Service Efforts and Accomplishments Standards: Fundamental Questions of an Emerging Concept

In 1994, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) adopted and published Concepts Statement No. 2, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting} Although service efforts and accomplishments (SEA) is not a common term, this statement establishes the foundation for the subsequent adoption of reporting requirements that may expand the boundaries of reporting to significantly increase the amount of non-financial information that states and municipalities will report, as well as the cost of external reporting Budget analysts are among prospective users of SEA information. A study of comment letters filed in response to the exposure draft, which preceded Concepts Statement No. 2, shows two divergent views of SEA reporting requirements.2 Support for SEA reporting requirements is grounded in a vision of the potential benefits of SEA reporting;3 opposition to SEA standards is grounded in concerns about potential consequences of instituting reporting requirements.4 The strength of opposition to SEA reporting requirements suggests that consideration of the rationale for standards setting is appropriate. In this article, commonly expressed concerns about reporting requirements are incorporated into five questions. Analysis of these questions evidences the weakness of the rationale for SEA standards as distinguished from the rationale for voluntary SEA reporting. Two proposals are advanced to address concerns about SEA reporting requirements. First, adoption of models of information use from the disciplines of public administration and political science is encouraged. Second, modification of the standard setting process to reflect the non-financial domain of SEA is advocated. Thus, it is proposed that standard setters adopt approaches that emphasize cross-disciplinary research, cooperation with other organizations, and active extension of due process to new stakeholders.     

Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity

Source of nomination (prosecution, defense, judge) was varied in a fictional not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) case distributed to 180 community forensic evaluators in a state employing theM'Naghten rule. Differences among examiners by appointment for the final NGRI judgment was not significant; interrater reliability for psychopathological symptomatology was .73. Discriminant analysis revealed significant differences in the decision-making process between evaluators recommending sanity and those endorsing insanity, as well as between psychiatrists and psychologists.     

Selective adaptation

This paper is critical of some loose speculations about cybernetics, computers and systems, especially as to their role in organization and planning. There is a widespread tendency to believe that human and organizational vagaries can be eliminated by some combination of the former techniques. This tendency is encouraged by a bias towards mechanistic and abstract solutions for social problems. Further, there is a failure to properly take into account natural laws, in the sense of limitations on human and organizational ability, when developing normative models for policy and planning problems. Viable holistic models, supposedly, should replace human and organizational haphazardness; attention has been devoted tosubstituting the machine-techniques for the man, rather than concentrating on man-machine interactions, based on selective adaptations to natural laws.