Home > Measuring Progress > Performance Measure Guide for Washington State Agencies > Appendix 2: Specific measures required by other agencies

Appendix 2: Specific measures required by other agencies

Some measures that are relevant across state government are reported to other enterprise-facing agencies, such as the Office of Equity, Department of Enterprise Services, Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises, and State Human Resources. In addition, agencies like our state peer commissions may not have their own data collection mechanisms and can benefit from agencies including these data points in their existing reporting system.

Results Washington partners with these agencies, as well as state peer commissions, to ensure the data you report to them is integrated with your other performance measures so that all this critical information will be displayed in the same place.

Equity goals and performance

The Office of Equity (EQUITY) serves state agencies and community members with the goal to enact systems change throughout state government. EQUITY is tasked with setting statewide goals for equity (Executive Order 22-04) and assessing the effectiveness of agency programs and services on reducing disparities (Revised Code of Washington 43.06D).

The Determinants of equity are the social, economic, geographic, political, and physical conditions that collectively represent the needs that each person, family, and community in needs to thrive in Washington. As such, these also represent the statewide goals for equity and how current and future progress toward becoming a fair and just society can be measured.

Digital Equity
Quality Education
Economic Justice
Housing & Home Ownership
Early Childhood Development
Food Justice
Health & Human Services
Healthy Built & Natural Environments
Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources
Transportation & Mobility
Community & Public Safety
Justice Systems & Laws
Vibrant Communities
Workforce Equity (coming soon)
Equity in State and Local Practices (coming soon)

To measure progress as a state government, we must address disparities within our communities through our state resources to find the best ways to serve them. Not only is this a main purpose of government, but it allows us to address the ways in which government has negatively impacted these communities.

Agencies are expected to use this document to guide their delivery of equity-focused performance measurements. This document serves to create the path forward and provide our state agencies with the guidance needed to measure performance for the purpose of addressing disparities, and, ultimately, work towards an equitable Washington. A few types of equity that can be measured include:

Distributional equity refers to the fair distribution of benefits and burdens across everyone within the community and organizations that impact the community.
Process equity refers to inclusive, open, and fair access by everyone who will be impacted by a decision process. Process equity ensures that all affected parties have access to and meaningful experience in government engagement, and public participation, and that they have a voice in what happens to them.
Cross-generational equity refers to the effects of current actions on the fair and just distribution of benefits and burdens to future generations of communities. Examples of issues with cross-generational impact include income and wealth, health outcomes, white privilege, resource depletion, climate change and pollution, real estate redlining practices, and stewardship of resources.

We must invest where the needs are greatest to ensure that agency programs and services meet everyone’s needs regardless of location or identity. To target the investment of our time, resources, and efforts, we must apply different strategies, goals, and performance measures based on geography and demographic identity.

Demographic data and performance

Demographic data is necessary to assess agency effectiveness at reducing disparities and achieving equitable outcomes, both internally for our employees and externally, for the communities we serve through our programs, services, and funding throughout Washington. Additionally, every agency budget request submitted to the Office of Financial Management (OFM) must include an explanation of how it will impact equity in the state. Agencies are required to include both demographic and geographic information about communities impacted by their budget proposals (RCW 43.88.090).

EQUITY recommends that agencies incorporate equity performance measures and pro-equity anti-racism strategic action planning into their organization’s primary strategic planning process to embed equity across all goals and actions, strengthen budget requests, and reduce duplication of efforts (see Chapter 16: Strategic Plan Guidelines for more details).

If your agency is not already doing so, we urge agencies to begin collecting demographic and geographic data as a standard. Based on the Statistical Policy Directive 15 issued by the federal Office of Management and Budget, agencies should, at minimum, use the following racial/ethnic categories for the collection of demographic data:

Black
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Hispanic/Latine
Middle Eastern/North African
Pacific Islander
White

EQUITY also recommends that agencies further disaggregate these categories to collect information on subpopulations, for which there are significant disparities in conditions and outcomes. An interagency workgroup is working develop disaggregation standards for Washington State, but you may refer to the federal recommendations or reach out to the relevant peer commissions for guidance in the interim.

