ROLE 2: Assess Performance Information:
Practice 2a.Test relevance or reliability: Test or certify performance measurement relevance, reliability, or both.
Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) [Profile]
In the 1990s, in the early stages of Florida’s implementation of Performance Based Program Budgeting (PB2) system, OPPAGA did special reviews of the reliability and relevance of program performance measures used in the budget process, and applied “accountability ratings” to the performance measurement system of each major state agency program. OPPAGA applied a rating of “Meets Expectations,” “Needs Some Modification,” “Needs Major Modification” to four “Accountability System Components” of each major program. As noted below, two of the components related mainly to relevance, one related mainly to reliability, and one related to both relevance and reliability. OPPAGA’s four accountability system components were:
- Statement of program purpose or goals (relevance): A “Meets Expectations” rating required, for example, clear measurable objectives consistent with program purpose or goals;
- Measures of program performance (relevance): A “Meets Expectations” rating required, for example, valid measures related to purpose or goals that adequately assess performance, measures with cost information, and collection of baseline data used to set targets.
- Procedures for assuring data reliability (reliability): A “Meets Expectations” rating required adequate procedures to ensure data reliability, reliability problems corrected by staff, and agency inspector general or outside entity assessed performance data integrity.
- System for reporting performance and use of the information by management (reliability and relevance): A “Meets Expectations” rating required clear and understandable reporting to the legislature, resource and performance information made readily available to the public and agency managers, and routine use of the information by managers to improve programs
In a series of “PB2 Performance Reports” of many major state agency programs from 1997-1999, OPPAGA reported these accountability ratings in matrix form clearly indicating what rating was applied to each accountability system component. As agency performance measurement systems matured with experience under the PB2 system, OPPAGA ceased to issue “accountability ratings” or conduct special reviews just for this purpose. As part of its “Program Evaluation and Justification Reviews,” OPPAGA began reviewing all performance measures reported to the legislature for the programs under review for continuing relevance and reliability. The Justification Review schedule has been completed, but OPPAGA is beginning to conduct similar efforts under the legislature’s newer “Sunset Review” program, passed in 2006.
Reports:
|
