South Carolina Legislature

HOUSE LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Comptroller General's Office


Subcommittee: Executive

Subcommittee Chair: Gary E. Clary

Subcommittee Members: Hon. Robert Q. Williams, Hon. Weston Newton, Hon. Laurie Slade Funderburk

Agency Website: http://www.cg.sc.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Agency Head: Richard A. Eckstrom

Study Contact: Eddie Gunn
Contact Email: egunn@cg.sc.gov

Agency Information


How the Agency Measures Its Performance

In the Accountability Report and the Annual Restructuring Report, the agency was asked to provide information about how it measures its own performance. Performance measures are used to gauge whether or not the objective is being accomplished efficiently and the intended results are being achieved. There are four types of Performance Measures: (1) outcome measures, (2) efficiency measures, (3) output measures and (4) input or explanatory measures.

Agencies should focus on efficiency and outcome measures. Efficiency measures measure the amount of resources required to produce a single unit of output. Outcome measures measure what occurs as a result of the outputs (i.e. what happens when someone uses the output.). Focusing on these types of measures allow the agency to determine what changes can be made to continually improve tangible outcomes and do so at lower costs and faster speeds.


Below is the list of performance measures provided by the agency with the type of measure each one is considered by the agency. The Committee may or may not agree each measure is the type indicated by the agency but will examine them and work with the agency when the agency is under study. After the list of performance measures are additional details, including the targets and results, for each performance measure. This information was provided by the agency in its Annual Restructuring Report, Program Evaluation, Request for Information, or Accountability Report.

Click on any of the links below to go to the applicable part of this webpage:
  • Summary
  • Provide Input
  • Performance Documents
  • Performance Details

    • Summary (Click on a measure below to see additional details)

    The type of measure indicated (e.g. input, output, effiency, etc.) was provided by the agency. The Committee may or may not agree that each measure is the type indicated by the agency.


    Provide Input
    • Do you think the agency is using the right performance measures or are there others you would like to see the agency use? Submit your input here.

    Performance Documents
    • No documents available

    Performance Details
    Annual average number of days for document turnaround in the Accounts Payable Division
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 1.1.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): 2.24 Days
    • 2014-15 Target Results: 4 Days
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): 3.2 Days
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 4 Days
    • 2015-16 Target Results: 4 Days
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To facilitate prompt, efficient accounts payables operation for the state, its vendors and agencies
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Maintaining consistently prompt, efficient accounts payables operation for the state, its vendors and agencies

    Issue all 1099s by 01/31 each year
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: Federal
    • Applicable Objectives: 1.2.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): 100 percent
    • 2014-15 Target Results: 100 percent
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): 100 percent
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 100 percent
    • 2015-16 Target Results: 100 percent
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? The need to comply with Internal Revenue Service requirements
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Compliance with Internal Revenue Service requirements

    Issue statewide semi-monthly payroll and remit all withholdings by next day
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 1.3.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): 100 percent
    • 2014-15 Target Results: 100 percent
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): 100 percent
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 100 percent
    • 2015-16 Target Results: 100 percent
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? The need to comply with state statutory and regulatory requirements for approximately 45,000 state employees
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Compliance with state statutory and regulatory requirements for approximately 45,000 state employees

    Remit to vendors the voluntary deductions made by state employees by next day
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 1.3.2
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): 100 percent
    • 2014-15 Target Results: 100 percent
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): 100 percent
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 100 percent
    • 2015-16 Target Results: 100 percent
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? The need to assist state employees and vendors by processing these employee-requested or court-mandated transactions
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? The need to assist state employees and vendors by processing these employee-requested or court-mandated transactions

    Issue all W-2s by 01/31 each year
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: Federal
    • Applicable Objectives: 1.4.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): 100 percent
    • 2014-15 Target Results: 100 percent
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): 100 percent
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 100 percent
    • 2015-16 Target Results: 100 percent
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? The need to comply with Internal Revenue Service requirements
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Compliance with Internal Revenue Service requirements

