Output measures quantify the amount of goods produced or services delivered by a program or organization. They answer the question, "How much did we do?" For example, the number of miles of road paved or the number of tax returns processed are output measures. They represent the direct, tangible results of an activity. This aligns precisely with the definition of reporting the "results of providing goods or services." In contrast, outcome measures assess the impact or consequences of those outputs on the recipients or the broader community.

A. activity measures. These quantify the processes or work performed to produce an output (e.g., hours of training delivered), not the final product or service itself.

B. outcome measures. These assess the effects or consequences of the service (e.g., the reduction in traffic accidents due to newly paved roads), not the quantity of the service provided.

D. workload measures. This term is often used interchangeably with output or activity measures but typically focuses on the volume of work processed, making "output measures" the more precise term for the final product.

1. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2011). A Guide to Key Performance Measurement Terms (GAO-11-646SP). Washington, D.C.

Page 10: Defines an output measure as "A measure of the quantity of goods and services produced by a program." This directly supports the correct answer.

Page 9: Defines an outcome measure as "A measure of the results, effects, or consequences of a program’s outputs," which distinguishes it from the correct answer.

2. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). (1994). Concepts Statement No. 2: Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting.

Paragraph 55c: States, "Measures of the quantity of a service provided are referred to as output measures. For a fire department, for example, an output measure might be the number of fires extinguished... For a public school system, an output measure might be the number of students taught."

3. Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance Measurement: Getting Results (2nd ed.). The Urban Institute Press. (This is a foundational academic text in public administration performance measurement).

Chapter 2, Page 14: Defines outputs as "The amount of service provided, or the number of products produced by a program." It distinguishes this from outcomes, defined as "The substantive results of the program for its customers and the community."

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 was enacted to improve the performance and accountability of federal programs. Its stated purposes, as outlined in the law itself, are to improve program effectiveness, help managers improve service delivery, and improve the internal management of the Federal Government. While GPRA mandates a framework for performance planning and reporting, its core purpose is not to provide detailed procedural instructions on reporting. Rather, reporting is the mechanism through which the primary goals of accountability, effectiveness, and improved management are achieved. The specific instructions for reporting are typically issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

A. This is incorrect. A stated purpose of GPRA is to "help Federal managers improve service delivery, by requiring that they plan for meeting program objectives and by providing them with information about program results and service quality."

B. This is incorrect. GPRA explicitly aims to "improve internal management of the Federal Government" by shifting the focus from activities and processes to results and outcomes.

D. This is incorrect. A primary purpose of GPRA is to "improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction."

1. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Public Law 103-62. Section 2, "Findings and Purposes," (b) Purposes. This section explicitly lists the purposes of the Act.

Purpose (3): "improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability..." (Supports that D is a purpose).

Purpose (4): "help Federal managers improve service delivery..." (Supports that A is a purpose).

Purpose (6): "improve internal management of the Federal Government." (Supports that B is a purpose).

The text does not list "providing instructions on program reporting" as a foundational purpose.

2. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2011). MANAGING FOR RESULTS: GPRA Modernization Act Provides Opportunities to Help Address Government's Fiscal, Performance, and Management Challenges. GAO-11-466T. Page 3. The report summarizes the original purposes of GPRA, stating it was intended to "improve federal program effectiveness and public accountability... help federal managers improve service delivery... and improve internal management." This reaffirms that A, B, and D are core purposes.

3. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2023). Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget. Part 6, Section 200.2. This document, which provides the detailed instructions for implementing GPRA, states its purpose is to "provide instructions on performance management and strategic reviews to implement the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010." This shows that the instructions are provided in OMB guidance, separate from the foundational purposes of the Act itself.

The primary objective and defining output of a financial statement audit is the expression of an auditor's opinion. This formal opinion concludes whether the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with an applicable financial reporting framework (e.g., GAAP). While an opinion can be issued for certain high-level compliance audits (i.e., examination-level attestation engagements), it is the quintessential and universal purpose of a financial statement audit. Other audit types, such as performance or forensic audits, result in reports with findings, conclusions, and recommendations rather than a formal opinion on a subject matter against established criteria.

A. performance audits: These audits result in reports with findings, conclusions, and recommendations about program effectiveness and operational efficiency, not a formal opinion.

B. compliance audits: While an opinion can be issued for an examination-level compliance audit, it is not the only possible output, unlike for financial statement audits.

D. forensic audits: These produce investigative reports detailing factual findings for potential legal proceedings, not a professional opinion on the fairness of presentation.

