Add to MyNCSL

NLPES Training Resources

Fall Training Conference

1999 NLPES Fall Training Conference Notes

Charleston, West Virginia
October 6, 7, 8, 9, 1999

**********

Photos from the Fall Training Conference

October 6, 1999

Executive Committee Meeting Minutes

Introduction to NLPES

Zen and the Art of Legislative Impact

Using Advisory Groups Can Help Increase the Effectiveness of Evaluations

Back to the top

October 7, 1999

Keynote Speaker: David M. Walker, Comptroller General of US

David M. Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States and head of the General Accounting Office (GAO), provided the keynote address on Thursday morning to our assembled group (more than 140 were registered). After some preliminary remarks about how "it's important to get outside of the beltway," he presented his main message: being an accountability professional is an honorable thing to be (despite low public opinion), and it's important for us to focus on what's going right with government and to make a difference.

"Accountability professional" is a more positive term to characterize the kind of work we do than the alternatives of accountant ("bean counters, score keepers, easy to stereotype") or auditor ("a fear-inducing term"). Furthermore, it more accurately represents the work currently being done by the GAO. Less than one-fourth of their work is accounting and auditing in the traditional sense, with the rest being program evaluations, investigations, policy analyses, legal research, and so on. This emphasis is appropriate for reviewing the work of the U.S. government, "the largest and most complex organization in the world."

Evaluating government has some unique features. The private sector exists to serve its clients, increase its shareholders' value, and increase overall worth, but government involves a loyalty to the greater good, as there are certain things that only government can do. The job of the accountability professional is to ensure that it is done with economy and efficiency. Walker's assessment is that "it gets a D at best, but it's getting better."

It is important for the GAO to be a leader in strategic planning and a model for implementation of the federal Government Performance and Results Act. Walker proposes to do this by providing a better sense of partnership with its client, the U.S. Congress (and ultimately the American people). Walker identified several themes of important current changes that provide challenges for governmental work:

Globalization, with changing economic markets, new opportunities for enterprise, and an emphasis and reliance on information systems;
Changing security threats in the post cold war period, including terrorism and changing immigration patterns;
Demographics, including longer life spans, better education, and quality of life issues;
Threats to the natural environment;
Technological innovation and its ubiquity; and
Government transformation, including the emphasis on managing for results.

Throughout this, the GAO's job is not just to improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of government, but also, hopefully, to improve the public's confidence and respect as well. To ensure the quality of its own work, Walker identified the three "core values" that "represent our foundation," regardless of what the topic is or in what format the information is provided.

Accountability: "This is what we do." He continued that we should have "zero tolerance for fraud, waste, and abuse," but we also need to emphasize accountability reports that will focus on outcomes.
Integrity: "We must be fact-based, fair, balanced, non-partisan, non-ideological; we must talk about what's right and present best practices."
Reliability: "We must be timely, accurate, have a long-range focus, and say the things that need to be said." (Examples: the projected budget surplus, and the explosion of entitlement funds.) "If not us, who? If not now, when?"

In conclusion, Walker emphasized that it is also important for the GAO to focus on the problems of the future so they can bring them to the attention of policy makers before they reach crisis proportions. Part of his approach to accomplishing this includes better cooperation with program evaluators reporting to state legislatures, which have an increasingly important role in our federal system. (West Virginia is the 20^th state he has visited in his first 11 months of his 15-year appointment.) He will also be meeting with evaluators working for other nation's legislative bodies. His parting advice to us was that although many challenges of governance abound, "we, as accountability professionals, have an opportunity to make a difference."

Comparing Your State With National Averages

This interesting session illustrated the potential pitfalls in comparing state program averages to national or regional averages. The information presented emphasized the importance of using caution when utilizing statistics in reports. Some words of wisdom from Max Arinder of the Mississippi Joint Legislative Peer Committee included:

Use population definitions that are uniform - other states may not include the same population subgroups in their categories.
Find out how the data was collected. There can be data quality problems if invalid sampling or collection procedures were used.
Pay attention to who is included in a sample. Ask questions such as: Who is and is not represented? Is the sample large enough? Was it properly selected?
Find out the source of the data. Be wary of special interest groups or other organizations that might have a conscious bias.

Finally, Arinder discussed the 1954 Darrell Huff book, How to Lie with Statistics. Huff states that oftentimes, "...the magic of numbers brings about a suspension of common sense." To help avoid this, five questions should be asked when utilizing statistics in reports:

Who says so?
How do they know?
What's missing?
Did someone change the subject?
Does it make sense?

Back to the top

October 8, 1999

Florida OPPAGA's Report Follow-up Process

West Virginia's Follow-up Process

Improving Performance Auditing: Professional Insights

This session was particularly useful because presenters incorporated examples from their states that exemplified the complexities of performance measurement. For example, agencies failing to comply with reporting requirements due to lack of resources, commitment, and/or accountability is a problem in Louisiana. Gerald Hoppmann, Performance Audit Manager with the Louisiana Office of the Legislative Auditor presented a case study illustrating this.

In Louisiana, agencies must report key objectives and performance indicators. They are also mandated to report performance data for their programs. Hoppmann asserted that while the Legislature is committed to performance based budgeting, many programs are not. In a recent audit of Louisiana correctional facilities it was determined that nearly 45% of all adult state inmates were being housed in local jails and facilities. In Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the state's general fund paid sheriffs $23 per day for each inmate, and this resulted in a cost of $137 million. It costs Louisiana between $30-$40 per day to house inmates in state facilities, and the local program does result in a cost savings. The program began as a temporary solution to alleviate prison overcrowding, but the savings in the per diem cost have contributed to its ongoing existence.

The local providers are under contract with the state but are not required to provide the same level of service as state facilities. They also are not required to uniformly account for the $23 or track performance data related to services. Many local providers do not have the resources to complete these tasks and this has resulted in a lack of accountability for the annual cost of $137 million dollars. The quandary for the Louisiana Legislature has been to determine the level and quality of services provided without any cost or performance information. Hoppmann highlighted some questions related to this problem:

Should the Sheriffs' Housing of State Inmates become a permanent program as opposed to a program designed to temporarily relieve prison overcrowding?
If so, should the state spend additional money to develop a uniform accounting system that categorizes cost and performance information related to services provided to state inmates housed in local jails and facilities?
Does the current cost savings associated with housing state inmates in local jails and facilities justify not spending money to implement a uniform accounting system at the parish level to break out cost and performance information?

The answers to these questions help guide possible recommendations. They also highlight the tension between accountability and performance measurement and cost savings.

Is the Causal Model Still Relevant in the 21st Century?

Back to the top