NLPES Awards Programs

Types of Awards

NLPES offers awards to offices in three categories:

Excellence in Evaluation Award: This award is presented to an office that is determined to have made significant contributions to the field of legislative program evaluation during a four-year period. The Excellence in Evaluation Award is awarded to only one office in a given year. NLPES awarded the Excellence in Evaluation award to the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission in 2012 

Excellence in Research Methods Award: This award is presented to the office or offices producing a report developed through the use of exemplary research methods. The Excellence in Research Methods Award may be awarded to a maximum of three offices in a given year. NLPES awarded the Excellence in Research Methods Award to three offices in 2012: the Idaho Office of Performance Evaluations, the Utah Office of the Legislative Auditor General, and the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission.

Certificates of Impact: Certificates of Impact are presented to offices that released reports documenting public policy impact within their respective states. There is no limit on the number of offices that may receive an impact certificate. However, offices are limited to one submission per year. A total of 25 offices were presented 2012 NLPES Certificates of Impact. 

In addition, NLPES presents the Outstanding Achievement Award. This award is presented to an individual or individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the field of legislative program evaluation while maintaining high ethical and professional standards. A five-person committee—consisting of the Chair of the NLPES Executive Committee, the Vice-Chair, and three other persons with a significant history of both active participation in NLPES and experience in legislative program evaluation and/or performance audits—may determine to grant one, multiple or no awards each year.  The 2012 award recipient was Phil Leone, retired director of the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission.

The deadline for submission of all award application packages will be May 10, 2013.

Please contact the NLPES Awards Subcommittee Chair, Wayne Kidd, if you have any questions:
Wayne Kidd
801.326.1758
wkidd@le.utah.gov

Submission Information and Award Criteria

NLPES Excellence in Evaluation Award

The NLPES Executive Committee will present this award to the office that is determined to have contributed the most to the field of legislative program evaluation during the four-year period beginning January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2012. One winner will be selected each year.

Submission Instructions

Submissions for the Excellence in Evaluation Award should include the following:

1. A written narrative of no more than five pages in length which describes the office’s body of work, the impact it has made, and how it has contributed to the field of program evaluation during the application period. Suggestions regarding the type of information that may be included are provided in “Selection Criteria” below.

2. Attachment A – An organization chart that generally represents the four-year application period. Also provide a table that shows the number of performance/program evaluator FTEs by their relevant position in the organization and total annual expenditures, by year, for the application period.

3. Attachment B – Summary information about the number of performance evaluation reports, special reports, briefing memos, and other work products issued during the four-year period. (Note: Do not include financial audits and other work performed primarily by financial auditors as this type of work will NOT be considered when evaluating each application.) If possible, please include a complete listing of all work products to allow the judges to obtain an understanding of the topics covered by each type of work product. If such a list is unavailable, please provide a general description of the types of information provided and topics covered by each type of work product.

4. Attachment C – Copies of up to 3 reports so the judges can become familiar with the appearance and visual quality of your work products. You may provide instructions for how other reports can be found on your website.

5. Other Attachments – Any relevant information that helps show your office’s results in meeting the selection criteria below. (Note: Because of the time commitment required to properly review all applications, we ask that you not overwhelm the judges with miscellaneous information. If other attachments are included, please be sure they are specific and clearly describe how they address the selection criteria.)

6. Please also include the name, phone number, and e-mail address of a contact person in your office. (If your office receives this award, this information may be used in a handout at the NLPES awards luncheon at the NCSL Legislative Summit.) If you wish, you may also include the names and addresses of up to five individuals or offices you would like us to notify if you receive the award.

Selection Criteria

Judges will evaluate each submission based on the information presented in the written narrative and the attachments. The narrative should describe the office’s achievements in three specific areas: impact, body of work, and furthering the field of program evaluation. These areas, their relative importance, and descriptions of information that may be included in each area are described below:

1. Impact (50%) – Include information about the significance of your work and how it has positively affected state operations and policies. For example, you may show how your work has saved the state money, increased revenue, changed the way a program or service is provided, or led to laws passed or rescinded, etc.

2. Body of Work (30%) – Include information about the work your office produced and how that work was accomplished during the four-year period. Any comments you want to make about the information provided in Appendices A and B should be contained in this section. You should describe how subject areas were selected for evaluation and indicate whether your office used contractors to perform special work or reports. Examples of additional information that may be included to describe your office’s body of work are as follows:

• any unique circumstances in your state that impacted the selection of evaluation topics;

• a series of reports issued on a specific topic area;

• how your reports clearly and effectively communicate your message to legislators and other readers;

• the number of presentations made to legislative committees and other bodies, if applicable; and

• any noteworthy accomplishments or extraordinary actions taken by your office. Examples may include additional staff or appropriations given to increase to the amount or breadth of evaluation work performed, initiating new processes within your evaluation shop which have proved highly successful (and might be useful to others to emulate), and other accomplishments.

