4. Discussion and Analysis of Results and Challenges
An effective SEA report includes a discussion and analysis of results and identifies the challenges facing the government in achieving its desired results. In doing so, the following needs to be considered for inclusion within a SEA report:
- An objective explanation of the results being reported
The highlighted results need to present a balanced view, including both positive and negative aspects of a government’s performance. This discussion needs objective explanations of the reasons for the results being reported. Ideally this will be managements analysis, however, in certain cases it may be prepared by others such as the entity’s auditor.
- Highlight the major and critical results being reported
The narrative discussion, while comprehensive in its coverage of all results being reported should highlight major and critical results. A similar set of questons to those provided by the GASB, in the suggested guidelines, may be used to identify key measures that highlight major and critical results. These questions are: (a) Does the measure report on results for a major goal or objective? (b) Does the measure address an issue receiving considerable public discussion? (c) Does the measure report information considered important by elected officials, citizens, or experts in the field? (d) Does the measure report information about a program or service that accounts for a large proportion of a government’s use of resources? (e) Does the measure report information about a program or service that affects a large proportion of the population or has potentially significant economic, social, or environmental effects?
- Management’s understanding of the reasons why the actual results differ from the expected or intended results
Where there are differences between the actual results being reported and expected results, such as failure to meet targets or results that are less positive than last year’s, management’s understanding of the reasons for these differences, to the degree available, need to be presented. In cases where the discussion and analysis of results and challenges is not management’s representation, it needs to be clearly indicated within the SEA report.
- Currently known facts and circumstances that could affect results in the future
The discussion needs to include currently known facts and circumstances that could affect results in the future.
- Discussion of the major challenges a government is facing in achieving its goals and objectives
The discussion needs to include any factors that management is aware of that might post challenges to the achievement of future results.
- Discussion of the consequences (intended or unintended) and the results (positive or negative) of providing services
The discussion needs to include, in addition to the results that are directly related to the major goals and objectives, the intended or unintended consequences of providing services which may be either positive or negative. These consequences may have been considered by the entity in developing the program or service or may not have been anticipated. If unintended consequences of significant importance are identified they need to be discussed.
- Information that users consider to be important
The discussion needs to include information potential users of the SEA report consider to be important.
- Information about the factors that influence results other than the service itself
External and internal factors, in addition to the program or service itself, may influence SEA performance. The inclusion of these factors, when identified, may be accompanied by a discussion of how the factors influence results (both positively and negatively), whether anything is being done to address the factors, and any changes in the factors that might affect future results. A brief discussion of the difficulty in understanding the underlying causes of results may assist users in realizing that direct cause and effect relationships between services provided and results achieved are often not identifiable. Even if those relationships are identified, they may be tenuous.
The following are examples of discussion and analysis of results and challenges sections from governmental entity performance reports:
Discussion and Analysis – Ankeny, IA [Type of Gov: Mayor; Pop.: 43,319; Land Area: 29.1 Sq. Miles; Budget: $19,900,000]
Discussion and Analysis – Atlanta Transportation System [Type of Gov: Mayor; Pop.: 540,900; Land Area: 132.4 Sq Miles; Budget:$541,022,089]
Discussion and Analysis – Bellevue, WA [Type of Gov: Mayor; Pop.;126,626; Land Area: 33.9 Sq. Miles; Budget:$832,936,837]
Discussion and Analysis – Charlotte, NC [Type of Gov: Council-Manager; Pop.: 709,441; Land Area: 286.0 Sq. Miles; Budget:$1,083,700]
Discussion and Analysis – Des Moines, IA [Type of Gov: Council-Manager; Pop.:198,460; Land Area: 772. Sq. Miles; Budget: $130,100,000]
Discussion and Analysis – Nashville-Davidson County, TN [Type of Gov: Mayor; Pop.:619,626; Land Area: 526.9 Sq. Miles; Budget:$1,542,162,700]
Discussion and Analysis – Portland, OR [Type of Gov: Mayor-Commission; Pop.: 582,130; Land Area: 145.4 Sq. Miles; Budget:$472,000,000]