    Annual average number of days to resolve SCEIS Help Desk tickets initiated by agencies
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 1.5.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): 1.5 Days
    • 2014-15 Target Results: 5 Days
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): 2.8 Days
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 5 Days
    • 2015-16 Target Results: 5 Days
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To help facilitate accurate and efficient use of SCEIS by agencies
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Facilitating accurate and efficient use of SCEIS by agencies by clearing SCEIS Help Desk tickets in a timely manner

    CAFR completion/release date
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 2.1.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved (CAFR released Dec. 22)
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Publicly release CAFR by Dec. 31
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved (CAFR released Nov. 25)
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Publicly release CAFR by Dec. 31
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Publicly release CAFR by Dec. 31
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To provide timely, accurate state financial information to the General Assembly, bond rating agencies, investors in state bonds, citizens and other stakeholders
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Providing timely, accurate state financial information to the General Assembly, bond rating agencies, investors in state bonds, citizens and other stakeholders

    CAFR awarded Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers Association
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 2.1.2
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: CAFR awarded Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers Association
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: CAFR awarded Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers Association
    • 2015-16 Target Results: CAFR awarded Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers Association
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To have the State's CAFR recognized by the association as an exemplary financial report
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Having the State's CAFR recognized by the association as an exemplary financial report

    CAFR issuance date earlier than previous year
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 2.2.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved (2013-14 CAFR issued 54 days earlier than 2012-13 CAFR)
    • 2014-15 Target Results: CAFR issuance date earlier than previous year
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved (2014-15 CAFR issued 27 days earlier than 2013-14 CAFR)
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: CAFR issuance date earlier than previous year
    • 2015-16 Target Results: CAFR issuance date earlier than previous year
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To facilitate extraction and provision of financial information in a more efficient and timely process
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Facilitating extraction and provision of financial information in a more efficient and timely process

    CGO's Statewide Accounting Policies and Procedures manual is reviewed and updated quarterly and posted on CGO website
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 3.1.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: CGO's Statewide Accounting Policies and Procedures manual is reviewed and updated quarterly and posted on CGO website
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: CGO's Statewide Accounting Policies and Procedures manual is reviewed and updated quarterly and posted on CGO website
    • 2015-16 Target Results: CGO's Statewide Accounting Policies and Procedures manual is reviewed and updated quarterly and posted on CGO website
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To facilitate greater efficiency in operating the state accounting system
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Facilitating greater efficiency in operating the state accounting system

    Closing Package templates and year-end GAAP reporting guidance/instructions for agencies are updated annually and posted on CGO website
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 3.1.2
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Closing Package templates and year-end GAAP reporting guidance/instructions for agencies are updated for the new fiscal year and posted on CGO website
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Closing Package templates and year-end GAAP reporting guidance/instructions for agencies are updated for the new fiscal year and posted on CGO website
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Closing Package templates and year-end GAAP reporting guidance/instructions for agencies are updated for the new fiscal year and posted on CGO website
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To facilitate greater efficiency in operating the state accounting system
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Facilitating greater efficiency in operating the state accounting system

    Monthly reconciliations of SCEIS and STARS performed until STARS is finally retired (Note: It is imperative to retire STARS ASAP - see Objective 5.3.1)
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 3.1.3
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Monthly reconciliations of SCEIS and STARS performed until STARS is finally retired (Note: It is imperative to retire STARS ASAP - see Objective 5.3.1)
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Monthly reconciliations of SCEIS and STARS performed until STARS is finally retired (Note: It is imperative to retire STARS ASAP - see Objective 5.3.1)
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Monthly reconciliations of SCEIS and STARS performed until STARS is finally retired (Note: It is imperative to retire STARS ASAP - see Objective 5.3.1)
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To ensure accurate, consistent data in both the State's current and legacy accounting programs
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Ensuring accurate, consistent data in both the State's current and legacy accounting programs

