 |
Home | Contact Us | Press Room | Site Overview | Help | Login | Register |
 |
 |
| About NCSL | State & Federal Issues | Legislatures | Legislative Staff | Meetings | Bookstore | Legislators & Staff Only |
| NCSL Home > Legislative Staff: Staff Sections & Networks > NLPES > | Add to MyNCSL |
NLPES NewsFebruary 1999, No. 72 Inside the NewsChair's Corner Intelligence on the Other Side: Evaluation Insights from September NLPES Executive Committee Meetings Chair's Corner
NLPES has been very active since the last newsletter! The California State Auditor hosted an outstanding training conference in Sacramento. NLPES has revised its bylaws and is actively participating in efforts to strengthen NCSL. In addition, our new Web page is growing in both content and usage (see "News from the Net"). I want to thank Mary Noble and the staff of the California State Auditor's office for hosting a great fall training conference in Sacramento. The conference included excellent sessions on topics ranging from research methods to educational reform as well as a variety of great networking opportunities. Summaries of all conference sessions are available on the NLPES web site, so check them out if you couldn't attend the meetings in person. Next year, West Virginia will host the conference, so mark your calendar. We'll see if they were serious about having whitewater rafting and bungee jumping as required activities. We are also starting to solicit states to volunteer to host conferences in future years. Joel Alter, crack NLPES training chair, will be contacting states to solicit bids. NLPES has also revised its bylaws to resolve some long-standing glitches and to streamline our activities. The major change that will affect all of us is that the Executive Committee election will be held earlier in the year than in the past. This helps resolve a workload crunch at NCSL and will give the newly elected committee members more time to prepare for their duties (someone has to be the first to do the bungee jump). Craig Kinton (vice chair) and I are serving on two NCSL task forces. Craig is part of a task force on promoting and developing professionalism for legislative staff, which is assessing NCSL training programs. I am serving on a task force on promoting, developing and improving NCSL services and products; it is monitoring the redesign of NCSL's web site as well as developing products that better explain and market NCSL services. We hope that our participation will ensure that legislative program evaluation perspectives are fully included in NCSL's work. We will keep you informed as work progresses. Finally, we are working to develop and maintain profiles on all NLPES member offices. This will give us all much better information about who we are as a community of legislative program evaluators. This information will eventually be maintained on the NLPES web site, so please send in your profiles! Office Profile
The Oregon Territorial Statute, in defining the duties of the Territorial Auditor, said that "as he may deem expedient to lessen the public expenses, use public money to best advantage, promote frugality in public office, and generally, for better management." The powers in these Territorial Statutes were incorporated by Article VI of the Oregon Constitution that made the Secretary of State the "Auditor of Public Accounts." In fact, auditing in Oregon is older than Oregon itself. B. F. Bonham was hired as Oregon's first Territorial Auditor in the 1850s. While we embrace the concepts of our forefathers, we still haven't figured out a way to include "frugality" in our mission statement.
