GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (GASB)

PORTLAND, OREGON

Portland has four commissioners and a mayor serving staggered terms overseeing broad areas of government.  Each area includes at least 6 bureaus.    Portland is thought to have a “comprehensive performance measurement system” according to NPR in 1998 (National Public Radio?).  Performance measures are included in strategic plans, the annual budget, “Oregon Benchmarks,” and Auditor and individual department reports.  The strategic planning process is well known in the state of Oregon.  The Portland Multnomah Progress Board issued “Portland Future Focus” in 1991, which was a community-based strategic plan including information on what citizens valued most about where they lived and quality of life issues relating to children, jobs, housing, and public safety.  The mayor has been a big proponent while the Auditor’s office has been at the center of the measurement effort.  Performance measurement here seems to be grounded in performance auditing. 

Items of note include:

• High-ranking officials (Commissioners) are not involved in measure development or use. 

• Citizens and the media are not involved in the development or use of measures.    

• Portland makes use of SEA reporting and an annual citizen survey. 

• Portland has been producing SEA reports longer than any jurisdiction and uses their reputation to stress accountability issues. 

• Communicating results internally and to the public is the driving force behind the measurement effort. 

• Since 1995, results have been available on the Office of the Auditor’s web site. 

• Despite some contact with the local press and city council briefings, the SEA report has not been widely communicated to the public. 

• Some employees are concerned that the City is not doing everything it can to communicate results to the public and consequently do not feel that performance measurement is being used as a mechanism for accountability. 

• Some interviewees report that measures are window-dressing for the budget. 

• Others said measures were useless because they were selected based on ease of measurement. 

• Many interviewees believe that accountability is a two-part process.  It requires the openness of government and an interest on behalf of citizenry.  Citizens may gripe about a lack of performance but they are unknowledgeable about government performance.  One interviewee noted that the Portland Multnomah Benchmarks were not used for accountability purposes. 

• There is some discrepancy between the effect of performance information.  Some say that, when publicized, it forces council-persons to act, while others maintain it has no effect at all.  Also, some say it has served to reinforce accountability while others say it has had no effect at all. 

• Case in Brief
• Download GASB Cases
• General Budgeting Teaching Notes
• Austin, TX Budgeting Teaching Notes
• Oregon Budgeting Teaching Notes
• Texas Budgeting Teaching Notes

 Local Governments:

Austin, TX; Multnomah County, OR; Portland, OR; Prince William County, VA; Tucson, AZ; Phoenix, AZ; Winston-Salem, NC; Catawba County, NC; Dayton, OH; Coral Springs, FL; Long Beach, CA; Ramsey County, MN 

 State Governments:  

Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas

 Background Information:

• GASB Performance Measurement Home
• Background on GASB and Performance Measurement
• Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reports