    Multi-agency Working Group meets with CGO executive management each month to analyze monthly and YTD General Fund revenues recorded by agencies
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 3.1.4
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Multi-agency Working Group meets with CGO executive management each month to analyze monthly and YTD General Fund revenues recorded by agencies
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Multi-agency Working Group meets with CGO executive management each month to analyze monthly and YTD General Fund revenues recorded by agencies
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Multi-agency Working Group meets with CGO executive management each month to analyze monthly and YTD General Fund revenues recorded by agencies
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To provide the BEA with greater confidence in monthly revenues being recorded by state agencies and used to forecast revenues for the legislative budget process
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Providing the BEA with greater confidence in monthly revenues being recorded by state agencies and used to forecast revenues for the legislative budget process

    Coordinated annual CPE training session hours offered to CPA's in own and other agencies (SAO, STO, PEBA, DOR); each yr. offer no fewer training hours/CPA than prior year
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 3.2.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): 4 hours of CPE for 16 CPAs
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Offer at least 4 hours of CPE
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): 4 hours of CPE for 35 CPAs
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Offer at least 4 hours of CPE
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Offer at least 4 hours of CPE
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To create a better trained workforce
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Creating a better trained workforce

    Activity monitored and managed throughout year to assure that adequate insurance fund balance is maintained
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 3.3.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Activity monitored and managed throughout year to assure that adequate insurance fund balance is maintained
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Activity monitored and managed throughout year to assure that adequate insurance fund balance is maintained
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Activity monitored and managed throughout year to assure that adequate insurance fund balance is maintained
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To ensure an adequate insurance fund balance is maintained in order to protect state employees in the event of lost employment
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Ensuring an adequate insurance fund balance is maintained in order to protect state employees in the event of lost employment

    Annual average number of days to respond to FOIA requests
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 4.1.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): 2 days
    • 2014-15 Target Results: 10 days
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): 2.1 days
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 10 days
    • 2015-16 Target Results: 10 days
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? The provision of timely public information produces customer satisfaction and increases trust in government
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Providing timely public information to satisfy customers and increase trust in government

    Statewide transparency website meets statutory requirements
    • Type of Measure: Output
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 4.2.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Statewide transparency website meets statutory requirements
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Statewide transparency website meets statutory requirements
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Statewide transparency website meets statutory requirements
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? Government spending information readily available online in a useful and user-friendly format serves a valuable purpose for the General Assembly, citizens, the media and other stakeholders
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Continuing to make government spending information readily available online in a useful and user-friendly format for use by the General Assembly, citizens, the media and other stakeholders

    Statewide transparency website content expands each year
    • Type of Measure: Output
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 4.2.2
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Statewide transparency website content expands from prior year
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Statewide transparency website content expands from prior year
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Statewide transparency website content expands from prior year
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To make more public information readily available online that is useful and user-friendly for the General Assembly, citizens, the media, and any other stakeholder
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Making more public information readily available online that is useful and user-friendly for the General Assembly, citizens, the media, and any other stakeholder

    Statewide transparency website analytics show at least 10,000 annual visits
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 4.2.2
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved (10,469 visits)
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Statewide transparency website analytics show at least 10,000 annual visits
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved (10,217 visits)
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Statewide transparency website analytics show at least 10,000 annual visits
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Statewide transparency website analytics show at least 10,000 annual visits
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To maintain robust use of the statewide transparency website
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Maintaining robust use of the statewide transparency website

    Statewide transparency website analytics show at least 100,000 annual page views
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 4.2.2
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved (140,000 page views)
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Statewide transparency website analytics show at least 100,000 page views
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved (108,000 page views)
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Statewide transparency website analytics show at least 100,000 page views
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Statewide transparency website analytics show at least 100,000 page views
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To maintain robust use of the statewide transparency website
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Maintaining robust use of the statewide transparency website

