebekah Stevens is Strategic Management Coordinator, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.

For this month’s blog I write, not as part of the Strategic Management Team for the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, not even as an employee of the city of Nashville in general, but as a citizen. I write as someone who invests in the future of my neighborhood, my city, my state and my county. For that reason, I want to see results. I want clear, concrete proof that the dollars that are spent, my tax dollars, are being put to good use.

Isn’t that what we all want, not as employees of local or state governments, not as managers or front-line staff, but as citizens of the city, state or country in which we live? By being a public servant, aren’t we investing in ourselves?

What information do we, as citizens, want to see from our government? 

Do we want to know if the water that we drink is safe? Do we want to know that the air that we breathe is clean? Do we want to know how safe our streets, our blocks, and our neighborhoods are? Of course we do, and so do our neighbors.

However, we are not just citizens, we are public servants. We can use our unique perspective as we think about ways to engage the citizens, our neighbors and friends, in discussions about government performance. By being able to “see both sides of the coin” we have the advantage of not only producing results that are important to citizens, but also being able to share them with the public. Whether it is speaking at community meetings, posting performance information on the Internet or mailing information to residents, we should keep in mind the following questions:

• Is this information that I would want to receive?
• Is this information going to inform my opinion about government performance?
• How can I, as a citizen, use this information to make a difference?

These are the same questions that are asked by citizens across the country. As we communicate to the citizens of our community the successes and challenges of our city, I wonder how often we stop to recognize that we are also communicating these same results to ourselves.

AGA’s Tool Kit for Performance Report Preparation—What You Need to JUST DO IT

By: Evie Barry

Evie Barry is AGA's director of performance reporting.

Citizens, elected officials and government managers are generally interested in seeing that their government programs are effective and efficient. In light of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)  dollars being pumped into the state and local governments, the interest has been magnified. Websites promoting government accountability such as, www.Recovery.gov, or city sites like Louisville, KY’s http://www.louisvilleky.gov/recovery/, try to provide the information the public can easily understand as ARRA dollars are utilized. But what about all the other data that governments collect? Producing information does not by itself improve government performance and inform the public.

For several years, AGA has received an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant to fund its Certificate of Achievement in Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report Review Program. Without Sloan's generous support, our program would not exist. AGA is in its final year of funding and one of its last grant directives is to prepare a How to Prepare an SEA (Performance) Report Tool Kit.

The Tool Kit is being designed to provide a step-by-step guide for government officials to determine whether a government is ready to delve into performance reporting. Beginning with a government self-assessment guide, this tool will ask a series of questions to help determine just how interested the government is, whether minimal information is accessible, and the resources are available to prepare and communicate the report. The self-assessment will also contain a section that helps analyze the answers.

Following the self-assessment, the Tool Kit will introduce the Suggested Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting of Service Efforts and Accomplishments Performance Information as developed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). GASB recognizes that it is beyond its scope to establish goals and objectives of state and local government services, specific nonfinancial measures or indicators of service performance, or benchmarks for service performance. But the document identifies a proposed reporting framework that is intended to help state and local governments communicate SEA performance information effectively. (For more information about these guidelines and to provide feedback to GASB, visit www.gasb.org/exp).

The guidelines are developed into four essential components of an effective SEA report, namely purpose and scope, major goals and objectives, key measures of SEA performance, and discussion and analysis of results and challenges. The guidelines continue with six qualitative characteristics of SEA performance information—relevance, understandability, comparability, timeliness, consistency and reliability that were drawn directly from GASB Concepts Statement No. 2.

Our Tool Kit will provide a template with examples of the four essential components from actual SEA reports that AGA has received and reviewed. Following the components, examples will identify for the qualitative characteristics. The Tool Kit will focus on five distinct areas of government for its examples— fire and EMS, police services, road maintenance, parks and recreation, and environment. These areas were chosen because data is generally available within these departments and the services are ones commonly used and seen by the public as “owned” by the government. 

