Ensuring the Public Trust 2004 Program Policy Evaluation’s Role in Serving State Legislatures Sponsored by the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society, National Conference of State Legislatures Ensuring the Public Trust Program Policy Evaluation’s Role in Serving State Legislatures Among the many roles that state legislatures play—debating public policy, enacting laws, and appropriating funds—is the fundamental responsibility to oversee government operations and ensure that public services are delivered to citizens in an effective and efficient manner. This accountability role is a critical part of our constitutional system of separation of powers and is essential to ensuring the trust that citizens place in government. To help meet this oversight responsibility, most state legislatures have created specialized units that conduct research studies and evaluate state government policies and programs. These studies—variously called program evaluations, policy analyses, and performance audits—address whether agencies are properly managing public programs and identify ways to improve these programs and cut government costs. This report summarizes information about these legislative program evaluation offices, which vary greatly in size, organization, and activities—just as their states and parent state legislatures do. The report is based on a nationwide survey of legislative program evaluation offices the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society conducted in the spring of 2004. The report expands on a similar survey conducted in 2000 and provides more detailed information about the offices’ staffing, activities, and working relationships with their parent legislatures. Surveys were sent to 54 NLPES offices affiliated with state legislatures across the country including the Virgin Islands. While some states have more than one office that conducts evaluations, some states have not established evaluation units. Generally those responding to the survey have active legislative performance evaluation offices. Part A of this report presents summarized information on the 37 offices that responded to the survey. Part B of the report consists of 32 one-page profiles that include information on the services they provide to their legislatures and how to contact them. Special thanks to Jenny Wilhelm, Wade Melton, and Denese Bass for their work in this survey effort. Gary VanLandingham, Interim Director, Florida Legislature Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 1 Part A - Summary of Survey Results This section discusses the history, organizational placement, size, and research products of legislative program evaluation offices and the strategies the offices use to maximize their value to their legislatures. History Most legislative program evaluation offices have existed for many years. About half have served their legislatures for more than 25 years, with some existing for over 50 years. Slightly less than half were created between 10 and 25 years ago. However, several state legislatures have created program evaluation units within the past 10 years. The newest office was created by the Maine legislature in 2003. Half of Offices Have Conducted Audits and Evaluations for More Than 25 Years (n=36) Up to 10 Years 11 to 25 Years More than 25 Years 11% 39% 50% Organizational setting The organizational placement of the offices—where they fit into the legislative structure—varies substantially across the nation. In half of the states, the program evaluation units are part of the legislative auditor’s office. In these states, the legislative auditor (often titled the auditor general) is typically responsible for conducting financial and compliance audits in addition to evaluation studies, and the evaluation office is generally a separate division within these offices. In slightly under a third of the states, the evaluation offices operate as independent legislative units. In the remaining states, the evaluation offices are established within a legislative oversight or other committee (such as an appropriations committee). Some units are organized in other ways such as a joint legislative and citizens’ commission. 1 1 It should be noted that about two-thirds of the offices that responded to the survey (23) indicated that a separate office also conducted audits, typically a state auditor that conducts mainly financial audits. In many cases, these audit organizations were located in the executive branch; these offices typically are not closely linked to the legislative process and are not included in this report. 2 Most Units Are Either Attached to Auditors’ Offices or Operate as Independent Legislative Units (n=37) Auditor's Office Independent Legislative Unit Legislative Oversight Committee Legislative Committee Other 8% 5% 14% 30% 51% Note: Some offices provided more than one response. Most of the offices report to a joint legislative committee or directly to legislative leadership. Over three-quarters of the units report to a joint legislative committee comprised of members of both legislative chambers (e.g., senate and house of representatives). Other units report directly to legislative leadership, while a few have an alternate reporting relationship such as to both an oversight committee and legislative leadership. More Than Three-Quarters of Units Report to a Joint Legislative Committee (n=36) Joint Legislative Committee Legislative Leadership Other 8% 78% 14% Size Legislative program evaluation offices vary substantially in size across the nation, reflecting the diversity among states and legislatures. The offices can be classified into four major groups. A few states have relatively small offices that have 10 or fewer staff. Over half of the offices are medium-sized with between 11 to 25 staff. About a quarter of the offices have between 25 and 50 staff, and the remaining states have large offices with more than 50 employees. Overall, the “typical” legislative program evaluation office responding to the survey has about 22 employees. 3 Half of the Offices Have 11-25 Staff Members (n=35) Up to 10 Staff 11 to 25 Staff 26 to 50 Staff Over 50 Staff 17% 23% 6% 54% The past few years have been difficult ones for states, as most have coped with major budget shortfalls that required substantial reductions in expenditures and staffing. Legislative program evaluation offices were not spared by these budget cuts. While many offices gained positions several years ago, the budget cuts of the past two years reversed this trend. Overall, the offices reported a loss of 42 positions since fiscal year 2000-01, representing about 5% of their former staffing levels. Many Units Have Lost Staff in Recent Years 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Over 50 Staff 26 to 50 Staff 11 to 25 Staff Up to 10 Staff Fiscal Year 2000-01 ( n=35) Fiscal Year 2001-02 ( n=33) Fiscal Year 2002-03 ( n=33) Fiscal Year 2003-04 ( n=35) Threats to offices In the past few years with difficult fiscal situations facing states, some offices have faced threats of downsizing, merger with another entity, or elimination. In some instances these proposals were made as part of an overall legislative or governmental reorganization plan, or reflected efforts by the executive branch to silence persistent critics. While many offices experienced some level of staff reductions reflecting overall state budget reductions, none of the threats to the offices materialized. 4 A Few Units Have Experienced Threats to Downsize, Merge, or Eliminate Unit (n=37) No 86% Yes 14% Research standards To help ensure that they produce high-quality work, many offices have adopted professional standards to guide their research activities. Almost two-thirds of the offices have adopted the Government Auditing Standards (known as the Yellow Book), which is disseminated by the U.S. General Accountability Office. Other offices have adopted The Program Evaluation Standards (known as the Red Book) issued by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, or the Guiding Principles issued by the American Evaluation Association. Still other offices follow other standards such as those issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Institute of Internal Auditors, statutory review criteria, or a variety of good research practices. These research standards vary somewhat, but all require the offices to maintain personal and professional objectivity in their work, to carefully plan and implement their evaluation studies, to ensure that all reported results are accurate and supported by research findings, and to write and disseminate reports that can be readily understood and used by their legislatures and other users. Most Units Use Government Auditing Standards (n=37) Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book) Program Evaluation Standards (Red Book) American Evaluation Association Guiding Principles Other Standards No Formal Standards 62% 5% 3% 16% 24% Note: Some offices provided more than one answer. 