GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (GASB)

MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR

The measurement effort has been driven by the Chair of the County Board of Commissioners.  The recent beginning of performance measurement can be traced to 1975.  A 1990 resolution adopted by the board of commissioners stressed evaluation and outcomes assessment.  Similar budget related resolutions passed in the early 90s gradually moved the government toward a managing-for-results approach.  In 1998, the RESULTS Staff Group presented a plan to move performance measurement from an emphasis on outputs and workload to outcomes and results. 

The Key Results program provided guidance on the development of a program performance based budget, which included a request for a comprehensive set of performance measures.  Key Results were eventually developed for 10 departments (as of 1998), and represented the largest number of published measures, intended to communicate outputs, cost, and outcomes.  Measure development seems to be dominated by the Office of the Budget but it is not clear how they are involved in the selection or review of measures.  There is only mixed evidence that employees are involved in the selection and use of measures.  Some were sent to the Key Results program. 

Items of note include:

• There is a Citizen Involvement Committee which appears to have solicited the participation of 6000 people in formulating benchmarks.  Community meetings, cable television shows, citizen advisory groups, and newsletter articles were used to get people involved. 

• Some sources of information indicate that citizens are extensively involved in government activities and work groups. 

• Interviews suggest that citizens are not at all involved in the selection of performance measures. 

• There did not appear to be any citizen groups both driving the use of information and calling for increased accountability. 

• Citizens are not involved in the development of the measurement model.  But several interviewees mentioned accountability to citizens and taxpayers as a driving force behind the county’s budget process. 

• Some interviews suggest that the public is neither interested nor aware of measurement effort, even though a lot of talk to this effect exists. 

• By some accounts, performance information is not used for accountability purposes, but people are beginning to see how it could be used to work toward this end. 

• The media are not involved in the selection and review of performance measures.  They are aware of the measurement efforts and feel that in the interest of objectivity, should not be involved.

• Case in Brief
• Download GASB Cases
• General Budgeting Teaching Notes
• Austin, TX Budgeting Teaching Notes
• Oregon Budgeting Teaching Notes
• Texas Budgeting Teaching Notes

 Local Governments:

Austin, TX; Multnomah County, OR; Portland, OR; Prince William County, VA; Tucson, AZ; Phoenix, AZ; Winston-Salem, NC; Catawba County, NC; Dayton, OH; Coral Springs, FL; Long Beach, CA; Ramsey County, MN 

 State Governments:  

Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas

 Background Information:

• GASB Performance Measurement Home
• Background on GASB and Performance Measurement
• Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reports