FY 2008 Annual Performance Report Scorecard Department of the Treasury

Transcription

1 FY 2008 Annual Performance Report Scorecard Department of the Treasury Transparency: 14 SCORE SUMMARY Public Benefits: 10 Minimum per category = 4, minimum total = 12 Leadership: 13 Maximum per category = 20, maximum total = 60 Total: 37 Score (1-5) 4 TRANSPARENCY 1. Is the report easily accessible and easily identified as the agency s Annual Performance Report? The FY 2008 report was not posted to the department s Web site on its submission date of November 17, but it was posted by our December 1 deadline. There is no direct home-page link to the report. It can be found several clicks away from the home-page link About Treasury or the Budget home page link. The link containing the report includes prior-year versions back to FY It also provides report-specific contact information. The report is downloadable in a single file or in multiple files.

2 3 2. Is the report easy for a layperson to read and understand? The report is 380 pages long, consisting primarily of a Management s Discussion and Analysis section (about 40 pages), a performance section (about 75 pages), and a financial section (about 95 pages). The introduction (pages 3 4) and narratives in the Management s Discussion and Analysis do a good job of highlighting Treasury s actions and accomplishments, particularly with respect to the current financial crisis. These narratives go on to highlight performance accomplishments by strategic goal (pages 21 27). The secretary s terse transmittal letter (page v) refers to the financial crisis and the department s responses but at a high level that lacks specificity. The report contains some useful summary tables covering aspects of the department s performance (e.g., pages 7, 8, 28). It also has several innovative presentational features. For example, as described under criterion 4 below, it uses graphics to highlight long-term performance trends for individual performance measures. On the other hand, the report presents readability challenges. It uses a total of 143 performance measures having FY 2008 targets (see page 279). Well over half of these (more than 80) are designated key measures. The descriptions of performance are spread out between the 75-page performance section, which covers the key measures, and an appendix of almost 100 pages (pages ) which provides definitions and details for all measures. In addition to dealing with their length, the reader must cross-reference between these sections to gain a full understanding of the performance metrics. The nature of some measures is unclear from their captions in the performance section (e.g., Examination Quality (LMSB)-Industry and several embedded quality measures on page 53). Even the definitions in the appendix do not always offer much clarity. Also, the report resorts to seemingly unnecessary jargon in describing some of its performance metrics e.g., Value Chains and Value Chain Outcomes on page 7. In January 2009, the department issued a citizens report to complement its performance and accountability report. The citizens report (25 pages, 3.2 MB) is linked from the page containing the department s full report and downloadable only in a single file. The citizens report does not include the two-page snapshot. The secretary s transmittal letter is essentially the same as the transmittal for the full report. Early on (pages 4 5), the citizens report discusses What is Treasury Doing to Address the Economy? This is certainly timely and it supplies some specifics missing from the secretary s transmittal letter. The citizens report reproduces a series of tables and graphics from the full performance and accountability report which summarize aspects of the department s performance. One particularly informative table (page 9) summarizes the department s strategic goals along with key accomplishments, challenges, and performance trends relating to each goal. Another is a table (page 18) summarizing the department s major management challenges and assessing its progress in addressing them. The report does not focus on specific performance measures and results for FY 2008.

3 3 3. Are the performance data valid, verifiable, and timely? The secretary s transmittal letter states that the report s financial and performance data are complete and reliable. The department received an unqualified opinion on its FY 2008 financial statements. Data were available for all FY 2008 performance measures (see page 48). The report describes the department s methods of reviewing and assessing data (pages 48 49). The detailed appendix on performance measures provides a data source, a description of data verification and validation, and an assessment of data accuracy for each measure. There is one cautionary note, however. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration continues to list the need to improve performance and financial data as a major management challenge at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), although it is designated the lowest priority of the ten listed challenges (pages 249, 257). The inspector general states in part that, while some progress has been made, IRS lacks a comprehensive, integrated system that provides accurate, relevant, and timely financial and operating data that describes performance measures, productivity, and associated costs of IRS programs. The secretary s response to the inspector general on this point (page 268) seems to dispute aspects of the inspector general s assessment. Elsewhere in the report (page 28), the department rates its progress on this challenge as significant and exceeding expectations Did the agency provide baseline and trend data to put its performance measures in context? The appendix on performance measures includes a table, starting on page 290, which gives prioryear performance targets and actual results for all measures. The data in the table usually go back to FY 2005 and the table includes the proposed FY 2009 targets. This table also clearly shows whether or not the target was met for the current year and each prior year. The appendix has a table, beginning on page 281, which provides additional detail on FY 2008 results for each measure, including a more specific analysis of the level of target achievement for each measure. In an innovative feature and potential best practice, this table uses graphics to show the trends for target achievement and actual performance over time. While it is not entirely clear from the report s explanation (see page 10), it appears that the trend graphics compare targets and results for FY 2008 to those for FY The performance section of the report also contains the detailed analyses of FY 2008 performance and the trend data for key measures (e.g., page 53). Additionally, the performance section provides data on budget and performance costs over time for each strategic objective (e.g., page 51). Subtotal: 14