Using actual goals and objectives for each of these services, the Tool Kit information can provide the jump start for governments that may consider performance reporting to be a daunting task. In the near future, AGA hopes to partner with Rutgers University’s Public Performance Measurement Reporting Network (another Sloan-funded project) to produce information that can be downloaded online.

Interested in learning more about this Tool Kit? On Nov. 4, 2009, in Seattle, AGA will hold a free training session to introduce the Tool Kit and seek improvements to what has been developed. Learn more about attending this event. This event precedes our Fifth Annual Performance Management Conference on Nov. 5-6, 2009. Check out the website to view the presenters and session topics. 

Governments face unparalleled challenges and all of us require the knowledge to be more responsive, whether it is voting for a candidate or deciding on improved services for the community. AGA can be a part of meeting these challenges by identifying problems, finding solutions and developing approaches that improve government outcomes and produce results. Join us!

Four Levels of Transparency

By: William Aaron

William Aaron is the chief of consulting services and innovation for Weidner, Inc.

It’s hard to recall a time when there has been more focus on the need for transparency in government. From the president on down to local elected officials, the attention to ensuring government is transparent is extraordinary—and continuing to grow.

But while transparency in government is one of those ideas that you just can’t argue against—right up there with baseball, Mom and apple pie—it’s important to note that all transparency is not created equal.

So let’s get transparent about transparency.

From our work over the past 11 years with government organizations and jurisdictions at the federal, state and local levels, we have come to understand that government transparency can be defined on four separate levels. The next time you hear someone talking about transparency in government, check and see how transparent they really are.

The four levels of government transparency, moving from least transparent to most transparent, are:

Level One:  How We Plan to Spend Money. This is the level where government has traditionally defined transparency:  What does the budget say about how we intend to spend money? It’s the first step—it speaks to what we plan to spend money on, after all. We might, for example, declare that we’re adding $500,000 to the city budget to fight truancy. Many governments are working hard but are still struggling with this first level of transparency.

Level Two:  How We Actually Spend Money. At this level, we may be able to be clear about how dollars were spent. Did we actually spend that $500,000 we budgeted to fight truancy, and did we spend it on the anti-truancy effort? At this level of transparency we are beginning to have a story of fiscal responsibility, but are not yet able to tell a story about performance, about what spending that money accomplished.

Level Three:  What we Delivered With the Money. At this level of transparency we are able to be clear that our customers got something for the money we spent. With the additional $500,000 to fight truancy, we provided X number of counseling sessions or Y number of tutoring sessions—so we know services were delivered, what sort and how many. We are building a more complete story of transparency of whether we spent the money appropriately and delivered what we intended to deliver. To be fully transparent, though, we need to report on the results customers experienced as a consequence of receiving our services.

Level Four:  What Results Were Accomplished with the Money. This is the highest level of transparency, where government gets very clear about what every taxpayer knows: that spending money is only a means to an end. That end is defined as the experience or result the customer has as a consequence of receiving the services. What difference was made? With the additional $500,000 we spent to fight truancy, did we actually change the truancy rate? Did we improve academic achievement, or increase the graduation rate? What result did we accomplish?

At this highest level of transparency, you are telling your customers the extent to which you are able to influence the results you clearly laid out in Level One—the budget. As the good folks in Oklahoma City say, “We Deliver What We Promise”—and they mean it in terms of results.

Government organizations, which are widely recognized as among the best managed in the nation, can answer these questions with objective performance information—and they use that same information to guide their management decisions, including how they allocate their budgets.

So how transparent is your organization? And—more important—how transparent do your customers expect you to be?

You can download a free self-assessment tool to help you determine how transparent and accountable your organization.

What Outcomes has GPRA Produced?

By: Jerry Ellig, Ph.D.

Jerry Ellig is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a co-author of the Mercatus Center’s Performance Report Scorecard.

Federal agencies have now spent an entire decade producing the annual performance reports required under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). After all that time, it’s fair to ask what outcomes GPRA has produced.

Is performance information—particularly information about program outcomes—more widely available as a result of GPRA? Do agency managers use performance information more extensively? Do decision-makers in the administration and Congress use performance information to make program and budget decisions? Is the federal government more effective or less costly due to GPRA?