    Statewide Travel Report release date
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 4.3.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved (Report released Oct. 30)
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Nov. 1
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved (Report released Oct. 30)
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Nov. 1
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Nov. 1
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To comply with state statutory requirement
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Complying with state statutory requirement

    Statewide Travel Report website posting date
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 4.3.2
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Nov. 1
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Nov. 1
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Nov. 1
      • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To comply with state statutory requirement
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Complying with state statutory requirement

    Amount of annual P-Card rebate revenue distributed to General Fund
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 4.4.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): $2,420,902
    • 2014-15 Target Results: More than previous year
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): $2,139,375
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Agency did not state
    • 2015-16 Target Results: More than previous year
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? The P-Card program promotes efficiency and provides revenue to state government
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? The P-Card program promotes efficiency and provides revenue to state government

    Monthly P-Card Spending Reports are available on statewide transparency website
    • Type of Measure: Output
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 4.4.2
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Monthly P-Card Spending Reports are available on statewide transparency website
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Monthly P-Card Spending Reports are available on statewide transparency website
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Monthly P-Card Spending Reports are available on statewide transparency website
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? Encouraging scrutiny of spending by posting P-Card spending Details online serves as potential deterrent to improper or unnecessary use
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Encouraging scrutiny of spending by posting P-Card spending Details online serves as potential deterrent to improper or unnecessary use

    Agency's annual spending for each program area is stable and increases, if any, are specifically cost-justifiable
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 5.1.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Agency's annual spending for each program area is stable and increases, if any, are specifically cost-justifiable
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Agency's annual spending for each program area is stable and increases, if any, are specifically cost-justifiable
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Agency's annual spending for each program area is stable and increases, if any, are specifically cost-justifiable
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To adhere to budgetary limits set by the General Assembly and assure appropriate return on investment for services performed
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Adhering to budgetary limits set by the General Assembly and assuring appropriate return on investment for services performed

    Agency prepares, presents, and files concise, useful reports with House and Senate budget subcommittees each year
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 5.2.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Agency prepares, presents, and files concise, useful reports with House and Senate budget subcommittees each year
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Agency prepares, presents, and files concise, useful reports with House and Senate budget subcommittees each year
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Agency prepares, presents, and files concise, useful reports with House and Senate budget subcommittees each year
      • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To comply with state laws and directives from the General Assembly and provide assistance in the budget process
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Complying with state laws and directives from the General Assembly and providing assistance in the budget process

    Submission of Annual Accountability Report by deadline
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 5.2.2
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Submission of Annual Accountability Report by deadline
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Submission of Annual Accountability Report by deadline
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Submission of Annual Accountability Report by deadline
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To comply with state laws and directives from the General Assembly and provide assistance in the budget process
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Complying with state laws and directives from the General Assembly and providing assistance in the budget process

    EPMS process is completed on time and documents are maintained in each employee's personnel file
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 5.2.3
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: EPMS process is completed on time and documents are maintained in each employee's personnel file
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: EPMS process is completed on time and documents are maintained in each employee's personnel file
    • 2015-16 Target Results: EPMS process is completed on time and documents are maintained in each employee's personnel file
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? Compliance with state laws and regulations
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Compliance with state laws and regulations

    Each employee departure is evaluated by supervisor or by CGO executive mgmt. to determine reason and to identify possible workplace issues; mgmt. summarizes annually
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 5.2.4
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Achieved
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Each employee departure is evaluated by supervisor or by CGO executive mgmt. to determine reason and to identify possible workplace issues; mgmt. summarizes annually
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Each employee departure is evaluated by supervisor or by CGO executive mgmt. to determine reason and to identify possible workplace issues; mgmt. summarizes annually
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Each employee departure is evaluated by supervisor or by CGO executive mgmt. to determine reason and to identify possible workplace issues; mgmt. summarizes annually
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? Compliance with state laws and regulations
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Compliance with state laws and regulations