Year Established: In 1929, the Oregon Legislative Assembly established the Audits Division to carry out the duties of the Secretary of State as the Constitutional Auditor of Public Accounts.Little Known Fact: The Audits Division is the only independent auditing organization in the state with authority to review programs of agencies in all three branches of state government and other organizations that receive state money (in other words, no one is safe!).State Pronunciation: OR-A-GUN, not OR-E-GONE.Number of Staff: 60 (52% female, 48% male, 5% undecided)Staff Backgrounds: Master's degrees - 15% Pedigrees - 10% Best Example of Inaction on a Performance Audit Recommendation: An 1858 audit report recommended that "convicts should work in order to be a source of revenue rather than a drain on taxpayers." A 1996 audit report included a similar recommendation.Most Shocking Audit Finding: A 1997 audit found that $420,000 was paid during one year to health maintenance organizations for services to people who were dead (only a couple of them were Audits Division employees).Largest Agency Response: The Oregon Commission for the Blind's response to an audit report was more than 200 pages and weighed 6 pounds. (The response was also available in Braille.)Best Audit Assignment: Reviewing attendance and fee collection at Oregon's state parks.Worst Audit Assignment: Watching cattle being slaughtered at the state penitentiary.Liaison ReviewU.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) As the NLPES liaison with the GAO, I thought it might be appropriate to provide a little background on the office for those unfamiliar with its history and activities. The GAO is the investigative arm of Congress and is charged with examining all matters relating to the receipt and disbursement of public funds. The GAO was established by the Budget Act of 1921 to independently audit government agencies. Over the years, Congress has expanded the GAO's audit authority, added new responsibilities and duties, and strengthened the GAO's ability to perform independently. The office is under the control and direction of the Comptroller General of the United States, who is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a term of 15 years. A two-year vacancy of the Comptroller General position ended when David Walker was confirmed on November 9, 1998, taking over for Charles Bowser who served from October 1981 through September 1996. GAO Activities Audits and Evaluations. Supporting Congress is the GAO's fundamental responsibility. In meeting this objective, the GAO performs a variety of services, the most prominent of which are audits and evaluations of Government programs and activities. The majority of these reviews are in response to specific congressional requests. The office is required to perform work requested by committee chairpersons and, as a matter of policy, assigns equal status to requests from ranking minority members. The GAO also responds to individual member requests when possible. Other assignments are initiated pursuant to standing commitments to congressional committees and bylaws that specifically require some reviews. Finally, some assignments are independently undertaken in accordance with the GAO's basic legislative responsibilities.The GAO has the ability to review most government functions, and its staff has expertise in a variety of disciplines-accounting, law, public and business administration, economics, the social and physical sciences, and others. The office is organized so those staff members concentrate on specific subject areas, enabling them to develop a detailed level of knowledge. When an assignment requires specialized expertise not available within the GAO, outside experts assist the permanent staff. The GAO staff travel wherever is necessary on an assignment, working onsite to gather data, test transactions, and observe firsthand how government programs and activities are carried out. Accounting and Information Management Policy. To ensure that Congress has current, accurate and complete financial management data available, the GAO prescribes accounting principles and standards for the executive branch; advises federal agencies on fiscal and related policies and procedures; and, prescribes standards for auditing and evaluating government programs. In concert, the GAO Comptroller General, Secretary of the Treasury, and Director of the Office of Management and Budget also develop standardized information and data processing systems. This includes standard terminology, definitions and classifications, as well as codes for fiscal, budgetary, and program-related data and information.Legal Services. In response to inquiries from committees and members, the Comptroller General provides advice on legal issues involving government programs and activities. The GAO is also available to assist in drafting legislation and reviewing legislative proposals before Congress. In addition, the GAO reviews and reports to Congress on proposed rescissions and deferrals of government funds. Other legal services include resolving bid protests that challenge government contract awards, assisting government agencies in interpreting the laws governing expenditure of public funds, and adjudicating claims for and against the government.In addition, the GAO's trained investigators conduct special investigations and assist auditors and evaluators when they encounter possible criminal and civil misconduct. When warranted, the GAO refers the results of its investigations to the Department of Justice and other law enforcement authorities. Report Authorities. The GAO offers a range of products to communicate the results of its work. The type of product depends on the assignment's objective and the needs of the intended user. Product types include testimony, oral briefings and written reports. All of the GAO's unclassified reports are available to the public; however, the GAO honors requestors' desires to postpone public release of a report for up to 30 days.A list of GAO reports issued or released during the previous month is furnished monthly to Congress, its members, and committees. Copies of GAO reports are also furnished to interested congressional parties; federal, state, local, and foreign governments; members of the press; and, other interested groups. Copies of reports are available from the U.S. General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 37050, Washington, DC 20013. Phone: (202) 512-6000. Electronic access is also available on the GAO home page. A View from the StatesIntelligence on the Other Side: Evaluation Insights from Inside the Executive BranchThis article was inspired by the migration of three noteworthy program evaluators to "the other side," namely to executive branch agencies. These notables, Tom Bardin (SC), Jennifer Noyes (WI), and Sharon Patnode(KS), are all former NLPES executive committee members. Tom and Jennifer are past NLPES presidents. Moving to the executive, even for these seasoned veterans, was a learning experience. This article is intended to provide some "executive branch reconnaissance" that may prove useful to those currently working in legislative program evaluation. These are the experiences of "insiders" of the executive branch, whose perspectives have been well-hewn by their evaluation experience. A Contributor's Who's Who Contributors for this article are a virtual "Who's Who" of state legislative experience. Their insights are based on over 35 years of program evaluation experience.
