1 Oregon’s Key Performance Measurement (KPM) System KPM Review Processes Prepared for the Interim Joint Committee on Ways and Means October 16, 2008

Presentation Topics  Performance Management Examples  Transportation: Pavement Condition  State Police: Patrol Effectiveness  Service Entities: Process Efficiency and Effectiveness  Legislative KPM Process  Legislative Follow-up – Today’s Focus  Legislative Staff Analysis  Potential Follow-up Questions  IJWM Legislative Follow-up Process

Transportation: Payment Conditions Strategy: Resurface roads while in “fair or good” condition to reduce overall long-term maintenance costs Target: 78 percent…value that will be sustained with current funding, effective Funding: Forecasted impacts of 30% change in funding.

State Police: Patrol Effectiveness Crime Highway Safety Coverage % calls where trooper wasn’t available Improve scheduling % traffic stops resulting in criminal citation or arrest Training for better detection # of serious crashes on OSP monitored highways Trooper scheduling and location

Service Entities: Process Efficiency and Effectiveness Client Inputs Provided Client Outputs Received A Miracle Happens Client Satisfaction Alignment to Client Expectations Output Consistency Compliance with Specifications Timeliness Process variability/ Special Causes of Variation Continuous Process Improvement Performance Information

LFO Analysis Legislatively Approved KPMs Leg. Follow- up Legislative Feedback Annual Report IJWM Report Agency Proposes KPMs Legislative Review with Budget Report Accepted Agency Integrates Feedback LFO Analysis LFO Feedback to Agencies Legislative KPM Process Yes No LFO Feedback to Agencies

Legislative Follow-up Goal: Respond to legislative direction Actions Include:  Report on Targets  Improve Specific KPMs  Revamp KPMs

Legislative Follow-up Report Targets Improve Specific KPMs Revamp KPMs  Forestry  Economic Development  State Police  DPSST  Human Services  Bureau Labor & Industries

Legislative Staff Analysis Report Targets Improve Specific KPMs Revamp KPMs  Targeting Approach  Target Feasibility  Meaningful  Meet’s Legislative Interests  Sustainability  Technical Accuracy  Budget Program Coverage  Mission/Priority Alignment  Value Add - Usefulness

Evaluating Targets Targeting Approach:  Performance Level  Performance Goal  Forecast Feasibility:  Budget/Target Alignment  Historical Performance  Agency Rationale

Evaluating a KPM Meaningful Legislative Interests Sustainable Technical Accuracy  What information will the KPM provide?  How will this information facilitate evaluating agency performance?  Does the measure align with a legislative priority?  Are data collection and reporting processes cost effective?  Are there sufficient controls in place to ensure data integrity?  Does the measure raise any technical flags?  If complex, has the measure been reviewed by technical staff? Sample Questions

Evaluating Revamped KPMs Evaluate each KPM, plus consider:  Alignment – Do the KPMs inform on key outcomes that align with agency mission and priorities?  Budget Program Coverage – Is there a good balance between budget dollars and KPMs?  Value Add – Does collecting the data provide information worth the investment?

Potential Feedback Questions Report Targets Improve Specific KPMs Revamp KPMs  How was target established?  How will budget fluctuations impact performance?  What factors might impede targeted performance?  Why is the proposed KPM the best one?  What other measures were considered?  What resources are needed to support the KPM?  How will this KPM support agency management?  What will you do to insure data integrity?  Are there any data limitations?  Explain how the KPMs supports evaluation of progress toward agency priorities or mission?  Explain the impacts of budget changes on KPMs?  What key business activities don’t have KPMs? Sample Questions

Refinements to the Legislative Follow-up Process Process Questions:  How might legislative feedback move the KPMs toward performance management and continuous improvement?  What principles should direct committee action if legislative interest appear to run counter to supporting progress toward PM and CI? Proposed Process:  After a group of presentations, pause to assess what worked and what might be done to improve the process (now or in the future).  At the end of the presentations, pause to reflect on what was learned and determine what improvements might be integrated into future reviews.

For November  2009 Legislative KPM Process  Review proposed process and materials  Review KPMs  Define improvements  Agency Expectations  Review proposed expectations  Identify improvements

Questions