Other recommendations for demographic data are:

Asking both about how an individual identifies versus how an individual is read and treated by those around them. A person may identify one way, but still experience the privileges or barriers of another. This can help us better understand the complex intersection of identity, policy, and inequity.
Do not provide an option for “two or more races”. The Statistical Policy Directive 15 indicates that agencies should no longer include this option in demographic data collection practices. Instead, allow individuals to select multiple options.
Collect information on sexual orientation and gender identity (refer to the “Gender and Sexual Orientation” section below).
Collect disability status, citizenship status, and military service status where it serves a purpose and does not expose these vulnerable populations to harm.
Collect income ranges rather than specific income and only collect this data as necessary if not already required.

Geographic data and performance

Equity and disparities are inherently tied to geography. For example, institutionally mandated redlining policies determined where people of specific racial or ethnic communities were allowed to purchase homes. The geographic locations where members of these communities purchased homes were often less desirable due to environmental factors, such as tree coverage, density of homes, lack of amenities and services, or proximity to pollution sources (highways, power plants, refineries, airports). This led to greater disparities in economic and health outcomes for these communities.

Alternatively, capital projects and funding were systematically directed away from these communities (such as Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi water systems) or undesirable infrastructure, such as major highways, were constructed through these areas. The former starved a community of funding for improvements to infrastructure such as water systems and roadways; the latter divided vibrant and deeply connected communities. All these factors would have caused the health of the environment and community to decline, and that community would have been disproportionately represented by individuals belonging to non-white racial or ethnic groups.

The historical context and complex intersection of geography and race are linked to the state’s current policies, programs, services, and regulations. If we do not disaggregate our performance measures by geographic location, we will not be able to determine if there if we are effectively and equitably serving all communities across Washington.

When collecting geographic data, the more precision the better. However, agencies should strike a balance between precision and eliminating any potential for harm.

The agency should not collect specific addresses if it can’t guarantee that the location of vulnerable individuals will not be exposed or disclosed. Instead, EQUITY recommends collecting nothing more specific than a zip code.
If the agency finds that zip code is too specific, consider collecting city, jurisdiction, and/or county. County is the largest geographic boundary that agencies should consider capturing and, even so, there is significant differences in the composition of communities within a county, including demographic makeup of the area, the needs of that community, and disparities in outcomes for individuals.
The agency should consider collecting qualitative information, such as whether the individual resides in a rural, suburban, or urban community. Experiences for individuals residing in these different types of community vary dramatically. Therefore, the agency should be able to disaggregate performance measure data to see where the programs and services meet the needs of those communities.

Visit the Office of Equity’s website for additional information.

Gender and sexual orientation

The LGBTQ Commission works to improve the government's interface with the LGBTQ+ community by identifying the needs of its members and ensuring that there is an effective means of advocating for LGBTQ+ equity in all aspects of state government.

Including gender and sexual orientation in performance measures for state agencies is crucial for fostering equity and inclusivity. By collecting and analyzing data on these demographics, agencies can identify and address disparities in service delivery and outcomes, ensuring that policies and programs effectively meet the needs of all individuals. This approach promotes accountability and transparency, helping to uncover and rectify systemic biases that may disadvantage certain groups.

While specific measures of gender and sexual orientation are not currently required to be submitted, the LGBTQ Commission would significantly benefit from the gathering of this data. It would provide the commission with a clearer understanding of the unique challenges faced by the LGBTQ+ community, enabling them to advocate more effectively for policies and resources that address these needs. Additionally, comprehensive, disaggregated data can help the commission monitor the impact of implemented measures, ensuring they are achieving desired outcomes. This data-driven approach would not only enhance the commission’s ability to support the LGBTQ+ population, but also contribute to a broader effort to create a more inclusive and equitable state.