To enable more authentic, hard-hitting "reflections" on legislative evaluation and executive branch operations, quotes in this article are attributed to "Eva," "Lua" and "Tor" (the names were randomly assigned). The contributors express their fond memories of the evaluation field and hope that their views and comments will be helpful to those currently practicing within it. Now, news from the executive front! Why the Switch? Positions in the executive branch were not on the radar screen for our contributors. Yet, individually, their work was well known because of years of experience and interaction with those who would hire them. What began as a casual lunch conversation with one agency director for Lua emerged as a similar theme for the others-agencies interested in establishing the reformative component of legislative program evaluation in the executive to initiate change pro-actively. One of the attractions for all became the chance to see recommendations through to completion. "After weeks and months spent helping agencies figure out how to do things better," Tor remarked, "the chance to pro-actively work toward improved government and simply to accomplish day-to-day program goals became key enticements." Change for the better was the projected vision, and, oh, "some salesmanship and proper marketing of effective evaluations" would be another helpful attribute. We're Not in Kansas Anymore While Sharon still actually resides in Kansas, the switch to the executive branch was unsettling for all three former legislative branches. Beyond the enlightened perspectives of those who hired them, they found reservations among their new colleagues. Lua found persons asking whether new internal evaluations would lead to firings from a new sort of internal affairs division. Eva, used to the legislative rhythm and the predictable "Y" responses to "X" actions, suddenly found that "X" did not regularly cause "Y" in the chaotic and more politically-focused environment. Tor, after making quite clear during the hiring process that, "...no, all auditors are not accountants..." was plunged into fiscal management and budget preparation. All three credited their education in learning and evaluating numerous government processes in seeing them through their initial adjustment period, although isolation from their former NCSL network was especially difficult at first. With relatively small staffs and endemic chaos, work focus is a difficult ideal to maintain. Eva's staff can be sucked into a Y2K project here, something else there, or the issue currently compelling to the political executive in charge. Unlike in the legislature, Lua comments, "we can't plan weeks in advance." That Executive Feeling There was some real perspective adjustments to entering the executive, as Eva recounts, "I expressed concern that the way this program was being implemented differed from legislative intent and that more money was going to be spent than discussed and approved by the legislature. I was going on and on about legislative intent when someone said to me that was all fine and good but not relevant. Excuse me? Basically, I was told that the executive branch had a lot more discretion than I was allowing for, and that this sort of thing happens all the time, etc. I found this was common practice, particularly with a new program." So much for thinking of the legislature as sort of the "almighty power"... Tor's impression: "My first observation from the 'other side' is that the auditors may not fully appreciate how difficult it is to fix problems here. Life in a big bureaucracy is unbelievably complicated! Weeks can go by and a simple little task that could be completed by 'one person concentrating on it for one day,' instead takes weeks because there are so many steps and people who deal with every issue. It shouldn't be that way, perhaps-but it is in real life. Another thing I knew, but didn't fully appreciate as an auditor, is how often the staff running programs really WANT to fix things, but they are constrained by the politically-appointed leadership running the show. I have been surprised at how often program staff 'roll over and play dead' because they've become tired of fighting city hall." Lua's first agency insight was the high standard already set by legislative program evaluation. "My agency has undergone at least seven program evaluations in the past 20 years, and directors have been terminated due to significant shortcomings identified in reports, so staff members pay a lot of attention to findings and recommendations, and management has a structured system for implementing recommendations." Inside/Out Thinking for Performance Auditor and Program Evaluators Some of the things experienced auditors already know were confirmed by the experience on the other side of the exit interview table. "I realized as an auditor, and realize it anew," says Tor, "that legislative auditors are given great, if sometimes grudging, respect. We hurry to answer the auditors' questions, getting them what they need immediately-but