Here are a few fragments of evidence I’m aware of.

First, the two main annual evaluations of federal performance reports—the Mercatus Center’s Performance Report Scorecard and AGA’s Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting—both suggest the quality of performance reports has improved. The highest-ranking report in the Mercatus Center’s fiscal 1999 Scorecard, from USAID, would have ranked only 16^th compared to the 24 CFO Act agencies’ fiscal 2008 reports. The number of agencies receiving a CEAR award rose from just two in fiscal 1998 to 17 in fiscal 2008.

Second, agencies with better GPRA reports appear to have higher percentages of managers who say they have and use various kinds of performance information. Government Accountability Office (GAO) surveys track the percentage of federal managers who say they have or use performance information (such as outcome, output or efficiency measures) in their programs or activities. These survey results are positively correlated with Mercatus Scorecard scores.

Third, several researchers, including my colleague Eileen Norcross, found evidence that PART assessments sometimes affected the Bush administration’s budget recommendations. The administration tended to propose budget increases for programs that received good PART evaluations and decreases for programs judged ineffective or for which good results information was not available.

I’ve seen no research suggesting that performance information from GRPA or PART has had a big effect on congressional decisions. Similarly, I know of no research that explicitly links GPRA with big performance improvements or cost reductions. But that doesn’t mean such information isn’t out there.

If GPRA has delivered what it promised, after 10 years we ought to find some systemic improvements in government outcomes traceable to GPRA. What have you seen?

This and That in Performance Reporting

By: Evie Barry

Evie Barry is AGA’s director of Performance Reporting.

I’ve been thinking a lot about why state and local governments do or do not like to report about the successful or not-so-successful programs that they manage. We are at the mercy of government programs every day and we never think twice about them. We always have hot water and electricity, the traffic lights work, the EMTs arrive on the scene soon after an accident, and the air traffic controllers guide us safely to the runways. Our parents (or perhaps some of us) receive Medicare benefits, many of us (or our children) received government student loans, and our lakes and coastlines are looked after by the Coast Guard or the Army Corps of Engineers. Even at our PDC in New Orleans, the police were there to stop traffic so that the attendees could make their way across the street between two hotels. Scores of other programs make us feel safe and secure in our communities, but governments hesitate to promote the good things they are doing and to share those items that are challenges. So why don’t governments promote themselves? But I digress… 

Many government associations are promoting performance reporting and performance management as a means to improve government services. AGA has been involved since 2003, when the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation funding began and the Certificate of Achievement in Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report Review Program was created. Since then, the program has reviewed somewhere around 60 different government reports, many of them explaining in an easy-to-read style the programs and the measures that are used to evaluate government services. And the review is offered at no charge! AGA uses the Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s (GASB) 16 Suggested Criteria on Effective Communication as a basis for developing a rubric for evaluating how well governments tell their story. Superseding GASB's 16 Criteria is the Suggested Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting of SEA Performance Information. Interested in commenting on their report? You have until Oct. 30, 2009.

Also check out the following: 