Resources on collecting and measuring gender and sexual orientation include:

Visit the LGBTQ Commission’s website for additional information.

Greenhouse gas emissions

The Department of Commerce, in partnership with the Department of Ecology, oversees efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by Washington state agencies. In 2020, the Legislature and governor updated the State Agency Climate Leadership Act codified in Chapter 70A.45 RCW that directs state agencies, universities, colleges, and community and technical colleges to lead by example in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to:

15% below 2005 baseline by 2020
45% below 2005 by 2030
70% below 2005 by 2040
95% below 2005 by 2050; achieve net zero

The greenhouse gas emissions limits were established to hold state government agencies accountable for reducing emissions and to demonstrate leadership on climate change policy. Executive Order 20-01 for State Efficiency and Environmental Performance (SEEP) builds on this commitment and emphasizes that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from state government operations contributes to better health outcomes for communities in Washington and helps mitigate risks associated with climate change. Organizational risk can be managed by supporting state agency performance with emissions reporting and strategy development, and continuing to invest in measures that contribute to better climate outcomes.

State agencies will need ongoing staff resources to meet the requirements of RCW 70A.45.050, EO 20-01, and related goals and directives. SEEP convenes subject-specific working groups and can provide training and technical assistance to support these employees.

Specific measures

To track state agencies’ progress toward meeting these limits, each covered agency must report the following directly to Commerce:

Every year
- Estimate emissions using an emissions calculator.
Even-numbered years
- Report greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies to the Department of Commerce’s SEEP Office, including:
  - Actions taken over the last biennium to meet these emission-reduction targets.
  - Actions planned for the next two biennia to meet emission limits.
  - Long-term strategy for meeting the emission limits.
Odd-numbered years
- State agencies will submit progress reports to SEEP.

Each biennium, the Department of Ecology collaborates with SEEP to publish a progress report to the Legislature.

Visit the Department of Commerce and the Department of Ecology’s websites for additional information.

Permit timeliness

The Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA) helps people navigate Washington's environmental and business regulatory systems. ORIA provides citizens and businesses with information and understanding about local, state, and federal regulatory requirements and collaborates with agencies and stakeholders on ways to improve regulatory systems for more effective services, including for small businesses.

ORIA created the Permit Timeliness program to provide the public with better information about permit decisions to help with planning and decision-making for business owners, developers, and project managers. The goal of Permit Timeliness is to ensure permit performance data is accessible to the public and businesses to improve timeliness, hold the government accountable and enhance public service.

Each of the state’s major regulatory agencies are required to report permit application and issue information directly to ORIA each year. ORIA compiles and posts performance data annually from agencies on the ORIA central repository hosted on data.wa.gov.

For more information on this program, please visit ORIA’s Permit Timeliness webpage.

Significant Legislative Rulemaking

Significant Legislative Rulemaking guides how regulating agencies adopt rules which impact regulatory programs and require that these agencies determine the costs and benefits of a new rule, determine least burdensome alternatives, coordinate regulations with the requirements of state and federal law, and develop an implementation, evaluation and education plan (as specified in RCW 34.05.328).

ORIA is also responsible for collecting data from required agencies, organizing it, and preparing a report each even-numbered year that details the effects these rules have on our rulemaking process. ORIA distributes the report to the governor, legislature, agencies, and stakeholders.

The three main goals within Significant Legislative Rulemaking that participating agencies and stakeholders support include:

Report on their rulemaking process
Ensure agencies are not duplicating rules and that rules do not contradict one another, and
Ensure the rules are necessary, cost effective and minimizes the barriers of bureaucracy.

Reporting is done through an interactive reporting tool to make it easier for agencies to submit information and for businesses, environmental groups and labor organizations to review.

For more information on Significant Legislative Rulemaking, visit ORIA’s Significant Legislative Rulemaking webpage.

