| State Agency KPM Links - Benchmark #35 |
|
|
|
 |
| Linked KPMs, FY 08 |
|
Click on the links below to see an analysis of each Key Performance Measure (KPM) from the agency’s 2008 Annual Performance Progress Report. All links go to a short pdf (current as of 2/2/09).
A check in the "On Target?" column means actual data was at or better than target in the most recent year shown in the agency's 2008 Annual Performance Progress Report.
Administrative Services, Department of
|
On Target?
|
PM #3: Number of years out of the last five that State Controller's Division wins GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting
|
√
|
PM #4: Annual turnover rate for the state workforce
|
√
|
PM #7: Uniform rent costs per square foot as a percent of private market rates
|
√
|
PM #12: Estimated savings resulting from price agreement pricing compared to prices that would be paid without the benefit of a price agreement
|
√
|
PM #13: Annual number of: a) worker's compensation; b) liability; c) property; and, d) total claims per 100 FTE
|
√
|
Economic and Community Development Department
|
|
PM #10: Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency's customer service as "good" or "excellent": overall, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise, availability of information
|
|
Governor's Office
|
|
PM #1: Percent of participants (customers) who rate the ERT process very good to excellent
|
|
Criminal Justice Commission
|
|
| PM #1: Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency’s customer service as “good” or “excellent”: overall, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise, availability of information |
|
| PM #2: Percentage of CJC grant funded drug courts that meet or exceed 75% or more of the grant requirements (i.e. individuals served, services delivered, etc) contained in their grant applications |
|
| PM #3: Percentage of recommendations from CJC staffed task forces, committees, and policy development groups which receive hearings or are implemented within two years of issuance |
|
Secretary of State
|
|
| PM #2: Dollar Value of Revenue Enhancements savings, or questioned costs in performance audit reports |
|
| PM #3: Dollar savings per dollar spent on economy and efficiency audits |
|
| PM #4: Percentage of audit recommendations implemented |
|
| PM #12: Percent of customers rating their overall satisfaction with the agency as "good" or "excellent": overall customer service, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise and availability of information |
√
|
Public Employees Retirement System
|
|
| PM #2: Total benefit administration costs per active member and annuitant, (excluding special projects) |
|
| PM #3: Ratio of FTE staff to members |
|
| PM #4: Percent of member customers rating their satisfaction with the agency's customer service as "good" or "excellent": overall customer service, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise and availability of information |
|
| PM #8: Percent of total best practices criteria met by the PERS board |
|
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
|
|
| PM #1: The percentage of total funding used in agency operations |
√
|
| PM #2: The percentage of funding from other sources resulting from OWEB's grant awards |
|
| PM #3: The percentage of OWEB watershed restoration investments that address established basin and watershed restoration priorities |
|
| PM #4: The percentage of complete grant payment requests paid within 30 days |
√
|
| PM #7: The extent to which watershed councils funded by OWEB accomplish their work plans each biennium |
|
| PM #11: Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency’s customer service as “good” or “excellent”: overall customer service, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise, and availability of information |
√
|
|
|
|
| Linked KPMs, FY 07 |
|
Click on the links below to see an analysis of each Key Performance Measure (KPM) from the agency’s 2007 Annual Performance Progress Report. All links go to a short pdf.
A check in the "On Target?" column means actual data was at or better than target in the most recent year shown in the agency's 2007 Annual Performance Progress Report.
Administrative Services, Department of
|
On Target?
|
PM# 6: Number of state information technology projects with a 90% actual to expectations ratio measured by performance criteria
|
|
PM# 7: Total cost of ownership for centrally provided technology services compared to 2000
|
√
|
PM# 14: Cost of risk per $1,000 of operating budget
|
√
|
PM# 15: Number of years out of the last five that State Controller's Division wins GFOA Certificate of Achievement
|
√
|
PM# 16: Estimated savings resulting from price agreement pricing compared to prices that would be paid without the benefit of a price agreement
|
√
|
PM# 18: Percentage of identified business risk that is remediated.
