The Results Act Landscape

1
Time Line
First Strategic Plans 1997
GPRA signed by Clinton
GPRA Passed by Congress
The PMA
The PART
1993

1992
2003 Now
1992 Clinton
2000 Bush
2002
1988 Bush
2
GPRA Operational
1997
2003
5 ½ Years
Clinton
Bush
2000
3
GPRA ImplementationRealistic Expectations
2003
2007
1997

• Agency Top Leaders
• Agency Program
  Managers
• Congress

• Agency Specialists
• GPRA/Performance
  Framework
• OMB Engaged

4
Presentation Outline Performance-Based Management
GPRA/PMA

• Geeze, What Memories
• Whoops, This is Real
• Help, Danger Ahead

5
Geeze, What Memories
6
Executive Branch

• Work Within existing budgets.
• Theres no money for training.
• Hello, does anyone there answer the phone?
• Let a thousand flowers bloom.
• Words from Walter G.
• The budget side youre doing great/terrible.
• Dont do crosscutting/do crosscutting.

7
Congress

• Ginny Thomas and the scorecard
• Give it to us the way you always gave it to us
• GPRA what?
• Senator Thompson and Robert Shea
• Marcus Peacock and the EPA
• Whose money is this, anyway?

8
Heard Around Town

• This is a bunch of crap
• Someone straighten this out Performance
  Measurement, Performance-Based Management,
  Performance Indicators, Quality, Reengineering,
  Prostil and Distil Indicators
• My Flip charts are better than yours
• Follow the Coast Guard

9
But, We Did Make Some Real Progress, We Really Did

• Developed core expertise
• Produced Strategic Plans, Annual Plans, and
  related infrastructure
• Initiated a dialogue on performance issues
• Built a community of performance leaders

10
And, of Course, a Lot Remains to be Done

• Top leadership involvement
• Participation by program managers
• Use of indicators by Congress, agencies, and OMB

11

• Whoops, This is Real

12

• June 9th, 2000 Campaign Speech
• Getting Results From Government
• Citizen Centered, Results Oriented
• and Market Based

13
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION The President (continued)

• Government should be results oriented
• Government by performance not process
• Every program should be judged
• GPRA is a powerful tool and should be
• taken more seriously
• In my administration standards will be higher
• and results will matter
• We will eliminate duplication overlapping
• programs
• I will ask Congress to establish a Sunset Review
  Board

14
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION OMB

• Mitch Daniels/2002 Budget
• Dramatic improvements in performance needed
• Our agenda will build on laws such as GPRA
• Agencies must include performance goals for
• government-wide and agency specific reforms
• FY 2002 performance plans and budget
• materials should reflect better alignment

15
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION OMB

• FY 2002 BUDGET
• -Citizen Centered
• -Results Oriented
• -Market Based
• Heavy emphasis on GPRA
• Integrate performance with budgets
• Submit performance information with budget
• - Performance-based budgets will be required
• for selected programs
• Eliminate duplication and overlap

16
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION OMB The Plan

• FY 2002 Performance-based budget
• required for selected programs
• FY 2003 Performance goals across the board
• for every budget
• -Standardized linkages between
• performance and the budget
• FY 2004 Entire U.S. budget will integrate
• performance information

17
THE NEW ADMINISTRATIONOMB Mitchell E. Daniels,
Jr., Director
There are a number of people in Washington who
appear to have attended the Debby Boone School of
Public Policy, where the school song is, It
Cant Be Wrong If It Feels So Right. Well, it is
not enough for a program to feel right to have a
nice title. . . . If the performance isnt there,
we ought to be looking for a better place to make
that investment. Mitchell DanielsJanuary 24,
2002
18
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION The Effect of September
11
From the beginning of my administration, I have
called for better management of the federal
government. Now, with all of the new demands on
our resources, better management is needed more
sorely than ever . . . When objective measures
reveal that government programs are not
succeeding, those programs should be reinvented,
redirected, or retired. President BushFebruary
5, 2002
19
THE NEW ADMINISTRATIONTHE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

• July 11 Memorandum for Heads of Executive
  Departments and Agencies
• Establishes Chief Operating Officers -
  implement the presidents mission - overall
  management to improve agency performance -
  assist agency head in promoting government
  reform - overseeing agency specific effort to
  implement the OMB 5 point agenda integrate
  performance-based budgeting expand competitive
  sourcing strengthen the workforce improve
  financial management advance e-government

20
THE NEW ADMINISTRATIONOMB
21
THE NEW ADMINISTRATIONOMBThe Score Card Example
22
THE NEW ADMINISTRATIONOMBAgency Example HUD
23
THE NEW ADMINISTRATIONOMBThe Budget
Taken together the . . .changes in this years
budget document produces a very different sort
of budget, one the administration hopes will
inform its readers in new ways, while broadening
the healthy debate that always attends this
document. Going forward, let the question we
debate be not just What will the federal
government spend? but also What will the federal
government achieve?
24
THE NEW ADMINISTRATIONOMBThe Budget
The information on which program ratings are
based are far from perfect, and some conclusions
my prove erroneous over time. The administration
invites a spirited discussion and welcomes
additional data, as well as suggestions about how
to measure performance better throughout the
federal government.
25
PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING Three Strategies

• Change budget structures to align with
• performance plans.
• Crosswalk performance information with
• budget justifications.
• Integrate performance information with
• budget processes and structures.