• AGA’s Research program has published 21 excellent research reports in the last four years including one on Performance-Based Management  And in early fall, Using Performance Measures to Improve Service Delivery will be released and you won’t want to miss this research. And in case you missed the July 15 audio conference, Using Performance Measures to Manage Government Service, you can order a CD.
• Planning is under way for the Fifth Annual Performance Management Conference in Seattle on Nov. 5–6, 2009. Sessions include: Lessons Learned about Strategic Planning and Performance Management Listening to the Numbers: How to Use Performance Data to Improve Service Delivery Using Performance Measures to Improve Service Delivery Public Interest in Government Accountability and Performance What’s New: Toolkit for Preparing an Award-Winning Performance Report Let’s Take a Look at Performance Based Management Reporting Integrating Performance Measures and Community Indicators to Enhance Governance, Citizen Engagement and Results The Chief Executive Officer’s Strategic Partnership: Critical to Driving Transformational Change Performance 2.0—From Measurement to Management Don’t miss this annual event if you are starting to think about performance reporting for your community or you are a seasoned performance reporter wanting to learn about innovative ideas from other governments. Learn more. 
• The National Performance Management Advisory Commission, a collaborative effort of 11 leading public sector management organizations, has released a public review draft of A Performance Management Framework for State and Local Government: From Measurement and Reporting to Management and Improving and is seeking review and feedback from all interested parties. The deadline is Aug. 31, 2009.
• Learn more about the International City/County Management Association Center for Performance Measurement. 
• Are you confused about community indicators? A conference in Bellevue, WA, “Community Indicators as Tools for Social Change: Tracking Change and Increasing Accountability" is set for Sept. 30–Oct. 2, 2009. 
• Have you joined the Public Performance Measurement and Reporting Network? This list serv is part of the Rutgers University’s Performance Network and anyone can join. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention AGA’s Citizen-Centric Reporting Program. AGA has just produced its 2008-2009 Report to Our Members. Desire a hard copy? Contact Susan Fritzlen. The latest community to submit a citizen-centric report is Stamford, CT. If you would like to learn more about the state and local reporting programs, please feel free to contact me at ebarry@agacgfm.org or 800.AGA.7211, ext. 324. And if you have any ideas on how to gently persuade governments to promote their successes and report their failures, I’m up to the challenge!  

11th Annual Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting (CEAR) Award Dinner Tonight

By: Eveanna Barry

Eveanna Barry is AGA’s director of performance reporting.

Has it really been 11 years since the first event for the CEAR award recipients? Tonight, AGA honors those agencies that will receive the 2009 CEAR award. It’s been quite a ride from two award recipients in 1999 (for FY98 reports) to the 17 we honor this year.

The first two award recipients were the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Social Security Administration. The awards ceremony in 1999 was held at the Library of Congress and representatives from those two agencies were honored at an afternoon reception. The event has grown from a few honorees to more than 250 who will attend a black tie affair at the National Press Club this evening. Yes, we’ve come a long way.

Our keynote speaker this evening is G. Edward DeSeve, currently the Special Advisor to the President, Assistant to the Vice President and Special Advisor to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director for Implementation of the Recovery Act. In the late 1990s, Mr. DeSeve, who presided over the Chief Financial Officers Council, participated in the decision to establish a program in which AGA would review the then-new Agency Accountability Reports and acknowledge those that demonstrated accountability. Mr. DeSeve will spend a few minutes reminiscing about the inception of the program and perhaps share his ideas for the future of the program. I suspect he will touch on accountability and performance as they relate to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. AGA is delighted that he will be joining us to share in the celebration.

Since our CEAR program is voluntary, this year we received 21 performance and accountability reports (or the alternative pilot) to review. Of those that did not receive the award, all four of them came very close to achieving the goal of being an award recipient. Of those that did receive the award this year, the Social Security Administration has been a recipient for the 11^th consecutive year. Several have received the award at least eight times: the U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Governmental Accountability Office and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

One new agency received the award this year—the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), an agency that was established by combining two agencies, the Federal Housing Finance Board and the Office of the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). OFHEO received its first CEAR award in 2008 and the OFHEO leadership moved to FHFA and produced an award-winning report there.

The award recipients for their FY08 reports are:  Federal Trade Commission, Peace Corps, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency, U.S. General Services Administration, U.S. Government Accountability Office, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S. Small Business Administration and U.S. Social Security Administration. Congratulations!

If you work at a federal agency or a component agency and want to learn more about the CEAR program and what our review process can do for your FY09 report, please contact Eveanna Barry at ebarry@agacgfm.org.

Won’t you take a few moments and learn more about our program and how your agency can receive individual recommendations to improve your report?

No Foolin’: What Do You Know about AGA’s Certificate of Achievement in Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report Review Program?

By: Evie Barry

Evie Barry is AGA's Director of Performance Reporting.