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2018). Government Auditing Standards (GAO-18-568G, "Yellow Book"). Chapter 4, Section 4.03 states, "The primary purpose of a financial audit is to provide financial statement users with an opinion by the auditor on whether the financial statements are presented fairly..."

2. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2021). AU-C Section 700: Forming an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements. Paragraph .07 explicitly outlines the auditor's objectives, which culminate in forming and expressing an opinion in a written report.

3. Watkins, A. L., & Jones, J. (n.d.). ACC 550: Auditing and Assurance Services [Course Syllabus and Materials]. Stanford University Graduate School of Business. The course materials for Module 1, "An Overview of Auditing," define the primary output of a financial statement audit as the auditor's opinion.

Government Auditing Standards (GAS), issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), require auditors to report on compliance with provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements. The compliance report must describe the scope of the testing, the auditor's responsibilities, and the results of the tests, including any identified instances of noncompliance. While auditors test internal controls over compliance, the standards do not mandate that the formal report include a descriptive "review of major internal control cycles." Instead, the report focuses on communicating any identified significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in internal control over compliance.

A. Reporting on areas of noncompliance is a fundamental requirement and a primary purpose of the compliance report under GAS.

B. The report must describe the auditor's responsibility for testing compliance to provide context for the audit's objectives and procedures.

D. The scope of compliance testing must be clearly stated so that users of the report understand the extent of the work performed.

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2018). Government Auditing Standards: 2018 Revision (GAO-18-568G). Chapter 5, "Reporting Standards for Financial Audits," paragraphs 5.15-5.24, outline the required elements for the auditor's report on internal control and compliance. These sections mandate reporting on the scope, auditor's responsibility, and results of compliance tests but do not require a review of internal control cycles.

2. Ruppel, W. (2019). Governmental Accounting Made Easy. John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 13, "Auditing Governments and Not-for-Profit Organizations," discusses the reporting requirements under Government Auditing Standards, emphasizing the need to report on compliance findings, scope, and responsibilities, distinguishing this from a narrative review of control systems. (Note: While this is a published book, it is authored by a reputable academic and widely used in university curricula on governmental accounting).

3. University of North Carolina, School of Government. (n.d.). Introduction to Governmental Accounting and Reporting. Course materials on financial audits in the public sector explain that the Yellow Book report focuses on communicating deficiencies and noncompliance rather than providing a descriptive analysis of entire control cycles. The required elements align with options A, B, and D.

The foundational first step in any strategic sourcing initiative is to conduct a comprehensive spend analysis. This involves systematically gathering, cleansing, and classifying expenditure data by category for all business units. This analysis provides critical visibility into what the organization is buying, from which suppliers, and at what cost. This baseline understanding is essential for identifying savings opportunities, consolidating purchasing power, and developing an informed sourcing strategy. Subsequent steps, such as market analysis and supplier engagement, are predicated on the insights gained from this initial data-gathering phase.

A. Contacting vendors for bids is part of the supplier selection (RFx) phase, which occurs much later in the process, after a sourcing strategy has been developed.

C. Identifying existing contracts is a component of the overall spend analysis, but it is not the complete first step, which must encompass all spending data.

D. Developing supplier performance measures is part of the contract negotiation and supplier relationship management stages, which follow the initial data analysis and sourcing event.

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012, July). STRATEGIC SOURCING: Leading Commercial Practices Can Help Federal Agencies Increase Savings (GAO-12-677). In Figure 1, "A Seven-Step Strategic Sourcing Process," the first step is explicitly defined as "Analyze agency-wide spending" (p. 8).

2. Monczka, R. M., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2016). Purchasing and Supply Chain Management (6th ed.). Cengage Learning. Chapter 7, "The Strategic Sourcing Process," outlines the initial steps as building a team and conducting market intelligence research, which is fundamentally driven by a detailed spend analysis to understand the current purchasing profile before engaging the market.

3. Smeltzer, L. R., & Siferd, S. P. (1998). Proactive supply management: The management of risk. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 34(1), 38-45. The article emphasizes that strategic supply management begins with a thorough analysis of the firm's expenditures (spend analysis) to identify critical categories and formulate appropriate strategies.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting (ICFR) is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). A core component of this process is ensuring the validity of management's assertions embedded in the financial statements. The assertion that "all assets and liabilities have been properly valued and, where applicable, all costs have been properly allocated" directly corresponds to the "Valuation and Allocation" assertion. This is a fundamental objective of ICFR, as it ensures that financial statement elements are included at appropriate amounts and any necessary adjustments are correctly recorded.

A. This relates to budgetary and compliance controls, which ensure adherence to laws on spending authority, not the reliability of financial reporting itself.