Information technology

Washington Technology Solutions (WaTech) operates the state’s core technology services – the central network and data center – and provides strategic and comprehensive information security to protect state networks from growing cyber threats. WaTech also leads the implementation of a strategic direction and enterprise architecture for information technology (IT) and oversees the portfolio of major IT projects for state government.

An agency's IT portfolio is a good way to measure performance. Besides looking at how well an agency is doing in its own business, WaTech also uses information about the agency's IT usage to assess how effectively the state is deploying and managing technology.

Agency specific measures

State agencies are required to develop IT portfolios that reflect the agency’s objectives, business plan, and technology, as well as the effect of agency’s proposed new technology investments on existing infrastructure and business functions (see RCW 43.105.341). These agency specific IT portfolios are to be used to inform decision making and strategic planning, including in the following areas (see RCW 43.105.230):

System refurbishment, acquisitions, and development efforts.
Setting goals and objectives for using information technology.
Assessments of information processing performance, resources, and capabilities.
Ensuring the appropriate transfer of technological expertise for the operation of new systems developed using external resources.
Guiding new investment demand, prioritization, selection, performance, and asset value of technology and telecommunications; and
Progress toward providing electronic access to public information.

When evaluating new technology purchases or services, agencies should develop performance metrics following the requirements above and use the information to drive decision making. While these metrics are not currently required to be submitted, agencies should consider setting performance targets such as quality of service delivery, availability of the service, and the targets associated with each. Technology solutions should be linked to business outcomes and are uniquely positioned to provide detailed information about the efficacy of business services provided by an agency.

Enterprise performance measures

WaTech monitors IT investment across the state to analyze and draw conclusions about where the state is investing, and how the state is performing on its deployment of IT projects and systems. The agency measures project investment levels by analyzing IT spending data of agencies and using benchmarking to ensure the state is investing in the right areas and at the right levels.

Besides measuring how state agencies use and invest in IT, WaTech also monitors IT performance across the entire state. Each year, WaTech collects data from agencies to ensure they comply with its policies and standards. This data helps WaTech identify which policies have the most waivers and track the state's progress in meeting IT policy goals. The information is also used for reports required by law, such as biennial performance reports and funding recommendations. Additionally, the performance data helps develop and update the state's Enterprise Technology Strategic Plan. Accurate performance data from agencies is crucial for WaTech to fulfill its responsibilities.

Visit WaTech’s website for additional information.

Executive branch workforce data

The State Human Resources (SHR) division of the Office of Financial Management (OFM) manages statewide human resource (HR) policy functions including classification, compensation, workforce data, civil service rules, recruitment and other policy functions.

Agencies rely on workforce data to inform the achievement of strategic goals, policy compliance and for regulatory reporting. The source system for executive branch workforce data is the central human resources and payroll system, SAP-HRMS. Data in SAP-HRMS is keyed in and submitted by HR and Payroll employees within agencies across the enterprise and higher education. This data marks and tracks key moments and business processes throughout the employee life cycle. Employees can use the employee self-service tool “MyPortal” to access and update employee specific information such as demographic and contact information.

The SHR division is the business owner for this and other enterprise HR systems. This system contains employee information such as pay, benefits, leave and attendance, position, job class, organizational assignment and demographic data. Other systems include employee exit and employee engagement survey data.

Accessible via the OFM-State HR website, the Workforce data and trends pages offer a wealth of insights through multiple dashboards, reports and detailed analyses. All publicly accessible data undergoes rigorous aggregation and employs safe harbor practices to protect individual privacy.

For agencies needing more tailored insights, the agency HRMS Data Steward and/or agency HR office staff are available to assist in crafting ad hoc queries and reports. Additionally, OFM State HR subject matter experts can consult on workforce data needs. Agencies can direct inquiries to Strategichr@ofm.wa.gov for consultation and guidance.

Previous link previous