only after informing several officials of exactly what's occurred. The policy is: 'Don't talk to the auditors, without several bureaucrats present.'" In a typical executive branch day, decisions have to be made within matters of seconds and, occasionally, the wrong decision is made. Legislative staff tend to have zero tolerance for less-than-perfect performance from executive agencies. No matter what reasoning or mitigating evidence is offered, the responses run like "tough luck", "too bad," or "not my problem-I have a good finding." "I just went through a legislative audit with staff from my former office," recounts Lua, and "while the overall experience was pleasant, a number of details came up in which they were unwilling to bend." "It's almost like the legislature was this pesky little fly buzzing around, and program evaluators were just a bunch of problem makers (versus problem solvers)," Eva relates in describing one agency meeting discussion: "Someone said something to the effect that the situation needed to be addressed before the legislature got involved. After all, they said, we don't want to try to explain this to them because they'd probably never get it (ha-ha), and then they would send in the (legislative evaluators), and they'd just make it worse. There was general agreement all around..." Based on the experiences they've accumulated from both branches of government, Eva, Lua and Tor offer the following ideas for their former colleagues on their new executive view of the legislative side of evaluation. Recommendations Are Easier to Write Than to Implement. It's exciting to identify a complex problem, but trying to come up with a good, workable recommendation of specific ways to fix the problem is likely to be illusive due to complexity (and, likely, lack of expertise in the subject matter). "Fix it" is not a good recommendation. If it were that easy, it would have been fixed.Focus on Real World. Many in program evaluation have never worked in an executive agency and have no idea how difficult it can be to get the job done "efficiently and effectively." There is a theory of how things should work and the reality of what it takes to make things work on a day-to-day basis. Aim for the ideal but make recommendations based on a cultivated sense of the "real world."Relevancy Matters. "Too little", "too late," and "too negative" are oft-heard phrases about evaluations. Most people want to improve, but they don't feel communication with legislative program evaluators is a two-way street. They give, give and give information into a vacuum, and then a report (usually negative) spits back out at them months later. More immediate and more direct feedback is preferred, as well as more useful and relevant recommendations versus pie-in-the-sky ideas.Show Some Appreciation. Trying to implement program suggestions and audit findings is much more difficult than you imagine. Agencies are trying to do a lot of things, and you might be pleasantly surprised at how interesting some of them are.Sharpen Your Perspective. The executive branch is not a "united front" nor one big happy family. Information provided from various sources during the course of an evaluation will conflict, and it should. All sorts of internal agency politics need to be kept in mind during the course of an evaluation.Bad Apples (Don't) Break Programs. Recruiting and retaining good managers on state government salaries is difficult. While agencies are lucky to keep outstanding managers, it only takes a couple of bad ones to detract from the agency's accomplishments.About Legislative Intent. What happens in the capitol is often not understood within the executive branch. It is not that legislative intent is ignored, but elements can be lost in the translation. Usually, willful misinterpretation is much less at fault than human error. Versions of legislative intent differ wildly and are not necessarily at the forefront of the minds of people who are implementing programs.Thinking About Making the Executive Switch Wondering what it would be like to jump to another branch? Perhaps even to set up an executive form of program evaluation? Tor relates that, "(most) valuable to me has been the ability I gained as an auditor to talk to and gather information from almost anyone and persevere until the needed information is located. As an auditor, I learned that most information is available somewhere if you're tenacious in your search." But, Eva cautions, "The legislative pond in a lot of states is a small one-the executive is a BIG pond. Don't be shocked by feeling like a fish out of water. Things look different over here. Things ARE different over here." Here are some considerations to take with you if you take the plunge. Define the job. One contributor's defined job purpose was to evaluate programs and management, provide "technical" assistance, and provide "other" services to program managers. Because of the lack of job specificity, immediately defining a mission and operating guidelines became a paramount task "before