31.2 Baselines, Targets, Benchmarking, and Stakeholder Engagement

Baselines, Targets, Benchmarking, and Stakeholder Engagement

Baselines vs. Performance Targets

• Baseline: The starting point or historical performance level against which all future progress is measured. Establishing an accurate baseline requires empirical historical data collected under stable operating conditions.
• Performance Target: A quantifiable, time-bound level of performance an agency commits to achieve over a specified fiscal period (e.g., "Reduce permit processing cycle time to under 14 business days by June 30, 2027"). Targets must be ambitious yet achievable, avoiding perverse incentives or target distortion.

Comparative Benchmarking

Government entities utilize benchmarking to compare their performance metrics against three reference standards:

1. Internal Longitudinal Benchmarking: Comparing current agency performance against its own historical trends over the preceding 3 to 5 fiscal years.
2. External Jurisdictional Benchmarking: Comparing performance against peer entities of similar demographic scale, geographic scope, and budget size (e.g., comparing City of Austin emergency response times against City of Charlotte).
3. Best Practice Benchmarking: Comparing operations against national or international industry standards established by professional associations (e.g., National Fire Protection Association response time standards).

Stakeholder Engagement in the Performance Process

Performance measurement cannot be conducted in an administrative silo. Robust performance governance requires meaningful stakeholder input:

• Citizens and Service Recipients: Providing direct feedback on service satisfaction, accessibility, and emerging public needs through surveys, public hearings, and focus groups.
• Elected Officials (Legislative Bodies): Establishing legislative intent, statutory priorities, and funding parameters.
• Front-Line Agency Personnel: Providing practical insight into operational realities, data capture feasibility, and root causes of service bottlenecks.
• Advocacy and Civic Organizations: Offering independent perspectives on program equity, societal outcomes, and unintended consequences.

---

The Federal Legal Framework: GPRA and GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA)

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)

Passed by Congress in 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, P.L. 103-62) laid the foundational statutory framework for performance management across the federal government. GPRA mandated three core instruments:

1. Four-Year Strategic Plans: Updated with each presidential term, establishing long-term mission statements and strategic goals.
2. Annual Performance Plans (APPs): Submitted with the President's budget request, establishing annual performance targets aligned with strategic goals.
3. Annual Performance Reports (APRs): Submitted after the close of the fiscal year, detailing actual performance compared against established targets and explaining variances.

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA)

While GPRA established the planning structure, agencies often treated it as a compliance-driven paperwork exercise that sat on shelves. Congress addressed these deficiencies by enacting the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA, P.L. 111-352), fundamentally shifting federal performance governance toward dynamic, data-driven executive reviews:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                    GPRA OF 1993 VS. GPRAMA OF 2010 COMPARISON                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  ATTRIBUTE           | GPRA OF 1993               | GPRAMA OF 2010 (MODERNIZED)   |
|----------------------|----------------------------|-------------------------------|
|  Strategic Plan      | 4-Year horizon;            | 4-Year horizon; aligned with  |
|  Horizon             | updated every 3 years      | presidential terms            |
|  High-Priority Goals | Agency-level general goals | Agency Priority Goals (APGs)  |
|                      | without short-term focus   | (2-year ambitious targets)    |
|  Cross-Agency Focus  | Siloed by individual agency| Cross-Agency Priority (CAP)   |
|                      | mandates                   | Goals (OMB-led multi-agency)  |
|  Executive Review    | Annual retrospective       | Data-driven Quarterly         |
|  Cadence             | reporting                  | Performance Reviews (QPRs)    |
|  Leadership Roles    | General agency management  | Designated Chief Operating    |
|                      |                            | Officer (COO) & PIO           |
|  Public Transparency | Paper / PDF reports        | Centralized electronic portal |
|                      | filed with Congress        | (Performance.gov)             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Key Pillars of GPRAMA

1. Agency Strategic Plans: Agencies must publish a four-year strategic plan in the first year of each new presidential administration, covering a four-year horizon aligned with the presidential term.
2. Agency Priority Goals (APGs): Every major federal department must designate a limited number of high-impact, two-year targets that represent top leadership priorities.
3. Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) coordinates federal CAP goals that tackle complex, multi-agency challenges spanning multiple departments (e.g., government-wide cybersecurity, veteran homelessness, critical minerals supply chain resilience).
4. Executive Roles: Agencies must appoint the Deputy Secretary as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) and designate a senior executive as the Performance Improvement Officer (PIO) to lead implementation.
5. Quarterly Performance Reviews (QPRs): The COO and PIO must conduct data-driven quarterly reviews to evaluate progress toward APGs and operational goals.
6. Performance.gov: GPRAMA created Performance.gov, a centralized public website providing transparent, real-time dashboards of federal strategic plans, CAP goals, and APG progress.

