Administrative Services, Department ofAnnual Performance Progress Report

Reporting Year 2019

Published: 10/1/2019 3:36:28 PM

KPM # Approved Key Performance Measures (KPMs)

1 CUSTOMER SERVICE - Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency's customer service as "good" or "excellent": overall customer service, timeliness, accuracy, helpfulness, expertise and availability of information.

2 FORECAST RELIABILITY - General Fund Forecast Tracking Metric

3 FINANCIAL REPORTING - Percent of Agencies receiving Gold Star Award (The Gold Star Award is the state agency equivalent of the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting)

4 WORKFORCE TURNOVER - Annual turnover rate for the State and DAS workforce.

5 WORKFORCE DIVERSITY - Racial/ethnic diversity in the state workforce as a percentage of the total civilian labor force.

6 FLEET ADMINISTRATION - Average Miles Per Gallon for DAS Permanently Assigned Fleet Vehicles.

7 RENT COSTS - DAS negotiated lease rates in private sector vs. average market rates.

8 INFORMATION SECURITY - Overall information security maturity rating based on a sample of state agencies. Rating achieved using a compilation and aggregate score based on the ISO 27002 standard and assigning a rating using the Carnegie-Mellon Capability Maturity Model. (3rd party conducting information security business risk assessments)

10 RISK MANAGEMENT - Annual number of Severe Worker's Compensation claims per 100 FTE

11 DATA CENTER - Percentage of time systems are available.

Performance Summary Green Yellow Red

= Target to -5% = Target -5% to -15% = Target > -15%Summary Stats: 50% 10% 40%

redgreenyellow

KPM #1 CUSTOMER SERVICE - Percent of customers rating their satisfaction with the agency's customer service as "good" or "excellent": overall customer service, timeliness, accuracy,helpfulness, expertise and availability of information.Data Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

Report Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

HelpfulnessActual No Data 78% No Data No Data 0%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%TimelinessActual No Data 76% No Data 67% 0%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%ExpertiseActual No Data 78% No Data 72% 0%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%OverallActual No Data 75% No Data 67% 0%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%Availability of InformationActual No Data 71% No Data 65% 0%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%AccuracyActual No Data 76% No Data 70% 0%Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

How Are We Doing

actual target

No data for 2019 only even numbered years. DAS Exec Staff to discuss best practices for 2020 customer service survey.

Factors Affecting Resultsn/a

KPM #2 FORECAST RELIABILITY - General Fund Forecast Tracking MetricData Collection Period: Jul 01 - Jun 30

* Upward Trend = positive result

Report Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

General Fund ForecastActual 100.01% 100.14% 103.19% 103.85% 111.48%Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

How Are We DoingActual General Fund revenues in the 2017-19 biennium came in significantly above expectations, triggering the state’s unique kicker law. Under Oregon’s kicker, errors larger than 2 percentare returned to taxpayers (for personal income taxes) as a credit on their tax returns or retained in the General Fund for additional education spending (corporate income taxes). In 2017-19the corporate kicker totaled $676 million, while the personal kicker (technically all revenues excluding corporate) totaled $1.6 billion. The personal kicker is a record dollar amount but whenmeasured as a share of underlying tax liability (or as a share of the economy) it is our office’s third largest on record. About once a decade our office makes an error this large as we did soback in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.

Factors Affecting ResultsThe state’s volatile underlying economy and current tax structure yield larger year-to-year swings than in the typical state. While Oregon comes out ahead of the typical state in both aneconomic and revenue sense over the entire business cycle, such variances are more challenging and difficult to accurately forecast.

In 2017-19, our office’s economic forecast was very accurate. The economy the state has today was nearly exactly as expected. The issue is the underlying revenue growth is significantlystronger than expected. As was the case with the large kicker generated during the mid-1980s, changes in federal tax policy played a large role in generating above-trend state collections in2017-19. Taxpayers are very sensitive to federal rules, and often shift the timing of their payments in order to minimize their federal liability over time. The federal Tax Cut and Jobs Act hasgreatly altered taxpayer behavior, suggesting that some of the recent growth in state tax collections may not be sustainable going forward.

actual target

KPM #3 FINANCIAL REPORTING - Percent of Agencies receiving Gold Star Award (The Gold Star Award is the state agency equivalent of the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence inFinancial Reporting)Data Collection Period: Jul 01 - Jun 30

* Upward Trend = positive result

Report Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Percent of agencies receiving the Gold Star AwardActual 98% 97% 99% 96% 0%Target 98% 98% 98% 100% 100%

How Are We DoingThe FY 2019 Gold Star Award won’t be awarded until January/February 2020, which is when everything is received to make the determination.

