A Performance Audit
An Audit Report on Performance Measures at the State Preservation Board
September 2021
Summary Analysis
The State Preservation Board (Board) reported reliable results into the Automated Budget and Evaluation System of Texas (ABEST) for 6 (86 percent) of 7 key performance measures tested for fiscal year 2020 and for 4 (80 percent) of 5 key performance measures tested for the first two quarters of fiscal year 2021.
The Board reported unreliable results for one key performance measure tested. Specifically, the Number of Preventive Maintenance Tasks Completed was inaccurate for fiscal year 2020 and the first two quarters of fiscal year 2021 because the Board’s methodology for calculating this performance measure was not consistent with the ABEST measure definition. That deviation caused an error rate of greater than 5 percent between the number reported and the actual performance measure result. In addition, the Board did not appropriately restrict access to its maintenance work-order system.
The Board had some controls in place over the reporting of performance measures; however, it should strengthen certain controls to ensure continued accuracy.
The Board reported reliable results for six of seven key performance measures tested for fiscal year 2020. Although the Board’s reported results were accurate within 5 percent, the Board’s controls were not adequate to ensure continued accuracy. Specifically, the Board should strengthen controls in the following areas:
- The Board did not perform documented independent reviews of its calculations of performance measure results prior to entering those results into the Automated Budget and Evaluation System of Texas (ABEST).
- The Board had policies and procedures for reporting the performance measures into ABEST. However, it did not have formally documented policies and procedures describing the collection and calculation for two performance measures.
- The Board’s methodology for calculating two key performance measures was not consistent with its ABEST definitions.
- The Board did not follow its process for calculating Percent of Maintenance Tasks Completed Correctly.
- For Percent of Historical Items Maintained in Usable Condition, the Board did not maintain the historical item data in a format that allowed it to readily obtain the information from its database.
The Board reported unreliable results for one of seven key performance measures tested for fiscal year 2020 and the first two quarters of fiscal year 2021.
The Number of Preventive Maintenance Tasks Completed was inaccurate because the Board’s methodology for calculating this performance measure was not consistent with the ABEST measure definition.
In addition, the Board did not have formally documented policies and procedures describing the collection and calculation for this measure as required by the State’s Guide to Performance Measure Management.
The Board had a system in place to track maintenance work-orders, but it did not appropriately restrict access to that system as required by the Department of Information Resources’ Security Control Standards Catalog.
Graphics, Media, Supporting documents