---

State and Local Standard-Setting: GASB Concepts Statements No. 2 and No. 5 (SEA Reporting)

At the state and local government levels, performance measurement guidance is articulated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) through its landmark Concepts Statements on Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) Reporting:

• GASB Concepts Statement No. 2 (1994): Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting (established the conceptual framework).
• GASB Concepts Statement No. 5 (2008): Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting—an amendment of GASB Concepts Statement No. 2 (refined performance reporting criteria and elements).

Structure of SEA Reporting under GASB

GASB emphasizes that financial statements report on financial condition, but citizens require information on the results of government operations. SEA reporting organizes performance data into three interrelated categories:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                    GASB SEA REPORTING CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  1. SERVICE EFFORTS (RESOURCES INVOLVED)                                          |
|     • Financial Resources: Operating and capital expenditures by program.         |
|     • Nonfinancial Resources: Personnel hours, staff qualifications, facilities.  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  2. SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS (RESULTS ACHIEVED)                                    |
|     • Outputs: Quantity of service delivered (potholes filled, classes taught).  |
|     • Outcomes: Quality and effectiveness (pavement condition rating, literacy).  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  3. RELATIONAL MEASURES (EFFICIENCY & COST-EFFECTIVENESS)                         |
|     • Efficiency: Service efforts per unit of output (cost per pothole filled).    |
|     • Cost-Effectiveness: Service efforts per unit of outcome (cost per % bump). |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Critical CGFM Distinction: Voluntary Status of SEA Reporting

A frequent point of confusion on the CGFM exam is whether GASB mandates SEA reporting in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR):

Exam Rule: Under GASB standards, SEA reporting is voluntary. GASB Concepts Statements are conceptual frameworks; they do not establish authoritative GAAP accounting standards. Governments are encouraged to provide SEA information in separate performance reports, popular annual financial reports (PAFR), or supplemental sections, but SEA reporting is not required as part of the basic financial statements, note disclosures, or Required Supplementary Information (RSI).

---

Practical Public Finance Scenario: State Department of Transportation Highway Safety Program Overhaul

Scenario: The State Department of Transportation (DOT) administers a $40,000,000 Highway Safety and Resurfacing Program. The legislative audit division reviews the program and observes that while the DOT reports that it resurfaced 500 lane-miles of highway (an output), highway fatality rates increased by 14% over the same three-year window. Furthermore, DOT's budget office requests an additional $10,000,000 for next year's budget without providing unit cost data or expected societal returns.

Professional Performance Analysis & Restructuring

1. Metric Categorization Breakdown:

   • Input: $40,000,000 annual state budget allocation; 180 highway maintenance staff; 45 asphalt spreading machines.
   • Output: 500 lane-miles of highway resurfaced; 2,400 warning signs installed.
   • Intermediate Outcome: Average highway pavement roughness index decreased from 145 to 88 (pavement quality improved).
   • End Outcome: Highway fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)—which unexpectedly increased from 1.12 to 1.28.
   • Efficiency Measure: $\text{Unit Cost per Lane-Mile Resurfaced} = \frac{\$40,000,000}{500 \text{ lane-miles}} = \$80,000 \text{ per lane-mile}$
   • Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation: The program failed its primary end outcome objective (fatality reduction). Analysis revealed that DOT resurfaced straight, low-risk rural roads with low crash histories to maximize "output miles," while ignoring high-crash winding corridors requiring guardrails, lighting, and curve reconfiguration.

2. Governance Remediation:

   • Transition to Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB): Tie future appropriations not to raw lane-miles resurfaced (output), but to the remediation of identified High-Collision Corridors (HCCs).
   • Establish explicit Agency Priority Goals (APGs) under GPRAMA principles: "Achieve a 15% reduction in fatal collisions on designated High-Collision Corridors by FY 2028."
   • Implement GASB SEA Reporting: Publish an annual SEA report linking financial efforts ($80,000/mile) to both output productivity and public safety outcomes.