Factors Affecting ResultsN/A

actual target

KPM #4 WORKFORCE TURNOVER - Annual turnover rate for the State and DAS workforce.Data Collection Period: Jul 01 - Jun 30

Report Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

a. State Workforce TurnoverActual 5.28% 5.77% 5.32% 4.97% 5.03%Target 5.60% 5.60% 5.60% 5.60% 5.60%b. DAS Workforce TurnoverActual 3.52% 3.52% 3.61% 2.29% 3.08%Target 5% 5.50% 5.50% 4.50% 4.50%

How Are We DoingThe state’s resignation rate (4a) for FY 19 is 5.03%. This is .57% lower than the benchmark of 5.6% set in 2010. The resignation rate for DAS (4b) is 3.08%, indicating a stable workforce. This is1.42% lower than the benchmark of 4.5%. Resignation refers to voluntary separation from employment. Resignation does not include layoffs, involuntary terminations, or retirement. Thisconceptualization aligns with the definition of “quits” reported by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data.

Factors Affecting ResultsFrom FY 18 to FY 19, the State of Oregon’s annual turnover rate remained stable, only changing by .06%. Even though it is an employee’s job market with a low unemployment rate and ahistorically high number of job openings, the State of Oregon’s workforce demonstrates relative stability. The following table list reasons for employees leaving the state workforce in both FY 18 andFY 19. One interesting finding is that relocation emerged in FY 19 as a top reason for leaving state employment.

actual target

KPM #5 WORKFORCE DIVERSITY - Racial/ethnic diversity in the state workforce as a percentage of the total civilian labor force.Data Collection Period: Jul 01 - Jun 30

Report Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

a. State Workforce DiversityActual 71.38% 76.64% 76.81% 77.50% 79.20%Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%b. DAS Workforce DiversityActual 65.85% 72.90% 72.15% 76.70% 76.20%Target 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

How Are We DoingAs of the end of FY 19, the racial and ethnic diversity of the state workforce was 18.7%. This is an absolute increase of .4% from the previous fiscal year. While Oregon’s civilian workforce is morediverse than Oregon State Government employees, this key performance measure continues to show improvement.

Calculation: 18.7% / 23.6% = 79.2% of the goal of 100% reflection of the Oregon workforce

As of the end of FY’18, the racial and ethnic diversity of the DAS workforce was 18.3%.

Calculation: 18.3% / 23.6% = 77.5% of the goal of 100% reflection of the Oregon workforce

Factors Affecting ResultsOne key area of focus for the Department of Administrative Service’s Chief Human Resources Office is to be considered the employer of choice for the people of Oregon, especially for ethnic andracial minority groups. Midway through FY 19, the State of Oregon moved to a new Human Resource Information System, Workday®. One of the benefits of this system is that it allows the ChiefHuman Resources Office to track where certain groups of people may be falling out of the pipeline during the recruitment process. An analysis of the recruitment pipeline is currently underway. Afactor that numerically impacted the results for FY 18 and FY 19 is that the denominator used in the calculation was changed. Previously, the denominator had remained unchanged for a few years;the denominator was not updated with more recent census numbers that more accurately reflected the State of Oregon’s civilian workforce. For FY 18 and FY 19, this situation was remedied.

actual target

Moving forward, the denominator will be updated annually based on data provided by the Oregon Employment Department.

KPM #6 FLEET ADMINISTRATION - Average Miles Per Gallon for DAS Permanently Assigned Fleet Vehicles.Data Collection Period: Jul 01 - Jun 30

* Upward Trend = positive result

Report Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Average Miles Per GallonActual 20.20 20.43 20.38 20.51 20.84Target 19.88 20.03 20.17 21 21

How Are We DoingThe 2019 average has increased from the 2017 and 2018 values and we have exceeded the target to achieve the 10% increase over 2007 levels by 2020. Currently we are at a 11.3% increaseover the 18.73 MPG 2007 baseline.

The stated target of 21 MPG for 2019 is an error as 20.6 MPG represents a 10% increase over the 2007 baseline. This target should be adjusted accordingly.

Factors Affecting ResultsVehicles continue to increase in efficiency and DAS Fleet continues to use fuel efficiency as a main selection factor when purchasing vehicles. DAS has a large project to install EV charginginfrastructure in the Capital Mall and Salem Motor Pool. Adding more of these vehicles over the next several biennia will further increase fuels efficiency and help meet Legislative and Governor’sgoals for Zero Emission Vehicle adoption.

actual target

KPM #7 RENT COSTS - DAS negotiated lease rates in private sector vs. average market rates.Data Collection Period: Jul 01 - Jun 30

* Upward Trend = positive result

Report Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

DAS negotiated lease rate vs. average market rate (Salem/Keizer)Actual No Data 15% 4% 18% 6%Target TBD 0% 0% 5% 5%

How Are We DoingThe 2018-19 measure period has performed well for market conditions. It is currently a difficult market, but is transitioning slowly back into less of a Landlord-oriented playing field, with moreopportunities seen on the horizon. Inventory is getting better, but construction costs are still extremely high. Through our external resources and leveraging the buying power of the state (as acreditworthy tenant), we have been able to continue to lease under the market.

