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.
Input/Activity
None
Output
Efficiency
Outcome
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
Performance Details
Annual hours of delay on Interstates and Strategic Network; Interstate reliability index
Type of Measure: Efficiency
Required by: Only Agency Selected
Applicable Objectives: 3.4.1
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: 3,186,078 hours of delay (Interstate Only) (thru CY2013 - most recent analysis); 1.27 reliability index (Interstate Only) (thru CY2013 - most recent analysis)
2014-15 Target Results: N/A
2014-15 Actual Results: N/A
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: N/A
2015-16 Target Results: N/A
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? Nationally accepted measures of highway congestion; expected to be a required Federal performance measure; awaiting final Federal guidance
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
Freight hours of delay; freight reliability index
Type of Measure: Efficiency
Required by: Only Agency Selected
Applicable Objectives: 4.1.1
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: 535,774 freight hours of delay (Interstate Only) (thru CY2013 - most recent analysis); 1.27 freight reliability index (Interstate Only) (thru CY2013 - most recent analysis)
2014-15 Target Results: N/A
2014-15 Actual Results: N/A
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: N/A
2015-16 Target Results: N/A
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? Nationally accepted measures of freight transportation performance; expected to be a required Federal performance measure; awaiting final Federal guidance
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
Lane Miles
Type of Measure: Output
Required by: Only Agency Selected
Applicable Objectives: 3.1.2
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: 347
2014-15 Target Results: 347
2014-15 Actual Results: 347
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 347
2015-16 Target Results: 347
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? Directly related to the traffic management service provided.
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 primary reason was budget.
Miles of coverage
Type of Measure: Outcome
Required by: Only Agency Selected
Applicable Objectives: 3.1.1
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: 255
2014-15 Target Results: 293
2014-15 Actual Results: 275
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Agency did not provide a response
2015-16 Target Results: 340
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? Increase system coverage of strategic locations to enhances incident notification and reduces clearance times. This optimizes the efficiency and safety of the existing system without adding additional asphalt. Additional coverage also aids during hurricane evacuations.
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? Budget, Availability to leverage future projects to increase coverage.
Number of fatalities and serious injuries
Type of Measure: Outcome
Required by: Only Agency Selected
Applicable Objectives: 1.1.1
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: 823 ( Rate = 1.65)
2014-15 Target Results: 722 (Rate = 1.53)
2014-15 Actual Results: 946
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Agency did not provide a response
2015-16 Target Results: 744
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? National standard for determining highway safety
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? Data analysis and trend and trend lines were analyzed. When setting targets in the HSP for the core performance measures, SC Statistical Analysis Center statisticians performed an extensive analysis of the data related to the measure. South Carolina utilized a seven-data-point graphical analysis with a five-year rolling average for all but one of the performance measures. For the measures, after the data points were plotted and the graphs were created, a trend line was added that could be used to predict future values. The trend lines were based on linear and non-linear equations with R-squared (best fit measure) values, the three-year predicted trend being feasible, and 2014 state preliminary data. The statisticians then performed additional data analyses, often examining the data on an annual basis to determine the percent change from year to year. If, for example, the five-year moving average displayed a general downward trend for the total number of fatalities, but an examination of the fatality count by year revealed a significant increase in fatalities from 2011 to 2012 and 2012 to 2013 (state preliminary data), the target value from the trend line equation may have proven unfeasible. When this occurred, the statisticians, after consultation with other OHSJP staff, would adjust the target value based on additional data analyses and examination of Highway Safety projects, proposed countermeasures, and other factors unique to South Carolina which could impact the possibility of reaching a lofty target based solely on trend line data. South Carolina used a variety of models as part of its trend analyses. Graphical models such as linear, logarithmic, and polynomial were used to determine a best fit, often depending on the normality of data for each performance measure.