B. This describes a single, specific control activity (a physical inventory) supporting the existence assertion for assets, not the overall purpose of ICFR.

D. This addresses operational objectives (program effectiveness), which are distinct from the financial reporting objectives that ICFR is designed to meet.

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2014). Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (GAO-14-704G, "Green Book").

Page 7, "Objectives of an Entity": The document defines three categories of objectives: operations, reporting, and compliance. The reporting objective pertains to the "preparation of reliable reports," which includes financial statements.

Page 49, OV2.27: Discusses how management uses assertions for financial reporting, which "fall into categories such as existence or occurrence, completeness, rights and obligations, valuation or allocation, and presentation and disclosure." Option C is a direct example of the valuation or allocation assertion.

2. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (2013). Internal Control—Integrated Framework: Executive Summary.

Page 3: States that one of the three major categories of objectives for internal control is "Reporting." It specifies this category relates to "internal and external financial and non-financial reporting and may encompass reliability, timeliness, transparency, or other terms as set forth by regulators, recognized standard setters, or the entity’s policies." The assertion in option C is a key element of reliable financial reporting.

3. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2016). Circular No. A-123, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control.

Appendix A, Section I, "Introduction": Defines the objective of internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) as providing "reasonable assurance that the agency’s financial reporting is reliable." Reliable reporting requires that the underlying assertions, including valuation, are valid.

The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 first mandated the preparation and audit of financial statements for the 24 largest federal agencies. While subsequent acts like the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (GMRA) built upon this by requiring a consolidated government-wide financial statement, a significant number of smaller agencies remained exempt. The Accountability for Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (ATDA) specifically addressed this gap by amending the CFO Act to extend the requirement for preparing and submitting annual audited financial statements to most executive branch agencies that were not originally covered, thereby expanding the mandate to "virtually all" federal agencies.

A. The CFO Act of 1990 initiated the audit requirement but limited its scope to only the 24 largest federal agencies.

C. The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 focused on requiring agencies to maintain compliant financial management systems, not on expanding the number of agencies subject to audit.

D. The Government Management Reform Act of 1994 required a consolidated financial statement for the government but did not expand the audit requirement beyond the original CFO Act agencies.

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2004, March). Financial Management: The Challenge of Federal Financial Accountability (GAO-04-475T). p. 3. "The Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (ATDA) extended the requirement to prepare audited financial statements to most executive branch agencies not covered by the CFO Act."

2. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2023, June). Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. Section I.1, p. 1. "The Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (ATDA) (P.L. 107-289) extended the requirement to prepare audited financial statements to most executive branch agencies not covered by the CFO Act."

3. Association of Government Accountants (AGA). (2020). CGFM Examination 1 Study Guide: Governmental Environment. Chapter 2: Federal Financial Management, Section: Key Federal Financial Management Legislation. This section details the progression of legislation, noting the CFO Act established the initial requirement and the ATDA expanded it to smaller agencies.

4. Granof, M. H., Khumawala, S. B., & Smith, P. A. (2016). Government and Not-for-Profit Accounting: Concepts and Practices (7th ed.). Wiley. Chapter 16, "Federal Government Accounting," discusses the legislative history, stating that the ATDA of 2002 "extended the requirement for audited financial reports to most federal entities not covered by the CFO Act."

A dashboard is the most appropriate tool for this scenario. It is designed to provide a visual, at-a-glance summary of key performance indicators (KPIs) and metrics from data sources that are frequently updated. For a program manager needing to track daily changes in participation versus enrollment, a dashboard offers a quick, easily digestible format (e.g., charts, gauges) to identify significant variations and trends. This facilitates continuous monitoring and rapid analysis without the need to manually process raw data each day, directly addressing the manager's need for a quick analytical method for dynamic information.

A. crosstab: A crosstab is a specific statistical table used for analyzing relationships between variables at a single point in time, not for continuous, quick-glance monitoring.

B. portable document format: A PDF is a static, non-interactive file format for document presentation and is incapable of dynamic data analysis or visualization.

C. text file: A text file is a raw data storage format that lacks any built-in analytical or visualization capabilities; it requires another tool for analysis.

1. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2011). Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help Inform Decision Making (GAO-11-45). In Chapter 2, "Use Performance Information to Lead and Learn," the guide emphasizes the importance of regularly monitoring progress toward goals (p. 14). Dashboards are a primary tool for this type of regular monitoring and presentation of performance information to decision-makers.

2. Few, S. (2006). Information Dashboard Design: The Effective Visual Communication of Data. O'Reilly Media. In Chapter 3, "Variations in Dashboard Design," Few defines a dashboard as "a visual display of the most important information needed to achieve one or more objectives; consolidated and arranged on a single screen so the information can be monitored at a glance" (p. 34). This definition directly aligns with the program manager's requirement for quick, daily analysis.