2018 Values

(July 1, 2017 – June 30,2018)

2019 Values

(July 1, 2018 – June 30,2019)

% change

(from 2018 to2019)

State private lease rate $1.45 $1.55 + 6.80 %

Average cost of market (full service, grossed-up) $1.72 $1.90 + 10.47 %

Quantity of Leases (negotiated in Salem) 18 20 + 10.00 %

Volume (in Salem) 135,000 336,213 + 140.15 %

actual target

Quantity of Leases (negotiated in portfolio) 158 133 - 18.80 %

Volume (of portfolio) 795,000 1,164,922 + 46.53 %

Factors Affecting ResultsAs predicted last year, we are continuing to accumulate vast savings in facility costs for state agencies. Moving forward, we should continue to see that the negotiation power will continue to shifttowards the Tenants, we should see an advantage from a negotiation standpoint over the next year, moving away from the difficult previous couple of years of low inventory and high prices.

KPM #8 INFORMATION SECURITY - Overall information security maturity rating based on a sample of state agencies. Rating achieved using a compilation and aggregate score based on the ISO27002 standard and assigning a rating using the Carnegie-Mellon Capability Maturity Model. (3rd party conducting information security business risk assessments)Data Collection Period: Jul 01 - Jun 30

* Upward Trend = positive result

Report Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Information SecurityActual 3.11 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65Target 3 3 3 3.50 3.50

How Are We DoingThis is the same as last year, 2018. Due to the focus on the implementation of Senate Bill 90 Unification of IT Security, the ESO has been reorganizing efforts to address the most prevalent andrisky findings. The states maturity model for 2018 and 2019 were based on the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. This federal framework measures on 22 distinct control areas, indicated below in thetable.

Function Process Category Average

IDENTIFY (ID) Asset Management 1.7

IDENTIFY (ID) Business Environment 1.7

IDENTIFY (ID) Governance 1.7

IDENTIFY (ID) Risk Assessment 1.7

IDENTIFY (ID) Risk Management Strategy 1.7

PROTECT (PR) Access Control 1.9

PROTECT (PR) Awareness and Training 1.9

actual target

PROTECT (PR) Data Security 1.9

PROTECT (PR) Information Protection Processes 1.9

PROTECT (PR) Maintenance 1.9

PROTECT (PR) Protective Technology 1.9

DETECT (DE) Anomalies and Events 1.3

DETECT (DE) Security Continuous Monitoring 1.3

DETECT (DE) Detection Processes 1.3

RESPOND (RS) Response Planning 1.4

RESPOND (RS) Response Communications 1.4

RESPOND (RS) Incident Analysis 1.4

RESPOND (RS) Incident Mitigation 1.4

RESPOND (RS) Incident Review 1.4

RECOVER (RC) Recovery Planning 1.7

RECOVER (RC) Recovery Improvements 1.7

RECOVER (RC) Recovery Communications 1.7

Factors Affecting ResultsMethodology was changed in 2016 in line with direction under Executive Order 16-13 for agency by agency risk assessment. The intended assessment was to be more in depth, so an alternatestandard was used - the NIST Cybersecurity Framework. Assessments were performed by multiple vendors at 13 agencies.

Given the above and the intent of Senate Bill 90, a proposal for a new measure will be made at the next legislative opportunity. This new proposed measure will be more supportive of our securityposture.

KPM #10 RISK MANAGEMENT - Annual number of Severe Worker's Compensation claims per 100 FTEData Collection Period: Jan 01 - Jan 01

* Upward Trend = negative result

Report Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Severe Worker's Compensation Claims per 100 FTEActual 1.57 1.56 1.70 1.52 1.59Target 0 0 0 1.50 1.50

How Are We DoingFor 2018-19, saw an .85% decrease in the total number of severe claims, but finished 6% above target. This can be traced mainly to a 2.5% increase in the total number of claims involvingtemporary disability (565 for 2018-19 vs. 551 for 2017-18). However, the total number of more severe claims resulting in some level of permanent disability decreased by 58% (15 for 2018-19 vs. 36for 2017-18).

Factors Affecting ResultsTotal claims (severe and non-severe) decreased by 4.78%.

Total severe claims decreased by .85%.

However, total FTE decreased by 5.04%. Though total claim frequency is down and total severe claims are down, this was off-set by an even larger decrease in total FTE. With fewer FTE we shouldexpect fewer claims and fewer severe claims, but those decreases were not in proportion to the total reduction in FTE.

It's interesting to note that while our calculation of FTEs is down by 5.04%; our calculation of hours worked for the same period is up by 2.35%. Though fewer FTEs, exposure hours were up.

actual target

KPM #11 DATA CENTER - Percentage of time systems are available.Data Collection Period: Jul 01 - Jun 30

* Upward Trend = positive result

Report Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Data Center- Systems AvailabilityActual 99.96% 99.90% 99.91% 99.84% 99.94%Target 99.90% 99.90% 99.90% 99.90% 99.90%

How Are We DoingThe availability of 99.94% for FY 2019 is above target.

Factors Affecting ResultsThe Data Center has transitioned most of their infrastructure to a Unified Computing Platform and virtualized over 98% of the server computing platform. This has improved the stability and reliabilityof the computing environment as well as significantly expanded the use of our computing infrastructure.

actual target