4 Score (1-5) BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY 3 5. Are the goals and objectives stated as outcomes? A table on page 7 presents the department s strategic goals and objectives. The table includes a set of so-called value chain outcomes for each strategic goal, which seem to be similar to performance goals. The strategic goals and objectives as well as the value chain outcomes are the same as last year. As we observed in our evaluation of them last year, the department s three programmatic strategic goals and their related objectives and value chain outcomes are fairly outcome-oriented in relation to the department s functions but could be more so. The first goal and its related objectives, dealing with Treasury s collection, disbursement, and other financial management functions, reasonably focus primarily on timeliness, efficiency, and costeffectiveness. However, there is room for additional outcomes, such as reducing the tax gap. The second strategic goal is outcome oriented, although at a very high level that makes measurement of the department s contributions challenging. The accompanying objectives and outcomes also are broadly stated. The third programmatic strategic goal, relating to terrorism and other national security threats, states outcomes that are more clearly within the department s ambit, but it is still quite general Are the performance measures valid indicators of the agency s impact on its outcome goals? Of the department s almost 80 programmatic key performance measures, less than 20 percent clearly capture outcomes. The great majority of the measures focus on efficiency, costeffectiveness, or customer satisfaction. While such measures have a place, there is a need for more outcome measures to demonstrate the results that the department achieves. The report also has a number of output or activity measures which do not help to demonstrate results Does the agency demonstrate that its actions have actually made a significant contribution toward its stated goals? The department s performance metrics, particularly its measures, are weak in terms of outcome orientation. As such, they have limited effectiveness in demonstrating public benefits Did the agency link its goals and results to costs? The report links costs to the strategic goals (page 8) and to the strategic objectives (e.g., page 51). It also allocates costs by percentage to the value chain outcomes, which, as noted above, appear to be the equivalent of performance goals (e.g., the pie chart on the lower right of page 51). In an innovative feature, the report presents the information primarily on the basis of performance cost as opposed to budgetary resources. As explained on page 47, this approach provides a more accurate picture of the actual costs related to performance since it includes imputed costs, depreciation, losses, and other expenses not requiring budgetary resources. It also covers costs for programs funded by sources other than general fund appropriations, such as user-fee financed or non-appropriated fund activities. Subtotal: 10

5 Score (1-5) FORWARD-LOOKING LEADERSHIP 3 9. Does the report show how the agency s results will make this country a better place to live? Partially compensating for the weak performance metrics, the narrative portions of the report do a good job of describing the department s functions and their importance, as well as highlighting achievements. This is particularly true of the Management s Discussion and Analysis section. The narratives appropriately focus on the current financial crisis and what Treasury is doing to address it Does the agency explain failures to achieve its goals? The report clearly discloses performance results, including shortfalls. One informative feature here is the system used to specify gradations of performance results, both in the percentage of achievement for individual targets and the level of success. Where targets were missed, the appendix on performance measures consistently provides an explanation under the heading Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall. The explanations are brief but usually informative and they are accompanied by a general description of remedial steps. The narratives in the performance section usually elaborate on causes and improvement strategies for shortfalls under key measures Does the report adequately address major management challenges? Beginning on page 233, the Treasury inspector general and the inspector general for tax administration describe major management challenges relating to their respective jurisdictions. Both presentations give the department credit for making significant progress on a number of the challenges. Two challenges from last year have been removed. The department responds to each inspector general s presentation, summarizing remedial actions it is taking. Another helpful feature is a table in the Management s Discussion and Analysis section (page 28) which rates the department s progress in addressing each inspector general-identified major management challenge. Presumably, this is a self-assessment by departmental management. The assessment would be even more useful if it included the inspector generals perspective. The department has mediocre scores on the President s Management Agenda: President s Management Agenda Status Scores: Treasury Date Human Capital Comm. Services Management Financial Performance E-Gov Performance Improvement 9/30/08 G Y Y Y Y 9/30/07 G Y Y Y Y Does it describe changes in policies or procedures to do better next year?

6 The report is forward-looking, describing its planned remedial steps for specific programmatic and management shortcomings very well. The performance appendix often briefly describes future improvement steps relating to individual measures even where targets were met. The performance section includes broader descriptions of future strategies relating to each value chain outcome under the heading Moving Forward. The Management s Discussion and Analysis narratives have significant forward-looking content. For example, a table on page 8 highlights key challenges as well as key accomplishments with respect to each strategic goal. Finally, the report contains several innovative features to enhance performance accountability and reporting. Subtotal: 13