5 Offices that follow the Government Auditing Standards must periodically undergo a peer review to assess compliance with the standards. Of the 23 offices that reported undergoing a peer review, most (17) used the National State Auditors’ Association to conduct the review. The remaining offices received their peer reviews through the National Conference of State Legislatures or other entities. Most Entities Used National State Auditors’ Association to Perform Their Peer Reviews (n=23) Nati onal State Auditors' Associati on 74% National Conference of State Legisl atures 9% Other 17% Products Program evaluation offices serve their legislatures by producing a variety of research products. Almost all of the offices conduct performance audits/evaluations of state agencies and programs as one of their primary functions. These audits may address varying issues, including whether agencies are following legislative intent, whether programs are well managed and are producing the desired results for citizens, and whether policy alternatives could improve operations and save taxpayer money. About half of the offices also conduct financial and compliance audits in addition to their program evaluation functions. About a third of the offices also conduct investigations of incidents and/or agencies that are of concern to their legislatures. About a quarter of the offices have some role in developing, critiquing, or validating performance measures being developed in their states. These roles include providing technical assistance to the legislature and state agencies, reviewing the reliability and validity of performance data reported by state agencies, and interpreting performance results for legislative committees. A quarter of the offices also have additional roles supporting their legislatures through services such as developing fiscal notes identifying the potential impact of legislative proposals and/or assisting in drafting legislation, and about a fifth regularly conduct sunset reviews that examine whether current state programs and agencies should be continued. Finally, slightly less than half of the offices provide additional services such conducting best practice reviews of local government entities such as school district operations, and/or providing policy research services to individual legislators. 6 Offices Conduct a Variety of Activities (n=37) Performance and Program Audits Financial/Compliance Audits Other Investigations Assessment of Performance and Data Fiscal Notes Sunset Reviews Bill Drafting 8% 30% 27% 24% 19% 43% 54% 92% Note: Some offices provided more than one answer. Research topic selection The offices set their research agendas in several ways. In most states, the decision on what programs evaluate is made by the legislature itself. In these states, the offices are directed to conduct specific studies through provisions in enacted bills, proviso language in appropriations acts, or directives of their governing committee or legislative leadership. About a fifth of the offices also conduct at least some studies on their own initiative. A few offices initiate studies upon the request of the governor or an executive agency or at citizens’ requests. Most Project Initiation Originates as a Legislative Directive (n=37) Legislative Directive Governing Committee Legislative Request Self-Initiated Executive Branch Request 4% 23% 21% 19% 32% Reflecting the desire to be responsive to their parent legislatures, most offices selfinitiate relatively few studies and typically are doing so for less than 10% of their workload. However, seven offices self-initiate between 10% and 50% of their projects, and two self-initiate more than half of their projects. 7 Reports The offices vary in the number of reports they publish each year, reflecting their differing staff sizes and responsibilities. Offices most frequently produce up to 10 evaluation reports per year or between 11 and 25 evaluation reports annually. However, about a fifth of the offices produce more than 25 reports per year. Most Offices Released Between 10 and 25 Reports Last Year (n=35) Up to 10 Reports 11 to 25 Reports Over 25 Reports 20% 40% 40% Legislative evaluation offices face competing demands when reporting research results, seeking to quickly convey results to busy legislators but also provide complete information on research findings. As shown below, the reports issued by most offices are generally 25 pages or more. About a third of the offices generally issue reports that range from 11 to 25 pages in length, while the remaining offices generally issue short reports of 10 pages or less. Most Units’ Reports Were Longer Than 25 Pages (n=37) Up to 10 pages 11 to 25 pages Over 25 pages 5% 30% 65% About half of the offices have changed the length of their typical reports in recent years, most by issuing shorter reports. 8 Half of Units Have Changed Their Report Length in the Past Five Years (n=37) (n=17) Longer 9% Shorter 42% No 49% Yes 51% In reporting research findings, it can be useful to provide real or hypothetical examples of cases examined or incidents uncovered, as these “stories” can help to make findings real to legislators and other readers. Most of the offices (84%) reported including these “stories” in their reports. Most Units Use Real or Hypothetical Examples of Incidents (n=37) Yes 84% No 16% Short-term studies Most offices have developed the capability to conduct short-term research studies that can be completed in less than two months. These ‘rapid response reviews’ enable the offices to quickly provide information for their legislatures. For some offices these short-term projects constitute more than 30% of their total work. 9 Most Units Conduct a Limited Number of Reviews in Less Than Two Months (n=36) Less than 10% 10% to 20% 21% to 30% 31% or More 6% 6% 25% 64% Follow-up studies Most offices also conduct some type of follow-up work to determine whether agencies have taken action to correct problems identified in previous studies. These studies help legislatures ensure that corrective actions result from legislative oversight studies. Over three-quarters of the offices conduct these follow-up studies. Most (78%) of the offices do so on a selective basis, doing follow-up studies on between 10% and 50% of their prior reports. However, about a fifth of the offices conduct follow-up studies on over half of their reports. Most Units Publish Follow-Up Studies (n=37) Yes 78% No 22% Communication strategies Legislative program evaluation offices typically take several steps to make their legislatures and the public aware of their reports. Most offices provide copies of their reports and/or report executive summaries to legislative committees as well as individual legislators. Offices also typically provide copies of their reports to the media and the executive branch budget office. The offices also frequently provide briefings to legislators, legislative staff, and committees. Most offices also generally provide recommendations for legislative action, identify the potential fiscal impact of 10 these proposals, and identify specific sections of statues that are affected by the recommendations. Over half of the offices use email to notify legislators, staff, and the media of pending report releases. However, few offices issue press releases on evaluation reports, and very few hold press conferences. Most offices also avoid activities that could be seen as lobbying legislators or committees to promote adoption of recommendations. Offices Use a Variety of Communication Methods to Publicize Their Reports Usually Copies to Committees Executive Summaries to All Legislators Copies to Governor's Budget Office Send Report Copies to the Press Executive Summaries to All Committees Recommendations for Legislative Action Statutory Sections Affected by Report Email Pending Releases Estimates of Fiscal Impact Presentations to Relevant Committees Copies to All Legislators Briefings to Relevant Legislative Staff Briefings to Relevant Legislator(s) Draft Bill Language Write Press Releases Hold Press Conferences Lobby Committees and Legislators to Implement Recommendations 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Sometimes Never The offices also take additional steps to communicate report summaries to busy stakeholders such as legislators and legislative staff. Most offices send hard copies of report executive summaries to these persons, and about half provide summaries via email. About a third of the offices provide PowerPoint presentations that summarize findings or use other methods such as oral briefings. Relatively few offices provide summaries via audio tapes or CD-ROMS. 11 Most Units Use Several Strategies to Communicate Summaries of Reports to Key Legislators or Stakeholders Hard Copies of Summaries Copies of Published Reports Email PowerPoint Presentations Other CD-ROMs Does Not Routinely Communicate Audio Tapes 6% 3% 3% 36% 36% 49% 84% 76% (n=37) Note: Some offices provided more than one answer. Media outreach The offices typically do not actively solicit press coverage of their reports. As shown below, slightly over half of the offices provide copies of published reports to the media, and 39% notify the press by email when a new report is issued. Nearly a quarter of the offices issue press releases for at least some reports. Relatively few offices contact the media by phone or fax to publicize new reports, and only one office regularly holds press conferences to publicize reports. Most Units Send Copies of Their Published Reports to the Press Copies of Published Reports Email Press Releases Does Not Routinely Contact Media Fax Phone Calls Press Conferences Other 3% 11% (n=37) 24% 22% 19% 17% 39% 53% Note: Some offices provided more than one answer. 12 Interactions with the legislatures and other stakeholders While legislative evaluation units wish to have their work used by their parent legislatures, they often maintain a degree of separation from legislators and staff in conducting their studies. As shown below, the units most frequently contact legislators and key staff during the research issue selection phase of studies; almost 80% of the offices often or always contacted legislative members and staff during this process. Once a research topic is selected, however, the offices tend to maintain more distance from their legislatures when carrying out the studies. Relatively few offices contact legislators and staff to discuss research designs or potential recommendations, and fewer than 30% generally provide interim briefings on research progress. While more offices contact their legislatures to discuss report timing issues, fewer than half of the offices regularly do so. Offices Most Often Contact Legislators and Staff During Issue Selection Phase (n=37) Research Issue Selection Report Timing Interim Briefings Research Design Recommendation Development Usually/ Always Often Sometimes Never/ Rarely While the offices regularly communicate with a variety of legislative and other stakeholders, they have the most communication with legislative oversight committees (and many organizationally report through such committees). The offices also typically have frequent communication with legislative fiscal committee staff and leadership staff, as well as staff of legislative policy committees. The offices typically have occasional contact with legislative chairs and legislative leaders. Reflecting the separation of power, most offices have only occasional contact with executive branch budget and leadership staff. 