other divisions defined it for us." The result was a division that served the immediate needs of top management as well as other unmet management and data needs.Gain Respect. To be effective while working in an evaluation or oversight role in an executive agency, it is important to quickly establish trust and respect. Be helpful. Remember that any mistakes will magnify doubts concerning your credibility.Navigate Around Rules. Rules seem to drive every executive agency decision, including hiring, pay, leave, and discipline. Everyone will tell you that something can't be done due to a rule. Don't believe it! There are ways around every draconian rule. Find the agency parliamentarian to assist you in navigating around rules.Avoid Meetings. Staff spend more time in meetings than working. You have to be skilled at the art of meeting avoidance or you will spend your entire week sitting at a table in a conference room.Volunteer for Difficult Assignments. Agency staff spend more hours than there are in a day just getting their jobs done. Since they hesitate to spend a lot of time experimenting with top management ideas or analyzing the impact of various policy initiatives, take on these assignments.Challenge the Silly. If someone says something silly that goes unchallenged, it becomes fact, then a rule and then a policy. If you hear that something is prohibited, look it up. You are likely to find otherwise.Editor's Note: One of the many revelations from my experience in program evaluation was a slow-dawning concept that executive branch agencies were not the enemy. And the more I sought to determine their needs as they were compatible with my research needs, the more mutually effective and satisfying were the results. Warmest thanks for the efforts of the contributors for squeezing work on this article into their VERY busy schedules. mbA View from the StatesLexicon of Reporting Objectives for Legislative OversightLegislatures exercise oversight to protect the public health and welfare, protect citizens' freedoms, preserve public property, and assure itself that public funds are properly spent and controlled. Most legislative oversight begins when a legislator infers that a problem exists in the government or which the government should solve. The oversight process continues with the development of information that the Legislature can use to control government programs and activities and may end with some form of legislative action. PEER's Oversight Role The Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER Committee) was created in 1973 as a standing committee of the Mississippi Legislature. It consisted of five senators and five representatives who serve four-year terms. The committee meets monthly and supervises an interdisciplinary staff of 27 persons. PEER's primary mission is to provide timely and reliable information about state and local government in Mississippi to the Legislature, which uses PEER's reports to assist it in its lawmaking, revenue raising, and budgeting functions. PEER's General Mechanism of Review Although the staff may respond directly to simple and non-controversial requests for information from legislators, most requests for PEER's services appear on the committee's monthly agenda. When a legislator or a citizen makes a request for a review, the staff prepares a summary of the request for the committee's agenda that describes the type of analysis needed and a proposed scope of review. The committee considers such requests during its monthly meetings and may approve or deny the request, or may add or delete research objectives. Once the committee approves a project, PEER staff conduct the necessary fieldwork, draw conclusions, and draft a report for the committee's approval and eventual distribution to legislators and the public. Need for a Common Vernacular Several years ago, PEER Committee members told PEER staff that they had difficulty understanding the vernacular used by staff during the monthly meetings. While the members clearly understood the need to take action on certain requests, they did not fully understand the words used by staff to describe the objectives and written products that would result from the committee's actions. PEER Committee members encouraged the staff to develop a dictionary--lexicon--that could be used to describe the objectives of each project so that committee members and staff would have a common understanding of the eventual work product. PEER's Lexicon of Reporting Objectives The following list describes the types of information-analysis, findings, evaluation conclusions, and recommendations-that PEER transmits to the Mississippi Legislature. The reporting objectives are generally grouped in order of increasing judgment required for applying criteria of value. The first objectives require verification of facts and some analysis. The second group requires judgment in the application of criteria. The third group requires judgment in both developing reporting criteria and in applying the criteria. Fact gathering These kinds of objectives emphasize completeness and accuracy of information. They require some analysis but may not require the application of standards to the facts in order to draw conclusions about the need for or the value of the object of research. 