|
|
Economic and Community Development Department
|
|
PM #9: Overall customer survey score on a 1-4 scale with 4 being highest possible
|
|
Economic Revitalization Team
|
|
PM #1: Percent of local participants who rank the ERT process as good to excellent
|
√
|
Government Standards and Practices Commission
|
|
PM #6: Number of annual training presentations to public officials and lobbyists
|
|
PM #7: Percentage of customer satisfaction with training presentations based on survey instrument provided at each training presentation to public officials and lobbyists
|
√
|
PM #8: Percentage of contested cases settled before hearing
|
√
|
Public Employees Retirement System
|
|
| PM #2: Total benefit administration costs per active member and annuitant, (excluding special projects) |
|
| PM #3: Total benefit administration costs per active member and annuitant (INCLUDING special projects) |
|
| PM #4: Ratio of active members and annuitants to staff |
|
| PM #7: Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency's customer service as "good" or "excellent": overall, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise, availability of information |
|
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
|
|
| PM #1: The percentage of total funding used in agency operations |
|
| PM #2: The percentage of funding from other sources resulting from OWEB's grant awards |
|
| PM #3: The percentage of OWEB watershed restoration investments that address established basin and watershed restoration priorities |
|
| PM #4: The percentage of complete grant payment requests paid within 30 days |
√
|
| PM #8: The extent to which watershed councils funded by OWEB accomplish their work plans each biennium |
|
| PM #15: The percent of customers rating their satisfaction as "good" or "excellent" |
|
Secretary of State
|
|
| PM #1: Cost per hour; Audits Division compared to private auditors |
|
| PM #2: Value of revenue enhancements, savings, or questioned cost in audit reports |
|
| PM #3: Dollar savings per dollar spent on economy and efficiency |
|
| PM #4: Percentage of recommendations implemented |
|
|
|
|
| Linked KPMs, FY 06 |
|
Click on the links below to see an analysis of each Key Performance Measure (KPM) from the agency’s 2006 Annual Performance Progress Report. All links go to short Word documents (doc).
A check in the "On Target?" column means actual data was at or better than target in the most recent year shown in the agency's 2006 Annual Performance Progress Report.
Administrative Services, Department of
|
On Target?
|
PM# 2: Uniform rent costs per square foot as a percent of private market rates
|
√
|
PM# 3: Cost of state vehicles per biennium as a percent of contracted rental rates
|
√
|
PM# 4: Annual turnover rate for the state workforce
|
|
PM# 5: Racial/ethnic diversity in the state workforce as a percentage of the total civilian labor force
|
|
PM# 6: Number of state information technology projects with a 90% actual to expectations ratio measured by performance criteria
|
|
PM# 7: Total cost of ownership for centrally provided technology services compared to 2000
|
√
|
PM# 12: Annual number of workers' compensation, liability, and property claims per 100 FTE
|
√
|
PM# 13: Percent reductions/increase in current claims cost compared to previous biennium
|
|
PM# 14: Cost of risk per $1,000 of operating budget
|
|
PM# 15: Number of years out of the last five that State Controller's Division wins GFOA Certificate of Achievement
|
√
|
PM# 16: Estimated savings resulting from price agreement pricing compared to prices that would be paid without the benefit of a price agreement
|
√
|
PM# 17: Percentage of actions identified in HB 3145, or the resulting Enterprise Security Office Strategic Plan, completed on time
|
|
PM# 18: Percentage of identified business risk that is remediated.
|
|
Economic and Community Development Department
|
|
PM #9: Overall customer survey score on a 1-4 scale with 4 being highest possible
|
|
Economic Revitalization Team
|
|
PM #1: Percent of local participants who rank the ERT process as good to excellent
|
√
|
Government Standards and Practices Commission
|
|
PM #6: Number of annual training presentations to public officials and lobbyists
|
√
|
PM #7: Percentage of customer satisfaction with training presentations based on survey instrument provided at each training presentation to public officials and lobbyists
|
|
PM #8: Percentage of contested cases settled before hearing
|
|
Department of State Lands
|
|
| PM #26: Placeholder for agencies involved in the Economic Revitalization Team activities |
|
Public Employees Retirement System
|
|
| PM #2: Total benefit administration costs per active member and annuitant, (excluding special projects) |
|
| PM #3: Total benefit administration costs per active member and annuitant (INCLUDING special projects) |
|
| PM #4: Ratio of active members and annuitants to staff |
|
| PM #7: Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency's customer service as "good" or "excellent": overall, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise, availability of information |
|
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
|
|
| PM #1: The percentage of total funding used in agency operations |
|
| PM #2: The percentage of funding from other sources resulting from OWEB's grant awards |
√
|
| PM #3: The percentage of OWEB watershed restoration investments that address established basin and watershed restoration priorities |
|
| PM #4: The percentage of complete grant payment requests paid within 30 days |
√
|
| PM #8: The extent to which watershed councils funded by OWEB accomplish their work plans each biennium |
√
|
|
|
|
| Linked KPMs, FY 05 |
|
Click on the links below to see an analysis of each Key Performance Measure (KPM) from the agency’s 2005 Annual Performance Progress Report. All links go to short Word documents (doc).