13 Offices Communicate Most Often with Oversight Committees (n=37) Oversight Committee Legislative Fiscal Staff Legislative Leadership Staff Legislative Policy Staff Legislative Leaders Chairs of Policy Committees Chairs of Fiscal Committees Executive Branch Budget Committee Staff Governor's Office Leadership Staff 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Often Occasionally Seldom The offices were split on whether their working relationship with their legislatures had changed in recent years, with slightly over half of the offices reporting that the working relationship had changed over this period. Working Relationship with Legislature Has Changed for Most Offices (n=37) Yes 58% No 42% Regarding the offices’ working relationships with various key stakeholders, most offices indicated that their current relationships were appropriate. The offices that wished to develop closer working relationships with key stakeholders most frequently cited a desire to work more closely with legislative leadership staff and chairs of policy committees. 14 Most Offices Feel Current Stakeholder Relationships Are Appropriate (n=37) Executive Branch Budget Committee Staff Oversight Committee Legislative Leaders Governor's Office Leadership Staff Chairs of Fiscal Committees Legislative Policy Committee Staff Legislative Fiscal Committee Staff Chairs of Policy Committees Legislative Leadership Staff 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Currently about right Should be closer Other Impact Use of program evaluations and performance audits by legislatures is often difficult to gauge, as there are many types of use—holding hearings, enacting bills that change public policy, modifying agency appropriations, and pressing agency managers to make needed improvements in addition to formally adopting recommendations. The offices were split on whether use of their work had increased in recent years, with somewhat over half of offices believing that their reports were used more than in the past. Reports Are Used More Compared to Five Years Ago (n=37) About the Same 43% More 57% The offices believed that many factors influence legislative use of their reports, with the most important factors being the relevance of issues and findings to legislative debate, the units’ reputation, the timing of reports, and the clarity of the report findings. 15 Several Factors Influence Legislature’s Use of Reports (n=37) Relevance of Issue and Findings Unit's Reputation Clarity in Reports Timing of Report Release Conflict Surrounding Policy Issues Covered Level of Communication (Unit and Legislature) Advocates for Report Implementation Support Methods Used Existence of Detractor 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Strong Moderate Little None Cost savings Although many legislative program evaluations identify opportunities to reduce government costs, most offices (59%) do not track the cumulative value of such recommendations. However, as shown below, 11 offices reported the cumulative value of their recommendations over the past two years. The range of these potential savings recommended by these offices ranged from $6 million to over $1.2 billion, and collectively the cumulative potential savings recommended by these offices was over $2.4 billion. Cost Savings Recommended and Cost Savings Implemented ( n=11) $2,403,849,000 $817,120,000 Cost Savings Recommended Cost Savings Implemented Because some recommendations that would produce savings require policy changes that have many implications, it is to be expected that some would not be adopted by legislatures. However, nine offices reported actual cost savings achieved through 16 implementation of recommendations over the past two years; the amount of these savings ranged from $1.1 million to over $400 million. Collectively, the offices reported saving their states over $817 million. It is likely that these savings will increase over time as legislators have more time to consider recommendations. Annual listing of recommendations To help maximize impact, most offices issue some type of annual report listing recommendations that have not yet been implemented from prior reports. These reports can help promote use of the offices’ work by enabling legislatures to quickly identify these recommendations and consider them during sessions and/or mandate that agencies take corrective action to resolve identified problems. Most offices include recommendations for both legislative and agency action in their annual reports. However a quarter of the offices include only recommendations for legislative consideration, while others list only those recommendations that address agency needs for corrective action. Most Units Issue Annual Reports of Recommendations Not Implemented (n=37) Yes 78% No 22% Assessment of NLPES and NCSL services All legislative program evaluation offices and their staff are members of the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society (NLPES) as well as the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2 The offices gave the most positive ratings to the NLPES listserve, which enables offices to quickly contact program evaluators in other states. The NLPES fall training conference also was considered to by very useful to most offices. The NLPES newsletter and websites were also found to be useful to most states. NCSL’s standing committees and its annual meetings were not viewed as being as useful to the offices, perhaps in part because relatively few staff are able to attend these events. NLPES is a staff section within NCSL, which also has staff sections serving other types of legislative staff such as policy committee, fiscal committee, and leadership staff. 2 17 Most NLPES and NCSL Services Are Useful (n=37) Very Useful NLPES Listserve NLPES Fall Training Conference NLPES Website NLPES Newsletter NLPES Database of Evaluation Reports NLPES Question of the Month NCSL Policy Area Contact Persons NCSL Annual Meeting NCSL Standing Committees Somewhat Useful Not Useful Don't Know While the NLPES fall training conference draws more attendees than most of NCSL’s other staff section conferences, several factors affect offices’ ability to send staff to these meetings. Travel and meetings costs, state travel restrictions, the overall quality of the program, and the ability of staff to make presentations at the meeting are important factors in attendance. Budget and Quality of Program Are the Primary Factors That Affect Attendance at Events (n=37) Cost/Budget Quality of Program and Sessions Travel Restrictions Staff Presenting at Conference Location Time of Year Staff Time/Conference Length Very Important Important Less Important 18 Part B – Profiles of NLPES Member Offices ALABAMA ...................Examiners of Public Accounts................................................................ 21 CALIFORNIA ..............State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits .................................................... 22 COLORADO ...............Colorado Office of the State Auditor ...................................................... 23 FLORIDA ....................Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability ....... 24 GEORGIA ...................Performance Audit Operations Division, Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts......................................... 25 HAWAII .......................Office of the Auditor ............................................................................... 26 IDAHO.........................Office of Performance Evaluations......................................................... 27 ILLINOIS .....................Office of the Auditor General.................................................................. 28 INDIANA .....................Office of Fiscal and Management Analysis ............................................ 29 IOWA ..........................Fiscal Division of the Legislative Services Agency ................................ 30 KANSAS .....................Legislative Division of Post Audit ........................................................... 31 MARYLAND ................Office of Legislative Audits ..................................................................... 32 MICHIGAN ..................Office of the Auditor General.................................................................. 33 MINNESOTA...............Office of the Legislative Auditor ............................................................. 34 MISSISSIPPI...............Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review ...................................................... 35 MISSOURI ..................Oversight Division, Committee on Legislative Research ....................... 36 MONTANA ..................Legislative Audit Division ....................................................................... 37 NEBRASKA ................Legislative Performance Audit Section .................................................. 38 NEVADA .....................Legislative Counsel Bureau ................................................................... 39 NEW MEXICO ............Legislative Finance Committee .............................................................. 