1. Summary of information or description. This type of objective describes basic factual information but may include simple analysis or interpretation. The report may include descriptive statistics such as the mean or median, maximum or minimum or total and may include charts, graphs, or maps. The report contains no findings or recommendations. This kind of report usually results from a specific request from a legislator and addresses a single issue of law or policy.2. Fiscal note on legislative bill. Upon request from a legislator, PEER (or other legislative and executive agencies) prepares a fiscal note, which summarizes a specific bill and states its projected financial impact (increase or decrease in expenditures or revenues). While some fiscal notes require simple analysis, some require extended analysis of legal, financial, and management issues. The Mississippi Legislature's Joint Rules provide that fiscal notes shall not include any comment regarding the merits of a bill.3. Background check for Senate confirmation hearings. At the request of chairs of the Senate committees handling confirmations, PEER staff investigate the backgrounds of persons whom the Governor has appointed to public office. PEER staff determines if a nominee's record of education, experience, criminal record, and financial history satisfy legal criteria set in the Constitution and state statutes.4. Investigations. An investigative objective is a systematic review of facts, usually to determine whether a person has violated a law or regulation. Often, investigations focus on allegations of intentional wrongdoing, which may lead to a request for criminal prosecution or civil proceedings for recovery of funds or property. In its broader sense, an investigation may simply respond to some factual question whose answer is obscure.Audit & Analysis In addition to determination of facts, audit and analysis objectives require use of judgment to determine if a person, program, or administrative unit adheres to law, rules, and custom. These objectives require judgment about what standards should be applied but generally do not require development of reporting criteria. 5. Compliance review or financial statement and compliance audit. Compliance objectives can include determinations as to whether agency management has complied with generally accepted accounting principles, legal, regulatory or other externally-set criteria; whether an entity's financial statements fairly present its financial condition and adhere to established criteria; and, whether an entity has followed specific financial requirements and if it exercises effective internal controls over its assets and financial reporting. The review may also analyze expenditures. If the evaluator finds weaknesses in internal controls, or excessive or questionable expenditure, the evaluator may accompany the audit report with a "management letter" that explains the exceptions.6. Economy and efficiency review. Economy and efficiency objectives determine whether managers use resources prudently. This type of review may compare inputs to program outputs. For example, the reviewer may examine procurement practices, protection of resources, duplication of effort, unproductive activities, and overstaffing. The review may address whether the program uses the optimum level of resources for delivering a service.Evaluation In this final group, the objective is to determine if the object of evaluation (a government program) has value according to needs-based criteria. Judgment is required to develop ad hoc criteria (characteristics of value) and standards (measurable expressions of the criteria) based on need. Usually, no previously established standard will assist the reviewer. 7. Management review. PEER uses management objectives to determine the conformity of programs to legislative intent.8. Accountability and evaluability assessment. Accountability and evaluability objectives determine whether managers keep accurate records or can provide sufficient valid information on a program's processes, outputs, and outcomes. These objectives also determine whether program managers use data to improve the program and if records will support an efficient external evaluation.9. Performance indicators. These objectives determine, prior to the fiscal year, the data that an agency will collect for later measurement of the program's success. Typically, the reviewer looks for outcome data, not output data.10. Program evaluation. Program evaluation objectives determine whether a program or activity has value by effectively meeting a social need. Program evaluation is outcome oriented. Most social needs are easy to identify, but determining which social needs the government will address, and with what priority, is a complex political process that