Number of public transit passenger trips
Type of Measure: Outcome
Required by: Federal (For direct recipients/sub recipients only to Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database)
Applicable Objectives: 3.2.1
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: 12.0 million
2014-15 Target Results: ≥ 2% increase
2014-15 Actual Results: 12.8 million (6.6% increase)
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: ≥ 0% increase
2015-16 Target Results: ≥ 2% increase
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? Performance monitoring, strategic planning, determination of targeted technical assistance and resource allocation
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? Statewide transit trend analyses; comparative review of peer states; appropriate performance parameters
Number of workplace injuries
Type of Measure: Outcome
Required by: Federal
Applicable Objectives: 1.2.1
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: 560 (2015 annual accountability report)
2014-15 Target Results: 351 (2014 calendar year - RMIS report)
2014-15 Actual Results: 439
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 417 (Target # for calendar year 2016 (5% decrease from 2014 calendar year #)
2015-16 Target Results: 351 Target for calendar year 2016 (20% decrease from 2014 calendar year #)
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? It is a specific measure in the Agency's 1st Goal.
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? Looked at the values for the prior 5 years and took an aggressive approach to lower the # from the prior year.
Percentage of bridges in satisfactory condition; Deck area (MSF) of structurally deficient bridges
Type of Measure: Outcome
Required by: Federal (MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) has established performance measures to be used to measure the condition of key elements on the National Highway System)
Applicable Objectives: 2.2.1
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: 403 posted bridges and 10 closed bridges
2014-15 Target Results: 383 posted bridges and 10 closed bridges
2014-15 Actual Results: 384 posted bridges and 8 closed bridges
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 374 posted bridges and 10 closed bridges
2015-16 Target Results: 364 posted bridges and 10 closed bridges
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? It is measurable and is a good indicator of the condition of the bridges on the state 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? SCDOT considered the federal and state funding (including additional funding for load restricted bridges from Act 98) available for bridge replacement, repair, and preservation and a 5 percent reduction in the number of load restricted and closed bridges was thought to be a reasonable objective given the current level of funding.
Percentage of SCDOT-titled active duty public transit vehicles beyond defined useful life parameters
Type of Measure: Outcome
Required by: Only Agency Selected
Applicable Objectives: 2.3.1
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: 47%
2014-15 Target Results: 40%
2014-15 Actual Results: 56%
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 50%
2015-16 Target Results: 40%
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? Asset Management and Resource Allocation
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? Conducted a statewide transit vehicle utilization and assessment review, implemented new Statewide Transit Asset Management and Information System (TAMIS); resulting implementation of Statewide Vehicle Replacement Program
Percentage of South Carolina counties with access to a public transit system
Type of Measure: Outcome
Required by: Only Agency Selected
Applicable Objectives: 3.3.1
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: 87%
2014-15 Target Results: 90%
2014-15 Actual Results: 89%
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: 90%
2015-16 Target Results: 89%
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? Strategic planning, determination of targeted technical assistance and outreach
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 reach as many citizens, employees and tourists as possible
Percentage of work paid/awarded to federal program; percentage of work paid/awarded to state program
Type of Measure: Outcome
Required by: State
Applicable Objectives: 4.2.1
Results - State
2013-14 Actual Results: Achieved - Women: 3% and Minority 1%
2014-15 Target Results: Women: 5% and Minority 5%
2014-15 Actual Results: Achieved - Women: 4% and Minority 3%
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Current through November 2015 - Women: 1% and Minority 1%
2015-16 Target Results: Women: 5% and Minority 5%
Results - Federal: Semi-Annual Reports
2013-14 Actual Results: 13%
2014-15 Target Results: 12.50%
2014-15 Actual Results: 18%
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: Report due 12/1/2016
2015-16 Target Results: 12.50%
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? Agency did not provide a response
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? State Law; Goal for Federal Program is established every three years based on goal methodology which includes several factors
Road Condition
Type of Measure: Outcome
Required by: Federal
Applicable Objectives: 2.1.1
Results
2013-14 Actual Results: Agency did not use PM during this year
2014-15 Target Results: Agency did not use PM during this year
2014-15 Actual Results: Agency did not use PM during this year
2015-16 Minimum Acceptable Results: The miles of road in "Good" condition increase and the miles of road in the "Poor" condition decrease.
2015-16 Target Results: The miles of road in "Good" condition increase and the miles of road in the "Poor" condition decrease.
Details
Why was this performance measure chosen? This is pertinent to the mission of SCDOT and a performance measure that can be clearly reported and understood by the public.
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 current condition of the system and the limitation of resources available to dedicate to this objective.
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
Staff Portal