40 NORTH CAROLINA....Fiscal Research Division........................................................................ 41 NORTH DAKOTA .......North Dakota Legislative Council ........................................................... 42 OHIO...........................Legislative Office of Education Oversight .............................................. 43 PENNSYLVANIA ........Legislative Budget and Finance Committee........................................... 44 SOUTH CAROLINA ....Legislative Audit Council ........................................................................ 45 TENNESSEE ..............Research and Education Accountability................................................. 46 TEXAS ........................State Auditor's Office.............................................................................. 47 TEXAS ........................Sunset Advisory Commission ................................................................ 48 UTAH ..........................Office of the Legislative Auditor General................................................ 49 VIRGINIA ....................Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission .................................... 50 WISCONSIN ...............Performance Audit Division, Wisconsin Audit Bureau............................ 51 WYOMING ..................Legislative Service Office, Program Evaluation Section ........................ 52 19 20 Alabama Examiners of Public Accounts Governing Body Created Staff Products Legislature 1883 There are 11 staff. The office conducts Sunset Reviews and Special Evaluations. Estimated Percentage of Workload 50% 50% Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Sunset reviews Comments We are one division of a larger legislative audit agency that also includes other divisions that perform compliance and financial audits of state and county governmental entities and institutions of higher education. examiners.state.al.us John Norris, Operational Division Director Examiners of Public Accounts P O Box 302251 Montgomery, AL 36130-2251 (334) 242-9257 FAX: (334) 353-1331 firstname.lastname@example.org Website Contact 21 California State Auditor, Bureau of State Audits Governing Body Created Staff Legislature (Joint Legislative Audit Committee) 1993; prior to 1993, the Office of the Auditor General There are 109 professional staff and 18 support staff. Disciplines include accounting (mostly CPAs), public administration, business administration, economics and political science. The State Auditor's Office conducts performance, financial, and compliance audits as directed by statute or requested by members of the Legislature. The Joint Legislative Audit Committee approves the audits requested by members of the Legislature. In addition to performing audits, the State Auditor administers the California Whistleblower Protection Act by investigating complaints of alleged violations of the law or regulations by state agencies or employees. In 2003, the State Auditor's Office issued 37 reports, which included performance audits; financial audits, such as those required by the Single Audit Act; and investigations. Estimated Percentage of Workload 30% 60% 10% Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Investigations Comments The State Auditor's Office tracks the implementation of its recommendations and the cost savings associated with them. Our auditees have implemented or are in the process of implementing 83% of the 380 recommendations we issued during fiscal year 2002-03. We estimate that by implementing our recommendations, the state could save more than $440 million during the period July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2003. In addition, many of the savings we have identified are not only one-time benefits; they are monetary benefits that could be realized each year for many years to come. www.bsa.ca.gov Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0255 ElaineH@bsa.ca.gov Website Contact FAX: (916) 323-0913 22 Colorado Colorado Office of the State Auditor Governing Body The Office of the State Auditor presents audit reports to the Legislative Audit Committee (LAC). The LAC is a bipartisan committee of four senators and four representatives. The committee chair alternates between both major parties annually. The Office of the State Auditor was established by the state constitution and state statutes. The State Auditor is nominated by the Legislative Audit Committee and confirmed by the General Assembly for five-year terms. There are 51 audit staff and 6 support staff. Performance and financial audits are the products. In 2000 the office issued 71 financial and performance audits. The primary service provided by the office is the facilitation of positive change in state government. Estimated Percentage of Workload 25% 75% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Comments Annually, the office reports on "Recommendations Implemented," ''Legislation Resulting from Audits," and "Savings Resulting from Audits." The office generally achieves an 88% recommendation implementation rate, has a 3:1 ratio of savings to costs, and has 10 - 12 bills passed each year as a result of audits. www.leg.state.co.us/OSA/coauditor1.nsf Cindi Stetson, Deputy State Auditor 200 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 (303) 869-2800 FAX: (303) 869-3060 email@example.com Website Contact 23 Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability Governing Body Created Joint Legislative Auditing Committee and legislative leadership 1994 as independent unit; prior to that date we were the Program Audit Division of the Florida Auditor General There are 81 professional staff and 5 support staff. All professional staff have professional certification or master's degrees or higher. Disciplines include public administration, accounting, business administration, political science, English, and law among others. OPPAGA’s primary product is program evaluations and policy analyses on issues identified by the Florida Legislature. OPPAGA also conducts follow-up studies on prior reports to determine if agencies have taken actions to resolve identified problems. In 2004-05, OPPAGA will produce an estimated 80 reports. Our annual Business Plan (available on our website) identifies our research agenda, but is subject to change as we receive additional research topics throughout the year from the Legislature. OPPAGA also maintains the Florida Government Accountability Report (FGAR), an online encyclopedia of Florida government that includes descriptive and evaluative information on approximately 250 programs. FGAR is also distributed in a printed version to legislators and their staff. OPPAGA also publishes the Florida Monitor Weekly, an Internet newsletter summarizing new OPPAGA reports and other public policy research related to Florida; subscriptions are free and can be made at OPPAGA’s website. Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Assessments of performance measures and data Other: Non-project research to assist committees Comments Estimated Percentage of Workload 85% 5% 10% Staff Products As the Legislature’s research arm, OPPAGA provides regular consultations and technical assistance to members and staff in addition to conducting formal research projects. This activity has substantially increased in recent years and has helped OPPAGA meet the changing information and research needs of our legislature. OPPAGA made significant changes to FGAR to make it more user-friendly and will be publishing FGAR in six desktop guides organized by policy area. The desktop guides provide a quick and easy source of information to help members and staff respond to constituents, prepare for presentations, and research topics of interest. Website Contact www.oppaga.state.fl.us and www.oppaga.state.fl.us/government Gary VanLandingham, Interim Director 111 W. Madison, Suite 312 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1475 (850) 488-0021 FAX: (850) 487-9083 firstname.lastname@example.org 24 Georgia Performance Audit Operations Division, Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Governing Body Created Staff Georgia General Assembly 1971 There are 30 professional staff and one administrative staff person. Disciplines and certifications include MBA, MPA, CPA, CIA, CFE, political science, English, communications, business administration, decision science, and molecular biology. The division conducts performance audits, program evaluations, and special projects. If the project is requested by the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee, the report is identified as a program evaluation due to the wording of the code. There is no significant difference between a performance audit and a program evaluation. The reports are distributed to all members of the General Assembly as well as the Governor, agency personnel, and the media. A followup review to determine what improvements have been made is conducted of each report 18 months after the report is released. The results of the follow-up are distributed to the same groups as are the reports. All of our products are available as Adobe documents on our website. In fiscal year 2003 we released 28 reports. Estimated Percentage of Workload 80% 20% Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Assessments of performance measures and data Comments Based on our follow-up reviews, we have found that about 70% of the recommendations are acted upon and about 65% of what is recommenced has been implemented. The division does not track the amount of cost savings on a routine basis but can identify savings totaling over $48.5 million since 1995. www.audits.state.ga.us/internet/ John S. Abbey III, Deputy Director 254 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 314 Atlanta, GA 30334-8400 (404) 651-8859 FAX: (404) 656-7535 email@example.com Website Contact 25 Hawaii Office of the Auditor Governing Body Created State Legislature First auditor appointed in 1965 in