    Agency and SCEIS team fully support STO's project to complete its conversion from STARS to SCEIS by 04/30/16, which is STO's current targeted completion date (Note: Maintaining duplicative systems - STARS and SCEIS - results in significant waste of IT and Accounting resources statewide. Objective 3.1.3 is one example)
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 5.3.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): Not yet completed
    • 2014-15 Target Results: No later than 04/30/16
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Not yet completed
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: No later than 04/30/16
    • 2015-16 Target Results: No later than 04/30/16
      • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? Enhancement in efficiency by eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort required by having to continue maintaining both the old accounting system (STARS) and the new comprehensive STARS and SCEIS
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Enhancement in efficiency by eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort required by having to continue maintaining both the old accounting system (STARS) and the new comprehensive STARS and SCEIS

    Implementation plans for all cybersecurity polices finalized by Jan. 31, 2015
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 5.4.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): N/A
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Implementation plans for all cybersecurity polices finalized by Jan. 31, 2015
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): Achieved
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: N/A
    • 2015-16 Target Results: N/A
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? Compliance with this state requirement as a key step toward achieving Objective 5.4.2
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? N/A

    Cybersecurity policies implemented by July 1, 2016
    • Type of Measure: Efficiency
    • Required by: State
    • Applicable Objectives: 5.4.2
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): N/A
    • 2014-15 Target Results: Implement all cybersecurity policies by July 1, 2016
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): N/A
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Implement all cybersecurity policies by July 1, 2016
    • 2015-16 Target Results: Implement all cybersecurity policies by July 1, 2016
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? Compliance with this state requirement to accomplish Strategy 5.4
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Compliance with this state requirement to accomplish Strategy 5.4

    Number of agency personnel serving on multi-agency task forces or committees dedicated to public initiatives
    • Type of Measure: Outcome
    • Required by: Agency
    • Applicable Objectives: 5.5.1
    • Results
    • 2013-14 Actual Results (as of 6/30/14): 4 initiatives supported
    • 2014-15 Target Results: 3 or more initiatives supported
    • 2014-15 Actual Results (as of 6/30/15): 4 initiatives supported
    • 2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 3 or more initiatives supported
    • 2015-16 Target Results: 3 or more initiatives supported
    • Details
    • Why was this performance measure chosen? To enhance government effectiveness through collaborative efforts with other agencies and state officials
    • What was considered when determining the level to set the target value in 2015-16 and why was the decision finally made on setting it at the level at which it was set? Enhancing government effectiveness through collaborative efforts with other agencies and state officials

    Performance Measures Explained

    There are four types of Performance Measures: (1) outcome measures, (2) efficiency measures, (3) output measures and (4) input or explanatory measures.

  • Outcome Measure - A quantifiable indicator of the public and customer benefits from an agency's actions. Outcome measures are used to assess an agency's effectiveness in serving its key customers and in achieving its mission, goals and objectives. They are also used to direct resources to strategies with the greatest effect on the most valued outcomes. Outcome measures should be the first priority. Example - % of licensees with no violations.

  • Efficiency Measure - A quantifiable indicator of productivity expressed in unit costs, units of time, or other ratio-based units. Efficiency measures are used to assess the cost-efficiency, productivity, and timeliness of agency operations. Efficiency measures measure the efficient use of available resources and should be the second priority. Example - cost per inspection

  • Output Measure - A quantifiable indicator of the number of goods or services an agency produces. Output measures are used to assess workload and the agency's efforts to address demands. Output measures measure workload and efforts and should be the third priority. Example - # of business license applications processed.

  • Input/Explanatory/Activity Measure - Resources that contribute to the production and delivery of a service. Inputs are "what we use to do the work." They measure the factors or requests received that explain performance (i.e. explanatory). These measures should be the last priority. Example - # of license applications received


    • Legislative Services Agency
    h t t p : / / w w w . s c s t a t e h o u s e . g o v