can result in creation of government programs. Program evaluation provides information on those programs' value after implementation. A program evaluation will identify side effects and hidden costs of a program and determine whether the program's total cost exceeds its benefit. A Sunset review is a type of program evaluation, often with a policy analysis component added.11. Policy analysis. The purpose of policy analysis objectives is to evaluate a proposed or existing program or activity or a modification to determine its soundness and responsiveness to policy assumptions. The analysis considers needs, side effects, and alternatives. The analysis predicts effects, in terms of costs and benefits, of a range of policy alternatives.Conclusion A legislature's information needs vary from year to year and from decade to decade. In Mississippi, the needs seem to have migrated from investigative, through audit, and into evaluation. The Legislature's need for investigative reports has decreased because accounting controls and other preventative mechanisms have improved. At the same time, governing has become much more complex. By using a lexicon of research objectives, PEER staff can better assess which legislative information needs it can address competently and determine which staff products best serve the needs of the legislative institution. James A. Barber is Deputy Director of the Peer Committee. Stephen R. Miller, former PEER Committee General Counsel and current Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau Chief, contributed to this article. News From the NetThe new and improved NLPES web site has been expanded to include even more "how-did-I-live-without-it" information. If you haven't visited the site lately, be sure to check out the following. Expanded Research ResourcesIn our continuing effort to make life easier for legislative researchers, several new resources have been added. These include:
We note the demise of the Works In Progress database. This database was intended to be a source of information that NLPES members could use to see if other states were researching a topic. However, it never worked very well, was a pain to update, and wasn't used much, so we killed it off. If you now want to know if some other state is studying in a policy area, just use the NLPES listserve to ask people nationwide. We won't hound states anymore to send in lists of ongoing projects. Expanded Training InformationThe web site's training resources have also been expanded. New additions include:
NLPES Site Usage Is Way, Way, Up! Since the redesign of the NLPES web site, the number of weekly "hits" has increased from between 3-5 per week to well over 100. A weekly report on site usage is available. Please keep sending in ideas on how to improve the site! Suggestions can be e-mailed to Steven Birnholz. NCSL web site to be redesigned NCSL is contracting with a private company to redesign its web site. The redesign is intended to make the site easier to navigate and use as well as update the site's graphics. No deadline for the redesign has yet been set. Keep checking the NCSL site periodically (in the outside event that you aren't already using it daily) to see these changes when they are made. News Makers
From the EditorHappy New Year to you! Our Indiana legislative office, in performing its seasonal fiscal duty, has been the busiest it has been in years drafting bills and writing fiscal analyses. Although many conjecture upon the rationale, my bet is that it has something to do with the motivating influence of a $2 billion surplus. And having just completed a web page development course, I now have a greater appreciation for the job Steven Birnholz has in making our NLPES web site function so well. Enough on how busy I've been, how about you? At last count we had about a dozen profiles from states. If you would be so kind as to call your state liaison (before they call you back), we may soon offer through the web, worldwide, the breadth and variety of program evaluation in the States. Thanks. A recent e-mail expressing interest in U.S. evaluation from the Victorian Auditor-General's Office (Australia) is a sublime reminder of our shrunken planet and the hundreds of organizations that pursue our kind of work and have now become instantly available for consultation. Can you say networking? Coming soon will be my report on "why it's great to be the NLPES newsletter editor." Thanks to Dick Sheets of our office for carting these pages home for a final editorial screening. Work's starting on the next issue; I'll count on your continued support and inspiration. Keep those e-mails, articles and profiles coming! NLPES CalendarFor more information, email or call NCSL at (303) 364-7700.
|
© 2008 National Conference of State Legislatures, All Rights Reserved
Denver Office: Tel: 303-364-7700 | Fax: 303-364-7800 | 7700 East First Place | Denver, CO 80230 | Map
Washington Office: Tel: 202-624-5400 | Fax: 202-737-1069 | 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 | Washington, D.C. 20001
