155 Cottage
Street NE, U-20
Salem, Oregon
97301-3966
503-378-3201
Phone
503-373-7643
Fax
www.oregon.gov/DAS/OPB
THEODORE R.
KULONGOSKI
Governor
Chair
MIKE JORDAN
Vice Chair
PAT ACKLEY
TOM BUTLER
SUE DENSMORE
ANNABELLE JARAMILLO
JOE JOHNSON
ROBERT LANDAUER
JOHN MILLER
TOM POTIOWSKY
KURT SCHRADER
JAMES SAGER
For the Governor
LINDSAY BALL
Ex Officio
MICHAEL OLSON
Student Ex Officio
RITA CONRAD
Executive Director
Assessment Committee
Conference Call
Meeting Notes
July 10, 2007 
11 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Board Members via phone:
Pat Ackley, Tom Potiowsky, Joe Johnson, & Ken Smith.
Progress Board staff
present: Rita Conrad and Jay Grussing
New benchmark updates and
protocol
New analysis is for benchmark 18,
11, and 46 is presented to the committee. Each of these benchmarks
document unique changes to benchmarks; benchmark 11 (per capita income)
sees no change to its analysis, benchmark 18 (Ready to Learn) sees the
grade change from a yes, but to a ‘no, but’, and benchmark 46 (Perceived
Health Status) sees a positive changes. See individual analysis here: bm18, bm11, bm46.
Currently the protocol for benchmark
changes, when the change affects the grade, follows the process developed
in creating the benchmark report. Data is gathered, often from
our primary contact, once analyzed the analysis goes back to the primary
contact (agency experts) and assessment committee for comments and suggestions.
This process will continue with benchmark
changes being sent via email to the committee and experts to comment
on. A clear and concise benchmark document will be created by
staff to help implement and standardize this process. The committee
accepts the responsibility to review the analysis prior posting online.
The committee may wish to move some of these analyses to full meeting,
depending on benchmark specifics. The committee meeting and full
Board meeting will receive a report on the quarterly benchmark changes.
The committee recommends taking ‘dramatic’
out of the analysis for 11.
Ken reiterates the idea of disseminating
the new benchmark analyses through some sort of quarterly press release.
This will be taken up with the outreach committee to decide on specifics.
Rita’s idea is to include the benchmark changes in the email that
gets sent out with the quarterly executive report.
Innovation
Index
Brian Evans and Brian Lindsley present
the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department’s (OECD)
Innovation Index. This is the second edition of the index and includes
analysis in the Invention, Transition, and Commercialization of new
innovation into the Oregon economy. This analysis expands on the
Oregon innovation council’s (oregoninc.org) foundation and directly
relates to the 2007 innovation plan.
The analysis assesses 20 measures through
evaluating trend, comparative data, and national rankings. The states
used in the comparison categories are constant throughout the analysis.
The index methodology creates a score from evaluating the following
4 criteria: the 1 year trend, 5 year trend (weighted the most heavily),
comparison nationally or comparator states, and national ranking.
This document will hopefully be a yearly
publication if the data is available. This analysis is part of
rebranding of OECD which is intended to increases the departments profile
through publishing valuable and academic based research. Some
of the index measures capture similar measures from different sources
then the Progress Board’s benchmarks, yet the benchmarks were taken
into consideration when creating the measures and report.
Brian Lindsley states that they would
like to connect the index to appropriate benchmarks and the online reporting.
Board staff will contact Brian regarding connecting to the benchmarks.
Rita comments that this might be a good index to include in the discussion
of Oregon Shines III’s benchmark examination given Oregon’s focus
on innovation moving into the future.
Update on County Data
The county pages are currently being
updated and incorporated into the online reporting system (BeRG).
Laura Rose Misaras is constructing the web pages and database, which
is phase II of the 21st Century Reporting Project (the Laura
Rose Misaras contract). Once online the workload should allow for Progress
Board staff to update county data products every 6 months.
The committee comments on the usefulness
of the county products to local governments and local agencies along
with various foundations and other nonprofits. Having this data
updated more often will be beneficial to numerous entities throughout
the state.
Use of Oregon Benchmark
Data by Legislators
The committee discusses Laura Rose’s
recently completed master’s thesis which offers suggestions for improving
the implementation and use of Progress Board products and philosophies.
Tom suggests that we need to get this information into the hands of
legislators and that it might be wise given this analysis to offer training
sessions to lobbyists.
General Committee Comments
Ken comments the Board needs to be very
thoughtful in reporting on others findings and making assertions from
these. Using the innovation index for an example, how do you test
the hypothesized links connecting the data to their analysis?
This is something we need to be conscious of given the Board’s new
online communities. How do we deal with competing reports and
are we the assessor of what reports are valuable or have merit?
This relates to what the Boards future
role may be. Given that with managed links everyone has a voice,
when maybe this isn’t the right approach, or right role for the Board
to be in. This comes back to Kens comment that we should be an
entity focused on steering rather then rowing.
Rita comments this conversation came
up a couple of years ago as well. The focus is to gauge not performance
measures but the societal details. The strategic panels within Oregon
Shines III take the overview role through convening expert panels throughout
the state to figure out how to measure Oregon as a whole. With
Oregon Shines III the Board should have its role reinforced as being
the entity in the state that oversees overall progress.
Ken states Progress Board needs to assess
and assert its role in the state. We need to define our space
otherwise someone else will. Pat comments that what has changed
is we’re much more interactive. And we have to be concerned
with the quality control of the new role of the Board. Pat and
Ken wish to talk offline regarding this new challenge to the Progress
Board.
Tom remarks that benchmark 15 unemployment’s
comparator online is not correct. The comparator unemployment rates
are vastly different from the benchmark rates. This reflects that
the comparator is the December monthly rate. The Progress Board
staff will look into changing the comparator to better reflect the state
yearly statistics.
Action Items
Develop a standard benchmark
changes form for use by the assessment committee and benchmark contacts
this will document and request comment on the ongoing benchmark update
process. Along with form develop quarterly report to be reviewed
by the Board. New form has been developed and will be used
moving forward in the communication of benchmark changes.
Contact Brian Lindsley on
connecting the innovation index to the benchmarks in Managed Links.
Progress Board staff has contacted Brian Evans and he linked to the
benchmarks.
Correct benchmark 15 comparator
data. Currently the comparator measures December data on unemployment;
we should be able to use yearly statistics similar to the benchmark.
Progress Board Staff has corrected the comparator
to yearly unemployment data for Oregon and Washington.