26
THE NEW ADMINISTRATIONOMBPerformance-Based
Budgeting

• What are the key questions that should be
  answered for this program to receive funding?
• Is there enough information to answer the
  question?
• How does this program compare with other programs
  that have a similar goal
• From the available information, what can be said
  about the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of
  this program?
• What additional information is necessary?
• How can the additional information be collected
  in the most cost effective way?

27
Help, Danger Ahead
28
For The Foreseeable Future

• Performance Will Mean Performance Budgeting
• Performance Budgeting Will Mean PART

29
What Is the PART?

• A Structured Questionnaire
• OMB Budget Examiners
• Must Complete
• For All Programs (Eventually)

30
Each Part Has Four Sections

• Purpose/Relevance/ Federal Role
• Strategic Planning
• Program Management
• Program Results

31
There Are PARTs For the Seven Types of Programs

• Competitive Grant
• Block Grant Formula
• Regulatory
• Capitol Assets
• Credit
• Direct
• Research and Development

32
Based on the PART, Programs Are Rated

• Effective
• Moderately Effective
• Adequate
• Ineffective
• Results Not Demonstrated

33

• The PART is an Astonishing Document

34
OMB Budget Process Before PART

• Individual Budget Examiners
• Not Very Structured
• Based on Policy Guidance
• Entirely Closed

35
OMB Budget Process After PART

• Standard Set of Questions
• Emphasis on PMA Relative to Results
• Open to Public/Citizen View

36
The NAPA Trial Run

• June 28th
• A Program OMB Had Already Rated
• A Panel of Experts
• Program
• Evaluation
• Agency
• OMB
• Interest Group
• Technical Assistance
• State and Local Managers

37

• Two Hour Session
• The Academy Was Free to Assign its Own Rating
• OMB Representatives Watched

38
The NAPA Trial RunOverview

• Participants Were Fair and Credible
• The Discussion Was Relatively Brief
• The Central Issue Was Data

39
The NAPA Trial RunConclusion

• The NAPA Panel Came to the Same Conclusion as OMB
• The NAPA Panel Rated the Program as Ineffective

40
Comparison of OPM and NAPATrial Runs

• OMB
• Mitch Daniels
• OMB Budget Examiner
• Two Hours

• NAPA
• Marcus Peacock
• OMB Budget Examiner
• Panel Of Experts
• Program
• Evaluation
• Agency
• OMB
• Interest Group
• Technical Assistance
• State, Local,
• Two Hours

41
The NAPA Trial RunOMB

• The Program is Duplicative
• Insufficient Data to Show Impact

42
The NAPA Trial RunStakeholder CommentsThe
Responsible Department

• The Program could use better data, but we know
  that and are moving in that direction.
• OMB singled out a part of the program, ignoring
  other parts.

43
The NAPA Trial RunStakeholders Comments

• Association Perspective
• Few Programs have national, scientific
  evaluations
• GAO has said the program is not duplicative
• OMB singled out a portion of the program as
  duplicative

44
The NAPA Trial RunStakeholders Comments

• State/Local Program Administration.
• If there is no sufficient information to prove
  program impact, neither is there sufficient
  information to disprove program impact.
• OMB singled out a portion of the program as.

45
The NAPA Trial RunStakeholders Comments

• Technical Assistance Provider Perspective.
• Program was changed only 18 months ago to place
  awards on a competitive basis.
• A theory of change is needed when assessing
  programs that to change behavior.

46
The NAPA Trial RunPanel CommentsGeneral
Comments

• Is there a way to get more information on program
  impact?
• It would help to distinguish among intermediate
  and end outcomes
• What does the context suggest would be a
  reasonable expectation?

47
The NAPA Trial RunPanel Comments

• Are all key aspects of the program addressed?
• Needs more on customer perceptions
• More information on trends
• The panel was divided on the yes/no format

48

• Is There Enough Information to Answer the
  Questions?
• All agreed more information would be better
• All also agreed OMB had to make decisions

49

• Are there Any Issues that Should be Addressed?
• The definition of program purpose is crucial and
  should be clear and unambiguous
• Several said that the form should deal with the
  adequacy of data to answer the questions

50
The NAPA Trial RunPanel Comments

• How the Panel Rated the Program
• 2 ineffective
• 1 unknown
• 2 moderately effective
• Overall agreement ineffective

51

• What Additional Information is Needed
• Relationship to similar programs- crosscutting
  measures
• Leveraging (federal-local public-private)
• Meta analysis
• Program evaluation

52

• How Could the Review be Improved?
• More Attention to management capacity and
  correction
• Set reasonable standards for process dont set
  the bar too high, too early