accordance with the 1950 Constitutional Convention provision, which took effect with 1959 statehood. Auditor; deputy auditor; in-house counsel/editor; assistant auditors (3); IT coordinator; analysts (21); clerical (3.5) Financial audits, performance audits/studies, and follow-up audits. Estimated Percentage of Workload 13% 74% 13% Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Other: Follow-up studies Website Contact www.state.hi.us/auditor Marion Higa, State Auditor 465 South King Street, Room 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 (808) 587-0800 firstname.lastname@example.org FAX: (808) 587-0830 26 Idaho Office of Performance Evaluations Governing Body Joint Legislative Oversight Committee—an eight-member, equally bipartisan committee of the Legislature Enacting legislation was signed into law in 1993, and the office was established in 1994. The first evaluation report was released in 1995. There are six full-time evaluators, one support staff, and a director. Staff background includes academic disciplines in public administration, political science, business administration, economics, technical communication, chemistry, and biology. The office also uses consultants, part-time staff, and interns as needed. Performance evaluation reports, follow-up reports on earlier evaluations, executive summaries of evaluation reports, federal mandate reviews, and a semiannual newsletter. Note: Federal mandate reviews examine federal statutory or regulatory requirements; the extent to which Idaho's existing or proposed statutes and rules comply with these requirements; and the fiscal implications of taking steps to endorse or reject mandated requirements. Estimated Percentage of Workload 80% 20% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Other: Follow-up reviews, federal mandate reviews Website Contact www2.state.id.us/ope Rakesh Mohan, Director 700 W. State Street Suite 10, JR Williams Building P O Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0055 (208) 334-3880 email@example.com FAX: (208) 334-3871 27 Illinois Office of the Auditor General Governing Body The Auditor General is an independent constitutional officer. Audit reports are reviewed by the Legislative Audit Commission (a joint committee of 12 members of the Illinois General Assembly) 1971 – Illinois Constitution of 1970, 1973 – Illinois State Auditing Act The performance audit division has 19 audit staff; the financial/compliance audit division has 31 audit staff; and the information systems audit division has eight audit staff. Financial and compliance audits, management audits, program audits, and special studies. Estimated Percentage of Workload 90% 10% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Comments Many financial and compliance audits are conducted by public accounting firms under contract with the Office of the Auditor General. www.state.il.us/auditor Jim Schlouch, Director, Performance Audits Iles Park Plaza, 740 East Ash Street Springfield, IL 62703-3154 (217) 782-6046 FAX: (217) 785-8222 firstname.lastname@example.org Website Contact 28 Indiana Office of Fiscal and Management Analysis Governing Body Created Staff Legislative Council 1968 There are 17 professional staff and 1 support staff. Disciplines include public administration, law, accounting, economics, and statistics. The Office of Fiscal and Management Analysis is a division within the Legislative Services Agency that performs fiscal, budgetary, and management analysis. Within the office, teams of program analysts evaluate state agency programs and activities as set forth in IC 2-5-21. The goal of legislative evaluation and oversight is to improve the legislative decision-making process and, ultimately, state government operations by providing information about the performance of state agencies and programs through evaluation. The evaluation teams prepare reports for the Legislative Council in accordance with IC 2-5-21-9. The published reports describe state programs, analyze management problems, evaluate outcomes, and include other items as directed by the Legislative Evaluation and Oversight Policy Subcommittee of the Legislative Council. The reports are used by evaluation committees to determine need for legislative action. Estimated Percentage of Workload 85% 15% Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Fiscal notes Comments Each year, OFMA prepares reports for the Legislative Council in accordance with IC 2-5-21. In accordance with Legislative Council Resolution 99-8, OFMA published Issues Relating to the Indiana Department of Corrections in May 2000. The report has been prepared for use by the Corrections Matters Evaluation Committee. www.in.gov/legislative/ Diane Powers, Director Room 301, State House Indianapolis, IN 46204-2789 (317) 232-9853 email@example.com Website Contact FAX: (317) 232-2554 29 Iowa Fiscal Division of the Legislative Services Agency Governing Body Created The Legislative Council The Legislative Services Agency was created by the reorganization of three Central Staff agencies in 2003. The Fiscal Division was formerly the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau was created in 1976, program evaluation responsibility added in 1981, and LFB was assigned the responsibility for developing a legislative oversight function in 1986. The Fiscal Division of the LSA has 15 analysts and 2 supervisors providing mainly fiscal and budget analyses for the General Assembly. When directed to complete an evaluation, the division selects the appropriate staff based on skills and specialty area to form the team. For approximately the past 10 years the General Assembly has not requested the division to conduct a formal program evaluation, but has increased the oversight role of the division in other ways. The Fiscal Division of the LSA conducts budget and fiscal analyses as its primary responsibility. Reports include the department budget summary and Governor’s recommendation analysis, a quarterly report of projected revenues for the current and next fiscal years, appropriations tracking documents, and an annual fiscal report. The division also prepares special expenditure and legislative oversight editions of its newsletter. Currently, it issues review documents on topics of interest to the General Assembly. These focus on a single or a few issues and have in recent years replaced program evaluations, as they can be produced in a short, more timely fashion for decision making. The division produces 20 to 30 of these reports each interim. Additionally, during the Legislative Interim, the division provides staff support and conducts research on topics of interest to the Legislative Fiscal Committee and the Government Oversight Committee. Both of these meet most months during the interim period and provide fiscal and policy oversight for the General Assembly. This past year the Legislature added the responsibility of providing fiscal impact statements on all administrative rules being proposed by executive branch agencies. http://staffweb.legis.state.ia.us/lfb/ Douglas P. Wulf, Division Administrator Fiscal Division, Legislative Services Agency, Capitol Complex Des Moines, IA 50319 (515) 281-3250 FAX: (515) 281-6625 firstname.lastname@example.org Staff Products Comments Website Contact 30 Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit Governing Body Created Legislative Post Audit Committee Auditing has always been a part of state government in Kansas. The Kansas Constitution, adopted in 1859, provided for an elected State Auditor. In 1970, a constitutional amendment to abolish the Office of State Auditor was approved by the voters. The 1971 Legislature passed the bill and created the Legislative Post Audit Committee and the Legislative Division of Post Audit. There are 19 professional staff, including MBAs, attorneys, accountants, and other disciplines, and 2 support staff. Our office produces performance audit reports, compliance and control audit reports, and financial compliance audit reports (contracted to CPA firms). In addition, we issue executive summaries of each performance audit report. Estimated Percentage of Workload 1% 99% Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Comments In addition to our other audit products, we issue an annual follow-up report on the previous year's audit recommendations. Historically, auditees substantially implement 90+ percent of our recommendations. www.kslegislature.org/postaudit Barbara J. Hinton, Legislative Post Auditor 800 SW Jackson, Suite 1200 Topeka, KS 66612 (785) 296-3792 FAX: (785) 296-4482 email@example.com Website Contact 31 Maryland Office of Legislative Audits Governing Body Created Staff Joint Audit Committee 1968 There are 90 professional audit staff (mostly CPAs), plus 10 administration and support staff. The office conducts fiscal/compliance audits to determine whether an agency has implemented adequate internal controls and has complied with laws, rules, and regulations. It also conducts performance audits to evaluate whether an agency or program is operating in an economical, efficient, and effective manner and/or has achieved desired program results. Financial statement audits are also performed for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to whether or not an agency's financial statements are fairly presented. Additionally, the office is responsible for monitoring the financial reporting practices and financial condition of local governments in Maryland. Furthermore, the office operates a toll-free fraud hotline and reviews/investigates allegations of fraud, waste and abuse of state funds. Estimated Percentage of Workload 75% 25% Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Comments The office is organized into five divisions: Fiscal/Compliance Audits, Performance Audits, Information Systems Audits, Quality Assurance, and Professional Development and Administration. Staff resources are shared by the various divisions and