A check in the "On Target?" column means actual data was at or better than target in the most recent year shown in the agency's 2005 Annual Performance Progress Report.
(updated October 2005)
Administrative Services, Department of
|
On Target?
|
PM# 1: Ranking of state budget policies to processes as measured by the Budget Process Quality (BPQ) index
|
|
PM# 2: Percent of respondents to Department-wide Performance Satisfaction Survey who rank BAM very good to excellent
|
|
PM# 7: Annual voluntary turnover rate for the State workforce
|
|
PM# 8: Racial/ethnic diversity in the State workforce as a percentage of the statewide civilian labor force
|
|
PM# 11: Number of state information technology projects with a 90% actual to expectations ratio measured by performance and features criteria
|
|
PM# 12: Total cost of ownership for centrally provided technology services compared to 2000
|
|
PM# 18: Percent of state agencies submitting annual performance reports in 2004 consistent with performance measure guidelines
|
|
PM# 25: Annual number of worker’s compensation, liability, and property claims per 100 FTE
|
√
|
PM# 27: Percent change in current claims cost compared to previous biennium
|
|
PM# 28: Cost of risk per $1,000 of state budget by fiscal year
|
√
|
PM# 32: Cost of state vehicles (sedans) annually as a percent of contracted rental rates
|
√
|
PM# 33: Project savings resulting from DAS statewide price agreement pricing compared to prices individual state agencies would pay without the benefit of a DAS statewide price agreement
|
√
|
Economic and Community Development Department
|
|
PM #9: Overall customer survey score on 1-4 Scale with 4 being highest possible
|
|
Economic Revitalization Team
|
|
PM #1: Percent of local participants who rank the ERT process as very good to excellent on the OECDD Customer Satisfaction Survey ranked from 1-4 with 4 being the highest as per DAS guidelines
|
√
|
Government Standards and Practices Commission
|
|
PM #1: Number of days from filing of complaint to completion of preliminary review
|
|
PM #2: Number of days from finding of cause to completion of investigation
|
|
PM #3: Number of days to issue written opinion
|
|
PM #4: Number of annual training presentations
|
|
|
|
|
| Linked KPMs, FY 04 |
|
Click on the links below to see an analysis of each Key Performance Measure (KPM) from the agency’s 2004 Annual Performance Progress Report. All links go to short Word documents (doc).
A check in the "On Target?" column means actual data was at or better than target in the most recent year shown in the agency's 2004 Annual Performance Progress Report.
(As published in the 2005 Benchmark Performance Report)
Administrative Services, Department of
|
On Target?
|
PM# 1: Ranking of state budget policies to processes as measured by the Budget Process Quality (BPQ) index
|
|
PM# 2: Percent of respondents to Department-wide Performance Satisfaction Survey who rank BAM very good to excellent
|
|
PM# 7: Annual voluntary turnover rate for the State workforce
|
√
|
PM# 8: Racial/ethnic diversity in the State workforce as a percentage of the statewide civilian labor force
|
|
PM# 11: Number of state information technology projects with a 90% actual to expectations ratio measured by performance and features criteria
|
|
PM# 12 Total cost of ownership for centrally provided technology services compared to 2000
|
|
PM# 18: Percent of state agencies submitting annual performance reports in 2004 consistent with performance measure guidelines
|
|
PM# 25: Annual number of worker’s compensation, liability, and property claims per 100 FTE
|
√
|
PM# 27: Percent change in current claims cost compared to previous biennium
|
|
PM# 28: Cost of risk per $1,000 of state budget by fiscal year
|
√
|
PM# 32: Cost of state vehicles (sedans) annually as a percent of contracted rental rates
|
√
|
PM# 33: Project savings resulting from DAS statewide price agreement pricing compared to prices individual state agencies would pay without the benefit of a DAS statewide price agreement
|
√
|
Economic and Community Development Department
|
|
PM #9: Overall customer survey score on 1-4 Scale with 4 being highest possible
|
|
Economic Revitalization Team
|
|
PM# 1: Percent of local participants who rank the ERT process as very good to excellent on the OECDD Customer Satisfaction Survey ranked from 1-4 with 4 being the highest as per DAS guidelines
|
√
|
Government Standards and Practices Commission
|
|
PM# 1:Number of days from filing of complaint to completion of preliminary review
|
√
|
PM# 2: Number of days from finding of cause to completion of investigation
|
√
|
PM# 3: Number of days to issue written opinion
|
√
|
PM# 4: Number of annual training presentations
|
√
|
|
|
| |
|
|
