Performance ratings take a dive in Foggy Bottom

Posted By Josh Rogin Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 8:50 PM Share

Hey State Department employees, how did your bureau perform last year? Probably not as well as it did the year before, according to a newly released financial report on the agency.

The 100-plus page document, the annual Agency Financial Report, is meant to give a snapshot of how all financial aspects of the State Department are faring, but includes an interesting aside. Only 63 percent of employees' performance ratings in fiscal 2009 were deemed to be "on or above target" and 38 percent were judged "below target or improved but not yet met." Ouch.

That's down from a 69 percent positive performance rating in fiscal 2008 and 86 percent in fiscal 2007.

But wait. The numbers don't tell the whole story. Apparently, the measures for grading performance changed somewhat for 2009, meaning that the numbers don't represent a genuine apples-to-apples comparison.

"Marked by increasing rigor and intensive engagement at multiple levels of the organization, the process for developing and selecting performance indicators changed significantly in FY 2009," the report states. (Is the implication here that the previous administration wasn't "rigorous" in measuring performance?)

The indicators were changed to be "more outcome-oriented" and focused on "replacing qualitative with quantitative indicators when appropriate," according to the report. Also, "When possible, these indicators were designed to show quantitatively the Department's progress on achieving its strategic goals and priorities."

The report argues that you shouldn't read too much into the comparison between last year's numbers and the years prior, given how much the process of measuring changed. What's more, the new, lower performance numbers don't include foreign assistance programs because that data didn't come in early enough to be included in the report.

That said, the report does claim to matter in one very concrete sense: "Budgetary effects from performance management at the Department are most evident in building budget justifications; making decisions about the allocation, management, and monitoring of resources; reducing duplicative services; and increasing program cost-savings," it reads.

State Department readers, help us out on this one. Is the new performance system fair? How did your bureau do?

EXPLORE:STATE DEPARTMENT

(7)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

W00T

7:26 AM ET

January 9, 2010

Drop in %

A 17% drop in performance in 2 years is something the state department would not have expected. As we progress in time, with the advancement in technology and efficiency i believe the percentage should've increased, atleast because the U.S. is not an 'underdeveloped or developing nation' but is amongst the few developed nations in this world. seo articles
Guess the Government will have to come up with another agency to look upon the performance of other agencies.

NEXUS PHOTO

11:40 AM ET

January 9, 2010

Disagree

As said from the fourth para onwards, i believe its all upon the method of scrutinizing. Its shocking to see the performance of employess fall to a staggering 69 percent from a previous 86 percent. But none can be blamed as the same rules were not applied while determining the performance as compared to the year 2007.
Regards from Nexus One Phone Info

CHEATER

3:47 PM ET

January 9, 2010

The Financial Crisis could Have Been a Reason

I believe the financial crisis that was non-existent in 2007 is one the reasons for the bad performance of government employees. I have nothing to back my claim but that's my personal belief. Somehow, the comment above mine has a very valid point. Even the changed method of scrutinizing and farmville cheats can be the reason for the drop in efficiency or outcome as compared to the fiscal year 2007.

ZYGOR

7:51 AM ET

January 10, 2010

I would certainly Disagree

I would certainly Disagree with the third last paragraph where the it is argued that the report should not be compared to the previous years' report. Without comparison how is it goin to be possible to track the progress?
Atleast, stating the new methods of scrutiny that weren't present in the previous years and to what extent they may have played a role with zygor guide in the decrease in performance should have been considered.

WEBSPACE

1:49 AM ET

January 11, 2010

Transparency is an issue

Seems like there's a healthy discussion or should i say a debate going on here. I feel the lack of transparency is the issue in this matter. This report is absolutely not of any classified webspace information so it shouldn't hurt the government to make it public, i.e. not the stats but the way these stats were determined. I made a lookup over Google and found a little yet not useful info on this matter. I guess its time the government starts sharing its methods with the public so that even we are aware as to what's going on.

MATTHEW116

12:13 AM ET

January 15, 2010

Bad Performance

Very interesting facts on this article. Statistics are very informative.
A 17% drop in performance in 2 years is a fact. The government should
stop playing silly Rollenspiele and come back to a better transperency. When the government sharing its methods with us that would be the first step in the right direction. The publicity is not informed about many important things.

COMMUNICATION

6:39 AM ET

January 15, 2010

Something Worth Disregarding

The stats have been taken merely on human scrutinization, this is something that people ought to know before they compare the results with the previous years'. The methods have chaged, times, locations, Communication Skills, workloads and goals too have dramatically changed. The fact that the methods of scrutiny employed this year have been different from 2 years' back, we just don;'t have the right grounds to judge this issue