В штате Вермонт выявлены серьезные нарушения при сборе данных об эффективности государственных программ

VermontBiz Performance measurement is an essential tool for program managers, policymakers and taxpayers. The Auditor’s Office routinely includes performance measurement in its audit objectives, and we will continue to do so.   After many false starts over the years, the State is making progress in this area. The state’s Chief Performance Officer deserves credit for this but he does not have the resources to go to the next level. That is, ensuring the actual validity and accuracy of the data that is submitted by agencies for inclusion in Vermont’s annual Performance Report and used in budget documents and departmental annual reports.   We recently took a look at performance measurement data from six programs in the Department of Economic Development to explore this data integrity question. The findings are cause for concern. - Two programs, Trade Assistance - STEP and Brownfield Initiative – State, do not collect performance data at all. Instead, they report anticipated outcomes for jobs created, projected export sales, and return-on-investment as projected in grant applications. Some of these measures are incorrectly labelled as “Results.” - One program, Contracting Assistance – APEX, claims credit for the total number of state and local government contracts with Vermont businesses, implying direct involvement by the program, which is not possible given the volume (thousands) of contracts and the fact that many businesses have the experience to secure these contracts on their own. - One program reports outcomes that cannot be objectively verified (VEGI – the “but for”), along with hugely overstated ROI. In addition, outcomes are based on confidential data so the Legislature cannot verify them. - Two programs report outcomes based on flawed methodology that overstate results (TIF and VTP). Taken together, these performance measurement data integrity problems present misleading results to Vermonters and is a disservice to policymakers and taxpayers. No doubt there are valuable services provided by these programs, but their performance should reflect objective cost-benefit analyses, not projections and unverifiable assertions.   The Legislature has excellent but limited staff resources in its Joint Fiscal Office. But in many instances, policymakers must rely on the administration and lobbyists for critical information about the effectiveness of state programs. It is expected that lobbyists will promote the interests of their clients. But one would hope that representatives of the Executive Branch would be a source of accurate and reliable data. For the programs reviewed here, that is not the case.   Use the links below for details (one page each):