Do you want to report to your citizens, external groups and governing bodies just what your community is accomplishing? Without reliable, useful and timely data, strategic decision-making becomes a moot point. Why not learn about AGA’s Certificate of Achievement in Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report Review Program? We can help.

Some thoughts about our program:

Did you know that AGA received several years of Alfred P. Sloan Foundation funding to further its work in performance reporting? With the Sloan funding, AGA developed the Certificate of Achievement in Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Report Review Program. Now starting its sixth year, the SEA program has matured into a more user-friendly program, complete with a new website to use if preparing or reviewing a performance report.

The new site was developed by Ken Smith, Ph.D., CPA, assistant professor of Accounting and Information Science, Willamette University, several of his graduate students and AGA staff to assist preparers in evaluating their reports against the Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s (GASB) 16 Suggested Criteria for SEA Reporting. The website will also be useful for SEA report reviewers as they use the criteria to determine if the reports will receive an award from the Certificate of Achievement in SEA Reporting. Check it out!

Did you know that AGA's blog—which is 1 year old today—has provided a forum for AGA members and others to discuss performance reporting? Check out Ken Smith's most recent blog essay, which references past blogs that have covered many facets of government performance.

In late 2008, AGA showcased its new award structure in SEA reporting. With numerous governments just getting started in performance reporting, AGA decided to recognize those efforts by offering the Bronze Award, the “Winning Beginning Award,” the Silver Award for those entities that meet the 16 Suggested Criteria with at least one or more points for each and finally, continuing the current award but changing its name to the Gold Award. Entities that receive the Gold Award (or the former award) for five or more consecutive years will be awarded the Circle of Excellence Award.

Have you joined the e-mail list for receiving the Perspectives in Performance newsletter? Published monthly, the newsletter focuses an interview on one leader in the field—this month it is Ted Greenwood, Ph.D., from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Greenwood has been the cheerleader of performance management and measurement for the Sloan Foundation for many years, and though Sloan is turning to other priorities and discontinuing its performance program, without Sloan and particularly Ted Greenwood himself, our program might be “dead in the water.” To sign up for the newsletter, e-mail Evie Barry at ebarry@agacgfm.org. View the April issue.

Want to learn more about performance reporting? Sign up to be an SEA reviewer and take some time to learn firsthand about governments that prepare reports. Reviewing a report takes six to 10 hours depending on the length of the report and the format in which the report is produced. And if you are an AGA member, your chapter can get chapter recognition points for being a reviewer. Complete the application and fax back to Lynn Hoffman at 703.684.6933.

Do you know of a government that produces a performance report, SEA report or annual report that might meet GASB’s 16 Suggested Criteria? Do you know an entity that wants to get started? Please have them contact Evie Barry at ebarry@agacgfm.org or 703.684.6931, ext. 324. We have several experienced government performance officials who are interested in serving as mentors to those who are just getting started—and it’s free!

AGA is also in the process of producing a “How To Tool Kit” for preparing a performance report. This Tool Kit should be in draft format by October 2009 and will incorporate the new GASB Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting of SEA Performance Information. Stay tuned and check the AGA website.

AGA schedules a Performance Management Conference each year and this year is no exception. The Fifth Annual PMC is scheduled for Nov. 5-6, 2009, in Seattle. As Sharon Erickson, city auditor of San Jose, CA, said last year of our conference, “This is the only conference that focuses on performance reporting.”

Now what is your excuse for not getting started?

Help for Performance Reporters

Reminder: Audio Conference Wednesday
SEA: Taking Accountability and Transparency to a New Level

By: Kenneth A. Smith, Ph.D., CPA

Kenneth A. Smith, Ph.D., CPA, a founding member of AGA’s Mid-Willamette Valley Chapter, is an assistant professor of accounting, Willamette University. He serves as the academic adviser to AGA’s SEA Certificate Program.

Preparing a performance report is an important but difficult task…that just got a lot easier for two reasons: improved awards for beginning, intermediate and advanced skill levels and a new supportive website.