3. Furthering the Field of Legislative Evaluation (20%) – Include information about your participation in NLPES activities, providing training for other shops, or working with or sharing information with other states, local governments, and state agencies, etc. You may also consider including the use of unique or innovative methodologies to conduct evaluations.

Frequency of Submission

Any program evaluation office can apply for the Excellence in Evaluation Award. However, an office that wins the award in a given year is not permitted to apply for the award for the following two years, and as described below, agrees to provide a judge in the two following years as needed.

Information about Judges

Each year, the NLPES Executive Committee will select a panel of three judges to review award submissions. The offices which have won the Excellence in Evaluation Award in the two preceding years are expected to provide one judge each. The third judge will be selected by members of the NLPES Executive Committee. These judges will be selected to minimize the potential for conflict of interest or bias. Please mail or email your application to each of the judges by the submission deadline May 10, 2013.
 

Judges for the current year are:

Lisa Kieffer
Deputy Director
Performance Audit Division
Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts
270 Washing St., SW
Room 1-156
Atlanta, GA 30334-8400
404.651.8867
kiefferl@audits.ga.gov

Joel Alter
Program Evaluation Coordinator
Office of the Legislative Auditor
658 Cedar Street, 1^st Floor South
St. Paul, MN 55155
651.296.8313
joel.alter@state.mn.us

Angus Maciver
Deputy
Office of the Legislative Auditor
Performance Audits
P.O. Box 201705
Helena, MT 59620-1705
406.444.3122
amaciver@mt.gov
 

NLPES Excellence in Research Methods Award

The NLPES Executive Committee will present this award to an office or offices which have demonstrated outstanding use of evaluation research methods in a report released during calendar year 2012. At the judges’ discretion, up to three submissions may be selected for the award in a given year.

Submission Instructions

Submissions for the Excellence in Research Methods Award should include a copy of the report and a narrative describing the qualifying characteristics of the report and how the methodology achieves the selection criteria (see below). The narrative should be no more than four pages in length. If the report does not contain a detailed description of the evaluation methodology, you may submit any additional documentation necessary to explain the analysis as an appendix. (Note: Submissions involving contracted work must demonstrate that office staff were involved in all aspects of selecting, developing, and applying the evaluation methodology, and participated in making decisions involving the analysis of data and the findings contained in the evaluation report.)

Qualifying reports should demonstrate one or more of the following characteristics. Please indicate under which criteria (or criterion) you are applying:

1. Exceptional breadth, depth, and scope of fieldwork–successful application of a methodology that, while maintaining efficiency, takes the evaluation to a more comprehensive level.  

2. Innovative or unusual applications of established methodologies–successful application of established qualitative or quantitative techniques in new areas or ways.

3. Technical difficulty and sophistication–appropriate and successful use of advanced statistical techniques or software to efficiently and effectively address issues covered in an evaluation.

Please also include a one-paragraph summary of the report and the name, phone number, and e-mail address of a contact person. (If your office receives this award, this information may be used in a handout at the NLPES awards luncheon at the NCSL Legislative Summit.) If you wish, you may also include the names and addresses of up to five individuals or offices you would like us to notify if you receive the award.

Selection Criteria

1. Methodology Usefulness/Design (35%) – The submission should demonstrate first, the selected methodology’s applicability to the evaluation’s objectives; second, the design of the methodology; and third, the usefulness of the methodology, given any data or other limitations encountered. Information provided should:

• clearly state the desired objectives, and
• describe the methodologies considered and why the selected methodology was the most appropriate to meet the objectives.

2. Methodology Application (35%) – The submission should demonstrate how the selected methodology was applied during the fieldwork phase to meet the evaluation’s objectives in the most efficient and effective manner possible. This section should:

• clearly explain methodology procedures, and
• explain how the execution of the selected research method contributed to the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the field work performed.

3. Evaluation Results (30%) – The submission should demonstrate that the selected methodology and the resulting conclusions were appropriate for the evaluation and were clearly described for the reader. This section should:

• describe how the results of the methodology contributed significantly to the development of the evaluation’s findings (problems) and recommendations (solutions), and
• demonstrate that the methodology’s resulting conclusions were appropriately and clearly described for the reader.

Frequency of Submission
Any program evaluation office may apply for the Excellence in Research Methods Award. An office must refrain from applying for this award for one year after receipt of the award.
 
Information about Judges

Each year, the NLPES Executive Committee will select a panel of three judges to review application materials. These judges will be selected to minimize the potential for conflict of interest or bias. An office that receives an Excellence in Research Methods Award may be requested to make a staff person available to be a judge for the following year. Please mail or email your application to each of the judges by the submission deadline May 10, 2013.