3. Healy, K. (2018). Data Visualization: A Practical Introduction. Princeton University Press. In Chapter 1, "Look at Data," the text discusses the principles of effective data display for understanding patterns and trends. Dashboards are a practical application of these principles, designed to "provide a high-level overview of a process or system" (p. 12), which is precisely what the manager needs to compare participation and enrollment.

The provided data allows for a break-even analysis to determine the point at which the cost of in-house printing equals the cost of outsourcing. By setting the two cost equations equal (10,000 + 1.00x = 1.50x), the break-even point is calculated to be 20,000 copies. For print volumes below 20,000, outsourcing is the more cost-effective option. For volumes above 20,000, in-house printing is cheaper. Since there is a clear, quantifiable scenario where outsourcing is financially advantageous, it represents a feasible alternative that warrants consideration. The final decision would depend on the anticipated print volume, which is not provided.

A. This is only true if the print volume exceeds 20,000 copies. The data does not support this as a general conclusion.

C. In-house printing is a presented alternative and is more cost-effective at higher volumes, so outsourcing is not a necessity.

D. The data presents only one outsourcing vendor. Concluding that this specific vendor should be awarded the contract is premature without competitive bids or a definitive need to outsource.

---

1. Heisinger, K., & Hoyle, J. B. (2012). Managerial Accounting. Saylor Foundation. Chapter 7, "How Are Relevant Costs Used to Make Decisions?" This chapter details the methodology for "make-or-buy" decisions, which involves comparing the relevant costs of producing an item in-house versus purchasing it from an external supplier. The analysis in the problem, which identifies the cost structures and allows for a break-even calculation, is the primary step in determining the feasibility of outsourcing.

2. MIT Sloan School of Management. (2004). 15.963 Management Accounting and Control, Session 6: Cost-Volume-Profit Analysis. MIT OpenCourseWare. This course material explains Cost-Volume-Profit (CVP) analysis, the framework used to find the break-even point. The calculation (Fixed Costs / (Price - Variable Costs)) is adapted here to compare two options by finding the volume where their total costs are equal, thereby establishing the conditions under which each option is feasible.

3. Garrison, R. H., Noreen, E. W., & Brewer, P. C. (2021). Managerial Accounting (17th ed.). McGraw-Hill. Chapter 12, "Relevant Costs for Decision Making," provides detailed examples of outsourcing (make-or-buy) decisions. It emphasizes that such decisions are made by comparing the differential costs between the alternatives, confirming that outsourcing is a feasible option when its relevant costs are lower than in-house production for a given level of activity.

Meaningful performance assessment requires context, which is achieved through comparison. Comparing the cost per acre maintained to that of another jurisdiction is a form of benchmarking. This method creates an efficiency measure (cost per unit of service) and compares it against a peer, providing a basis for judging whether the division's performance is relatively efficient or inefficient. This approach moves beyond simply measuring inputs (like funds or staff) or overly broad outcomes (like general citizen satisfaction) to provide a specific, comparable, and actionable assessment of the grounds maintenance division's operational performance.

A. A single measure of citizen satisfaction for the entire department is too broad and not specific enough to evaluate the grounds maintenance division alone.

B. Evaluating funds spent is an input measure; it does not assess the efficiency or effectiveness of the maintenance work performed with those funds.

C. Analyzing staffing levels is an input measure, not a performance outcome, and provides no insight into the quality or efficiency of the work.

1. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). (1994). Concepts Statement No. 2: Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. Section 57 discusses measures that relate efforts to accomplishments, defining efficiency measures as those that relate an entity's efforts (costs) to its outputs of goods and services (e.g., cost per acre maintained). This supports option D as a valid efficiency measure. Paragraph 7 notes that inputs (like funding and staffing in options B and C) are measures of effort but not of performance itself.

2. Ammons, D. N. (2012). Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards (3rd ed.). M.E. Sharpe. Chapter 1, "The Case for Performance Measurement and Benchmarking," emphasizes that performance data gains meaning primarily through comparisons. The book explicitly advocates for comparing performance on efficiency measures, such as "cost per park acre mowed," with other jurisdictions to provide the necessary context for meaningful assessment (p. 11-12).

3. Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance Measurement: Getting Results (2nd ed.). The Urban Institute Press. Chapter 8, "Making Comparisons: The Key to Performance Measurement," states that "comparisons are essential for managers and elected officials to make sense of performance data" (p. 157). It identifies comparisons with other jurisdictions as a primary method for interpreting performance, directly supporting the methodology in option D.