As a little background, AGA has delivered on its promise to be a “thought leader” by creating and promoting Certificates of Achievement in three areas of performance reporting: federal Performance and Accountability Reports (PARs) for 11 years; state and local Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) reports for five years; and Citizen-Centric Reports, a brand-new initiative. AGA has also published research on topics like process-based reporting and generously funded research for me and other scholars via the Academy for Government Accountability.

Improvement No. 1—Awards for All Stages

In spite of AGA’s support, our research finds the number of state and city agencies engaging in “advanced quality” performance reporting is very small.  Thus, the AGA should be applauded for revising its Certificate of Achievement program to better recognize the stages of maturity by performance reporters.

The new award structure provides three levels of awards: GOLD, which signifies an excellent overall report; SILVER, which represents effort and/or quality on every dimension; and BRONZE, which represents effort or quality on several, but not all, dimensions. The prior certificate was only awarded at the equivalent of the GOLD level.

Our research suggests that 1 percent of city and state agencies could earn the GOLD award, the SILVER is attainable by 6-10 percent, and the best news is that 30-40 percent of local governments could earn the BRONZE award.  Application is FREE AND EASY—simply contact AGA (read program details or talk to Evie Barry at ebarry@agacgfm.org).

My colleagues and I estimate that a government starting from scratch (and using the website described in the next section) would be able to achieve the BRONZE level in the first or second year. The SILVER level is attainable in two to three years and the GOLD level in three to five years. Some will progress faster and some more slowly, so the time to start is now.

Improvement No. 2—"Preparer-Friendly" Website

Creating a website that actually works well is an enormous task. I’ll let everyone know if I ever get there.  But consistent with AGA blogger Rebekah Stephens’ notion of “just getting started,” I am pleased to announce the availability of the “EXternal PErformance Reporting Toolkit”, aka ExPeRT. 

Our website was created with the generous support and guidance of many people and organizations. It is certainly a work in progress, but we hope it meets the current and future needs of individuals that want to prepare a high-quality performance report.

The site currently has four main features:

• a “White Paper” that describes the certificate criteria.
• a “Self-Checklist” that allows preparers to assess their current reports.
• a “Calculator” to see what level of award preparers could expect.
• “Examples” of reporting that meets the various quality levels for each dimension.

We are always ready to help any preparers who want assistance. People can contact me directly at smithk@willamette.edu or access my research papers. 

Final Words—Organization Accountability Versus Personal Responsibility

One of the most common “alleged motivations” for doing performance reporting is to “be accountable.” I support the idea, but think accountability is too often seen as an organizational choice, that is, my organization chooses to be accountable by doing performance reporting. What if we quit thinking about performance reporting as an organization choice, and instead consider it an individual professional responsibility? As I explain in an interview with AGA, how can a professional manager not understand how their organization performs? Also, how can that professional manager fail to report about that performance?

Questions

What are the reasons that keep you and your agency from preparing a performance report?

Are you compelled by the “Individual Professional Responsibility” argument more than the “Organization Accountability” argument?

If you have a performance report, why have you not yet submitted it to the AGA program?

What other tools at the website would help you prepare a quality report?

What other modifications to the AGA Certificate would increase your participation?

Links to other AGA blogs on performance reporting/management:

Efforts and Accomplishments in Communicating with the Citizenry By: Judith Harris, DBA, CMA, Karen McKenzie, Ph.D., CGFM, CPA, and Randall Rentfro, Ph.D., CPA, CMA

AGA CEAR Program Sets Standard for Federal Performance and Accountability Reporting By: Eveanna Barry, MS

Getting Started: It’s Not Easy but It’s Worth It! By: Rebekah Stephens

Think Big! Act Courageously! Make a Difference! Performance Management By: William Morehead, Ph.D., CGFM

Have We Gone Too Far or Not Far Enough with Performance Measurement Reporting? By: Sam M. McCall, CGFM, CPA, CIA, CGAP

Good Performance Reporting… Now for Good Arguing By: Kenneth A. Smith, Ph.D., CPA

Public Performance Reporting: An Insider’s Guide By: Michael Jacobson