Judges for the current year are:

Tim Bereece
Audit Supervisor
Office of the Legislative Auditor General
W315 Capitol Complex
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
801.326.1731
tbereece@le.utah.gov

Gerald Hoppmann
Program Evaluation Manager
Legislative Service Office
213 State Capitol
Cheyenne, WY 82002
307.777.7985
gerald.hoppmann@wyoleg.gov

Ellen J. Miller
Chief Legislative Analyst
Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission
General Assembly Building, Suite 1100
201 North 9^th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
804.371.4577
ejmiller@jlarc.virginia.gov
 

NLPES Certificates of Impact

NLPES Certificates of Impact will be presented for reports with the final release date occurring during calendar year 2011 or 2012, which had documented public policy impacts.

Submission Instructions

Submissions for the Certificate of Impact must include (1) a copy of the nominated report; (2) a narrative of no more than two pages in length describing how the report has met two or more of the selection criteria; and (3) documentation of the report's impact described in the narrative. (Note: Submissions involving contracted work must demonstrate that office staff members were integrally involved in all aspects of the evaluation and report.)

Please also include a one-paragraph summary of the report and the name, phone number, and e-mail address of a contact person for the report. (If your office receives this certificate, this information will be used in a handout at the NLPES awards luncheon at the NCSL Legislative Summit.) If you wish, you may also include the names and addresses of up to five individuals or offices you would like us to notify if you receive this certificate. (Note: Each office may submit only one report for consideration.) 
 

Selection Criteria

Successful applicants must document that the report submitted meets two or more of the following criteria:

1. Dollar savings from implementing audit recommendations. This includes documented annual or one-time savings resulting from the implementation of the evaluation’s recommendations. To qualify, applicants must demonstrate that the recommendations were implemented and dollar savings resulted. It is not sufficient for the applicant to simply list the expected savings from implementing recommendations.

 2. Program improvements as a result of implementing audit recommendations. These are improvements to the organization made as a result of implementing the recommendations. These could be documented through various methods including:

• evidence of changes in an organization's structure, training, procedures, etc. or
  documented improvements in agency outcomes as determined by reasonable outcome measures

 3. Impacts from the legislature's perspective. These are documented results of the evaluation on legislatures. Some measures of legislative impact may include:

• changes in statute (please indicate specific statute changes and reference the applicable recommendations or section in the report which prompted the change),
  decreased or increased funding, or
  requests for presentations to legislative committees other than your oversight committee.

4. Impacts from the public perspective. These are documented results of the evaluation on the public. This could be measured through various methods including:

• media attention specific to the report's impact (media attention that simply discusses the report is not sufficient), or
• advocacy and special interest group responses.

5. Impacts from other organizations' perspectives. These are documented results of the evaluation on similar organizations. This could be measured through the following:

• evidence showing that the evaluation methodology has been copied by evaluators in other organizations, or
• documentation that the evaluation work is being used to improve the operations of other organizations that provide a similar service.

Frequency of Submissions

Any program evalution office may apply for the Certificate of Impact.

Information about Judges
Each year, the NLPES Executive Committee will select two or three judges to review award submissions. Please mail or email your application to each of the judges by the submission deadline May 10, 2013.

Judges for the current year are:

Marcia Lindsay
Audit Manager
South Carolina Legislative Audit Council
1331 Elmwood Avenue, Suite 315
Columbia, SC 29201
803.253.7612
mlindsay@lac.sc.gov

Joseph Woodson
Legislative Policy Coordinator
Office of Administration
James K. Polk Building, Suite 1700
505 Deaderick Street
Nashville, TN 37243
615.401.7874
joseph.woodson@cot.tn.gov

Dana McNeil
Performance Auditor
Legislative Audit Office
Nebraska Legislature
11^th Floor, State Capitol
Lincoln, NE 68509
402.471.0074
dmcneil@leg.ne.gov
 

Outstanding Achievement Award

This award will be presented to an individual or individuals who have made outstanding contributions to the field of legislative program evaluation while maintaining high ethical and professional standards. 

Nomination Instructions

Nominations for the Outstanding Achievement Award must include a narrative describing how the nominee meets the award criteria below. 

Selection Criteria

The recipient of the award will be selected on the basis of the following criteria: 

1. Long-time involvement in the field of legislative program evaluation and/or performance auditing.

2. Active participation in NLPES. For example, the recipient may have actively served on the NLPES Executive Committee, served as presenter or moderator at NLPES Training Conferences, or submitted articles for the NLPES Newsletter.

3. Other contributions that have advanced the field of program evaluation (e.g., he or she was responsible for specific innovations, etc.)

Information about Judges

NLPES shall establish a five-person selection committee for this award, consisting of the Chair of the NLPES Executive Committee, the Vice-Chair, and three other persons with a significant history of both active participation in NLPES and experience in legislative program evaluation and/or performance audits. The Chair will make appointments to the committee, who will serve one-year terms but may be re-appointed by the next Chair.

The committee may determine to grant one, multiple, or no awards each year. The committee will make its decisions based on consensus.

The Chair of the NLPES Executive Committee will serve as chair of the selection committee and will report results to the full NLPES Executive Committee.

Past Winners