are allocated to particular assignments based on the overall needs of the office. www.ola.state.md.us Gregory Hook, Director, Performance Audit Division 301 West Preston Street, Room 1202 Baltimore, MD 21201 (410) 946-5900 FAX: (410) 946-5999 firstname.lastname@example.org Website Contact 32 Michigan Office of the Auditor General Created The Michigan Office of the Auditor General was established March 1, 1836. Under the Constitution of 1963, the responsibilities increased to include performance audits as well as financial post audits. There are 124 professional staff and 27 support staff. The Michigan Office of the Auditor General performs financial and performance audits. Estimated Percentage of Workload 50% 50% Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Website Contact www.audgen.michigan.gov Thomas H. McTavish, CPA, Auditor General 201 N. Washington Square, 6th Floor Lansing, MI 48613 (517) 334-8050 FAX: (517) 334-8079 McTavisT@state.mi.us 33 Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor Governing Body Legislative Audit Commission (This is a 16-member legislative commission that is, by law, equally divided between House and Senate members, as well as between Democrats and Republicans.) The Program Evaluation Division was created in 1975. We have 13 permanent professional staff, with master's or doctoral decrees in public affairs, economics, sociology, industrial relations, psychology, and statistics. Our Program Evaluation Division also has one full-time support staffer, plus we share IT staff with our Financial Audit Division. To the extent that our budget allows, we have typically hired one to four additional staff on a temporary basis to help with projects. Program evaluation project teams are supervised by the Legislative Auditor. Each year, our office publishes five to eight evaluation/policy analysis reports that focus on state-funded activities. All topics are selected by the Legislative Audit Commission. Estimated Percentage of Workload 72% 25% 3% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Investigations Website Contact www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us Joel Alter, Program Evaluation Coordinator 140 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 (651) 296-8313 FAX: (651) 296-4712 email@example.com 34 Mississippi Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Governing Body Mississippi’s constitution gives the Legislature broad power to conduct examinations and investigations. PEER is authorized by law to review any public entity, including contractors supported in whole or in part by public funds, and to address any issues which may require legislative action. A standing joint committee, the PEER Committee, is composed of seven members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker and seven members of the Senate appointed by the Lieutenant Governor. Appointments are made for four-year terms with one senator and one representative appointed from each of the U.S. Congressional Districts and three senators and three representative appointed from the state at-large. Committee officers are elected by the membership with officers alternating annually between the two houses. By statute, all committee actions require a majority vote of four representatives and four senators. The Mississippi Legislature created the PEER Committee by statute in 1973. PEER's staff consists of 22 professionals and 5 support personnel, with most of the professionals designated as evaluators. The Joint Legislative PEER Committee has released 465 formal reports since 1973. Estimated Percentage of Workload 25% 25% 10% 10% 5% 25% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Sunset reviews Investigations Fiscal notes Other: Legislative assistance; background investigations Website Contact www.peer.state.ms.us Dr. Max K. Arinder, Executive Director Post Office Box 1204 Jackson, MS 39215-1204 (601) 359-1226 FAX: (601) 359-1420 firstname.lastname@example.org 35 Missouri Oversight Division, Committee on Legislative Research Governing Body Created Staff Joint Committee on Legislative Research 1984 The 17 FTE include 14 professionals and 3 support staff. Disciplines include accounting (CPAs), public administration, and business administration. Oversight conducts program evaluations upon request by the Legislature, prepares the annual report on state bonded indebtedness and has the responsibility for producing fiscal notes on all bills pending before the Legislature. Program evaluations and special reports are only completed during the interim, due to the heavy fiscal note workload during the legislative session. Estimated Percentage of Workload 50% 50% Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Fiscal notes Website Contact www.moga.state.mo.us/oversight/overhome.htm Mickey Wilson, CPA, Director Room 132 Capitol Building Jefferson City, MO 65101 (573) 751-4143 email@example.com FAX: (573) 751-7681 36 Montana Legislative Audit Division Governing Body Created Staff Legislative Audit Committee 1967 There are 28 financial/compliance, 12 performance and six information systems staff. Performance; Financial/Compliance; Information Technology Audits and Projects Estimated Percentage of Workload 50% 35% 15% Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Other: Legislative Requests for Information (5%); IT audits (10%) Comments The Montana Constitution mandates a legislative post-audit function. The Legislative Audit Act establishes the Legislative Audit Committee of the Montana Legislature and the Legislative Audit Division. The Mission and Goals of the Legislative Audit Division include: provide the Legislature, its committees, and its members with factual and timely information vital to the discharge of their legislative duties. The Legislative Auditor is solely responsible to the Legislative Assembly and is appointed by and operates primarily through the Legislative Audit Committee. Financial compliance audits determine if an agency's financial operations are properly conducted; if the agency has complied with applicable laws and regulations; and if the financial reports are presented fairly. Performance audits assess the effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness and value of the operations of state government. Information System audits examine controls within Information System operations to determine whether assets are adequately safeguarded and to determine the reliability of computer-generated reports. They can address efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition of computer equipment and management of computer resources. leg.state.mt.us/css/audit/ Jim Pellegrini, Deputy Legislative Auditor Room 160 State Capitol Building Helena, MT 59620 (406) 444-3122 FAX: (406) 444-9784 firstname.lastname@example.org Website Contact 37 Nebraska Legislative Performance Audit Section Governing Body Legislative Performance Audit Committee, a special committee created by the Legislative Performance Audit Act 1992 There are four professional staff supervised by the Legislative Research Division director. Disciplines include law, psychology, political science, and sociology. The Legislative Performance Audit Section conducts only program evaluations/performance audits. Our primary focus is improving program effectiveness, not identifying programs for reduction or elimination. Estimated Percentage of Workload 80% 10% 5% 5% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Assessments of performance measures and data Bill drafting Other: In conjunction with audits, we look at statutory and regulatory compliance. Comments Limited time and staff resources dictate that performance audits are to be undertaken in response to perceived problems or concerns and that they be focused and tailored rather than routine or periodic. www.unicam.state.ne.us/offices/research.htm Cynthia G. Johnson, Director Legislative Research Division Room 1201, State Capitol P.O. Box 94945 Lincoln, NE 68509-4945 (402) 471-2221 Website Contact FAX: (402) 479-0967 38 Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau Governing Body Created Staff The Legislative Commission 1949 There are 28 professional staff and 3 support staff. Disciplines include accounting, public administration, economics, political science, and business administration. Financial/compliance audits and performance audits/program evaluations. Estimated Percentage of Workload 35% 65% Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Comments Legislative audits have contributed significantly over the years to saving millions of dollars for Nevada's taxpayers. In the past two years alone, measurable financial benefits of more than $20 million have been realized by implementing our recommendations. These savings include increased revenues and reduced costs as a result of implementing our audit recommendations. www.leg.state.nv.us/lcb/audit/audit.cfm Paul Townsend, Legislative Auditor 401 S. Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701-4747 (775) 684-6815 email@example.com Website Contact FAX: (775) 684-6435 39 New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee Governing Body The New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee is composed of 16 legislators, 8 senators, and 8 representatives. Chairmen of the house appropriation and finance, house taxation and revenue and senate finance committee or members of their respective committees designated by each of them from time to time shall be members. Members shall be appointed for terms of two years and shall serve from the time of their appointment until the end of the next session of the legislature. Article 5, Legislative Fiscal Control was enacted by Laws 1957, Chapter 3. Legislative Finance Committee staff consists of one director, one deputy director for fiscal analysis, one deputy director for performance audits, one assistant director for economic and fiscal policy, one performance audit manager, 15 fiscal analysts, 9 auditors, and 7 administrative and support personnel. The educational background of the professional staff varies from public administration, business administration, to economics, law, accounting, and computer science. Certifications include certified public accountant, certified information system auditor, etc. Performance audits, reviews and analysis. Fiscal (appropriation) recommendations and policy analysis, computer system (project) funding recommendations and system development reports; and revenue and economic projections. Estimated Percentage of Workload 60% 20% 5% 15% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Assessments of performance measures and data Fiscal notes Other: System reviews, funding analysis, session support Website Contact www.legis.state.nm.us/newsite/lfcdefault.asp Manu Patel, Deputy Director Performance Audit 325 Don Gaspar, Suite 101 Santa Fe, NM 87501 (505) 986-4550 FAX: (505) 986-4535 Manu.firstname.lastname@example.org 40 North Carolina Fiscal Research Division Governing Body Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Fiscal notes Bill drafting Other: Legislative fiscal committee work Estimated Percentage of Workload 25% 10% 65% North Carolina General Assembly, Fiscal Research Division 1971 There are 31 professional staff and three support staff. Website Contact www.ncleg.net Jim Johnson, Fiscal Research Director NC General Assembly, Fiscal Research Div. Suite 619, Legislative Office Building 300 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27603-5925 (919) 733-4910 FAX: (919) 715-3589 JimJ@ncleg.net 41 North Dakota North Dakota Legislative Council Governing Body The Legislative Council is composed of 17 legislators. This includes the majority and minority leaders of both houses and the Speaker of the House. There are five other representatives that are appointed by the Speaker, two from the majority and three from the minority. The President of the Senate, who is the Lieutenant Governor, appoints three senators from the majority and two from the minority. 1945 Legislative Council staff consists of 9 attorneys, 5 CPAs, 3 information technology support; 1 research librarian, and 14 support and clerical staff. The employees work strictly on a nonpartisan basis. The council also has on its staff the Legislative Budget Analyst and the Auditor. They provide technical assistance to council members and staff and review audit reports for the Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee. The council staff provide services such as legal advice, counsels legislative members and committees on legislative matters and publications. These published materials include the Session Laws, North Dakota Century Code, and the North Dakota Administrative Code. Estimated Percentage of Workload 70% 20% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Other: Sometimes conduct limited reviews at the request of a legislative committee or individual legislators 10% Website Contact www.state.nd.us/lr Roxanne Woeste, Senior Fiscal Analyst State Capitol, 600 East Boulevard Bismarck, ND 58505-0360 (701) 328-2916 FAX: (701) 328-3615 email@example.com 42 Ohio Legislative Office of Education Oversight Governing Body Legislative Committee on Education Oversight (a 10-member bipartisan committee) Both the Legislative Committee on Education Oversight and its staff, the Legislative Office of Education Oversight, were created in 1989 by the 118th General Assembly. LOEO staff include 14.5 full-time equivalents, 2 of which are support personnel. The professional staff include 4 with Ph.D.s and 10 with master’s degrees across such disciplines as public administration, education, sociology, anthropology, and city and regional planning. LOEO conducts evaluations of state-funded education programs. Assignments to study particular programs come from either the bipartisan Oversight Committee or the General Assembly as a whole through statute. Estimated Percentage of Workload 95% 5% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Other: Policy analysis Website Contact www.loeo.state.oh.us Nancy C. Zajano, Ph.D., Director 77 South High Street, 15th floor Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 752-9686 firstname.lastname@example.org FAX: (614)752-3058 43 Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee Governing Body Legislative Budget and Finance Committee. This is a 12-member committee composed of six senators and six representatives, evenly divided between the two parties. 1959 by Act 195 Total office staff of 20, including two attorneys, two CPAs, and one Ph.D. in social work. Most of the analyst staff have master's degrees. The vast majority of our work is performance audits or evaluation studies. Also, we do an annual informational booklet on the new state budget, and occasionally we are asked to conduct what we term informational studies (e.g., to determine the wages being paid to MH/MR and child day care workers across the state). Estimated Percentage of Workload 90% 10% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Other: Informational reports Website Contact http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/ Philip R. Durgin, Executive Director P.O. Box 8737 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8737 (717) 783-1600 email@example.com FAX: (717) 787-5487 44 South Carolina Legislative Audit Council Governing Body The Legislative Audit Council is a citizen body whose five members are elected by the General Assembly for six-year terms. The members are nominated by a merit nominating committee and cannot have served in the General Assembly for the preceding two years. One member must be an attorney and one must be a CPA. In addition, four members of the General Assembly serve ex officio. 1975 (Section 2-15-10 et.seq. of the South Carolina Code of Laws) Current staff of 14 includes 11 auditors and 3 administrative personnel. All of the audit staff have master's degrees or professional licenses. Staff includes attorneys, CPAs, and staff with degrees in public administration, history, journalism, political science, economics and other related fields. The LAC's mission is to conduct independent, objective performance audits of state agencies and programs. Most audits are conducted at the request of groups of legislators who have questions about potential problems in state agencies or programs or at the sole request of the Speaker of the House or President Pro Tem of the Senate; others are performed as a result of statutory mandate. In Fiscal Year 2003 the LAC produced six audits and five follow-up reviews. Estimated Percentage of Workload 100% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Comments The LAC has served South Carolina for 28 years. Over its existence, the LAC has identified an estimated $1.25 billion in cost savings/improved resource allocation. www.state.sc.us/sclac George L. Schroeder, Director 1331 Elmwood Ave., Suite 315 Columbia, SC 29206 (803) 253-7612 firstname.lastname@example.org Website Contact FAX: (803) 253-7639 45 Tennessee Research and Education Accountability Governing Body Tennessee General Assembly. The Offices of Research and Education Accountability are part of the Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury. Any legislator may request our office's services through the Comptroller. We are not governed by a particular committee, but may report directly to any standing or special committees, depending on the subject. 1994 There are 15 professional positions, 1 clerical position, and an established internship program. Office of Research Reports, Office of Education Accountability Reports, Memorandum Reports on Specific Short Subjects, and Fiscal Notes (also assist Comptroller with monitoring legislation during session) Estimated Percentage of Workload 60% 20% 20% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Fiscal notes Other: Committee monitoring Comments Performance audits of specific departments have been conducted by the Division of State Audit, another division of the Comptroller's Office, since 1977. The OREA was created to be more responsive to the Legislature's needs and to address issues that may be interdepartmental or include local governments. www.comptroller.state.tn.us/cpdivorea.htm Ethel R. Detch, Director 1700 James K. Polk Bldg. Nashville, TN 37243-0268 (615) 401-7911 email@example.com Website Contact FAX: (615) 532-9237 46 Texas State Auditor's Office Governing Body Created Staff Products Legislative Audit Committee 1929 There are 230 staff. The State Auditor’s Office (SAO) currently has 110 audit staff working in Audit and Assurance Services. Among them is the Special Investigations Unit, which conducts fraud investigations and tracks and responds to telephone calls to the state fraud hotline. The 97 non-audit staff work in the following: External Education Services, which organizes and sponsors training for auditors statewide; Management Advisory Services, which assists agencies with organizational improvement; Risk Assessment Team, which conducts ongoing evaluations of risk and develops project proposals to increase the SAO’s knowledge of state agencies and universities; and the State Classification Office, which maintains job descriptions for state employees and issues quarterly FTE reports and findings on state employment. SAO staff maintain a diverse range of skills and certifications including Certified Public Accountants, Master of Business Administration, Master in Public Administration/Affairs, various Ph.D.s, Certified Internal Auditors, and Certified Information Systems Auditors. Estimated Percentage of Workload 87% 5% 8% Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Investigations Comments The SAO audits state agencies and universities for Financial/Compliance Performance Measures, Classification and Investigations), Economy/Efficiency (Management Control Audits and Quality Assurance Team Reviews), and Effectiveness. www.sao.state.tx.us Craig D. Kinton, CPA, Audit Director Robert E. Johnson Building, Suite 4-224 1501 N. Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701 (512) 936-9330 FAX: (512) 936-9400 firstname.lastname@example.org Website Contact 47 Texas Sunset Advisory Commission Governing Body Joint Legislative Commission composed of five senators and one public member appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, and five representatives and one public member appointed by the Speaker of the House. 1977 Sunset employs 23 professional staff (policy analysts) and 5 support staff. Disciplines include public affairs, business, law, social work, sociology, political science, and others. Sunset is the regular assessment of the need for a state agency to exist. The Texas Legislature created the Sunset Commission to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. The commission reviews the policies and programs of more than 150 state agencies over a 12year period and considers changes to improve each agency's operations and activities. Once the evaluation phase of an agency's review is completed, Sunset staff publish a report containing statutory and management recommendations for consideration by the commission and, eventually, by the full Legislature. Estimated Percentage of Workload 95.0% 2.5% 2.5% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Sunset reviews Fiscal notes Bill drafting Comments The Sunset process has streamlined and improved state government. Since the first reviews, 47 agencies have been abolished and another 11 agencies have been consolidated. In addition, the Legislature has adopted a large majority of the improvements recommended by the Sunset Commission. The fiscal impact of Sunset recommendations from reviews conducted between 1982 and 1999 indicate a potential 21-year revenue generation savings of $736.9 million, compared with expenditures of $20 million for the Sunset Commission. Based on these estimates, for every dollar spent on the Sunset process, the state has received $37 in return. www.sunset.state.tx.us Ken Levine, Deputy Director P.O. Box 13066 Austin, TX 7871 (512) 463-1300 email@example.com Website Contact FAX: (512) 463-0705 48 Utah Office of the Legislative Auditor General Governing Body Audit Subcommittee of Legislative Management Committee whose members are the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, and two members from the minority leadership. 1975 There are 21 professional staff (including two who are part time) and 3 support staff. Disciplines include public administration, business administration, law, English, and public policy. Staff certifications include public accountant (CPA) internal auditor (CIA) and fraud examiner (CFE). Performance audits fall into three categories and are designed to help legislators oversee and evaluate state agency operations and state program results. These are operational audits, determining if an agency is operating at the least possible cost to the taxpayer; program audits, determining if state programs are meeting their objectives; and compliance audits, determining if administrators are following what the legislators intended. Estimated Percentage of Workload 10% 60% 20% 10% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Investigations Assessments of performance measures and data Comments Since its creation in 1975, the Office of the Legislative Auditor General has identified possible cost savings and revenue increases of $132 million. The 2000 Legislature passed a bill assigning our office new responsibilities in an effort to help prevent problems that may occur when new state programs begin operations. We will provide new programs with a list of best practices in setting up their program or agency. Then, within two years after a program's creation we will send a self-evaluation survey to the agency covering topics such as policies, performance measures, and data collection. www.le.state.ut.us/audit/olag.htm Tim Osterstock, Audit Manager 130 State Capitol Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0151 (801) 538-1033 x106 firstname.lastname@example.org Website Contact FAX: (801) 538-1063 49 Virginia Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Governing Body JLARC staff are governed by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, which is a free standing agency of the Virginia General Assembly. The commission consists of nine delegates and five senators. 1973 There are currently 27 staff members including the director. The staff consists of analysts with social science research backgrounds, generally at the masters or doctoral level. In addition to analysts, there are two full-time administrative staff. Reports, briefings, spending studies, and fiscal impact reviews. Estimated Percentage of Workload 80% 2% 2% 2% 14% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Investigations Assessments of performance measures and data Fiscal notes Other: Policy analysis (10), report updates (4) Comments JLARC is separate from the Commonwealth's Auditor of Public Accounts, an office that adheres to Yellow Book and GASB standards. The APA website is www.apa.state.va.us jlarc.state.va.us/ Wendy Brown, Senior Legislative Analyst Suite 1100, General Assembly Building, Capitol Square Richmond, VA 23219 (804) 786-1258 FAX: (804) 371-0101 email@example.com Website Contact 50 Wisconsin Performance Audit Division, Wisconsin Audit Bureau Governing Body Created Staff Joint Legislative Audit Committee Agency--1965; program evaluation--1979 There are 87 staff—29 in program evaluation and best practices; 45 in financial audit; and 13 management, IS, and support staff. LAB's primary products are the program evaluations and financial audits it conducts of state agency operations. The bureau also conducts best practices reviews of local government operations to highlight effective and innovative service delivery methods. Estimated Percentage of Workload 60% 38% 2% Products Products and Activities Performed Financial/compliance audits Performance audits/program evaluations Other: Best practices reviews Comments In addition to formal evaluations and audits, the Legislative Audit Bureau also produces unnumbered and letter reports in response to legislative requests or to meet state or federal funding requirements. Typically, these are shorter documents addressing more narrowly defined issues. www.legis.state.wi.us/lab Janice Mueller, State Auditor 22 East Mifflin Street, Suite 500 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 266-2818 firstname.lastname@example.org Website Contact FAX: (608) 267-0410 51 Wyoming Legislative Service Office, Program Evaluation Section Governing Body The Management Council of the Wyoming Legislature makes staffing and operational decisions concerning the Legislative Service Office. The Management Audit Committee, a separate but similarly-constituted committee, receives and acts on program evaluation reports. The Management Audit Committee is a bipartisan 11-member committee: the leadership of the House and Senate each appoint 5 members; committee members select the eleventh member and elect a chairman from the opposite house; and each biennium, the chairmanship and the eleventh member alternate house of origin. 1971 The Program Evaluation Section has seven staff; their disciplines include public administration, public health, law, and liberal arts. Report topics are assigned by the Management Audit Committee and focus on the operations and outcomes of state government programs. The reports often include some policy analysis and discussion of public policy options. The section produces two to four reports per year. Estimated Percentage of Workload 100% Created Staff Products Products and Activities Performed Performance audits/program evaluations Comments The section conducts follow-up reviews approximately two years after the release of reports. While cost savings are not tracked, a high percentage of report recommendations over the years have been implemented, either by the agencies, the Legislature, or both. legisweb.state.wy.us Barbara J. Rogers, Program Evaluation Manager 213 Capitol Building Cheyenne, WY 82001 (307) 777-7881 FAX: (307) 777-5466 email@example.com Website Contact 52 Part C - Survey Methodology The National Legislative Program Evaluation Society (NLPES) and the Fiscal Affairs Committee of National Conference of State Legislatures’ Assembly on State Issues were co-sponsors for a survey of legislative program evaluation offices. The survey gathered information on several areas of how these offices serve their state legislatures—organizational characteristics, types of products, staffing and recruitment; personnel policies and opportunities, future challenges and use of NLPES and NCSL services. The survey also asked each office to submit a one-page profile of their offices. To conduct the survey, we attempted to contact 54 NLPES member organizations and asked them to respond to the survey via the Internet. After several follow-up contacts, 37 member organizations responded. Generally, the offices that responded were those known to have active legislative performance evaluation offices, while the states that did not respond were known to have offices that were not highly active in conducting legislative performance evaluations. 53 The National Legislative Program Evaluation Society The National Legislative Program Evaluation Society (NLPES) is one of the staff sections within the National Conference of State Legislatures. NLPES’ membership includes employees of state legislative agencies engaged in program evaluation or performance auditing. NLPES promotes professionalism, training, and the exchange of ideas and information about legislative program evaluation. For more information, see the NLPES website at www.ncsl.org/programs/nlpes.
Pages to are hidden for
"Ensuring the Public Trust Program Policy Evaluation s Role in"Please download to view full document