Why Governments Need Performance Reporting

1
Why Governments Need Performance Reporting

• Rakesh Mohan, Director
• Office of Performance Evaluations
• Idaho Legislature
• 208-334-3880 ? rmohan_at_ope.idaho.gov ?
  www.idaho.gov/ope
• 2006 AGA Performance Management Conference
• Schaumburg, Il

2
Abstract

• Imagine a world without report cards, results,
  or benchmarksthe Olympics would be boring, we
  wouldnt know which car has the highest safety
  rating, nor would we know how our kids are doing
  in school. Report cards, results, and benchmarks
  are all part of performance reporting we need
  them to make informed choices, prioritize our
  resources, and excel in our endeavors. Likewise,
  good government is not possible without an
  effective accountability system. Citizens need
  performance reporting to hold their governments
  accountable.

3
Why We Need Performance Reporting

• Accountability
• Policy and budget decisions
• Program evaluation
• Program monitoring

4
Common Performance Audit Findings

• Policy intent, program goals, and performance
  expectations are not clear
• Performance indicators used by program officials
  are not aligned with policy intent
• Reported performance information is not useful to
  policymakers
• Quality of performance information reported is
  questionable

5
Policy Articulation
Worst Scenario
6
Washington Linked Deposit

• Intent/Purpose
• Remedy the lack of access to capital by minority
  and womens business enterprises
• Data Tracked
• Number of minority- and women-owned small
  businesses receiving reduced interest rate loans
• Amount of money loaned
• Disconnect between policy intent and program
  focus as implemented

7
Washington Jobs for the Environment

• Intent/Purpose
• Measurable improvements in water and habitat
  quality
• Economic stability in the targeted areas
• Data Tracked
• Types and amount of work done
• Types of jobs created, amount of wages paid, and
  number of people employed
• Disconnect between policy intent and program
  focus as implemented

8
Idaho K-12 Technology Initiatives

• Performance measurement focused on
• How much money was given in grants
• How many computers were acquired
• Management did not know
• Whether districts had achieved their goals
• Where districts needed to go next
• Cost-effectiveness of technology acquisition
• Districts capacity to meet new challenges

9
Strategic Planning andPerformance Measurement in
Idaho

• Idaho Code enacted in 1993 requires
• Strategic plans and annual updates
• Annual performance reports
• Intent Improve agency performance and
  government accountability
• Performance information is required as part of
  executive budget

10
What They Said

• Legislature
• Performance information reported was not useful
  for making budget and policy decisions
• Agencies
• Performance measurement process was not useful
  for managing programs
• Legislative Staff
• Performance information not useful for preparing
  budgets or conducting performance audits

11
Challenges in IntegratingMeasurement with
Management

• Stakeholder input
• Data limitations
• Quality of performance information
• Cost concerns

12
House Bill No. 3002005 Legislative Session

• Strengthens and streamlines performance
  measurement requirements
• Provides for legislative involvement
• Requires agencies to provide basic profile
  informationstatutory authority, revenue and
  expenditure breakdowns, and types of cases
  managed or key services provided
• Requires agencies to report key performance
  measures with benchmarks and explanations

13
Idahos Performance Measurement Process
1. Agency receives program authority
appropriations
2. Agency develops strategic plan
Training to agency staff
7. Legislative committees provide feedback to
agencies, request evaluations, and consider
information for making policy and budget decisions
3. Agency develops performance measures
Legislative feedback
6. Agency presentsperformance information to
legislative committees
4. Agency provides services, collects data
5. Agency provides performance information to
executive legislative budget staff
Training to legislators
14
Effective Performance Measurement

• Treat performance measurement as an inherently
  political process
• Include stakeholders
• Define what would constitute program success
• Agree on the cost of measuring success
• Know that the success of performance measurement
  rests on the processsimple, understandable,
  accessible, and affordable

15
Effective Performance Measurement

• Use performance data, along with other
  information, to make policy, budget, and program
  decisions
• Do not use a single number to paint the picture
• Understand causal relationships
• Use performance measurement to trigger questions,
  not to find all of the answers
• Identify areas for performance auditing
• Set multi-year performance goals

16
Effective Performance Measurement

• Use targets for providing context
• Use appropriate measures for internal and
  external use
• Use a few select measures that reflect program
  efforts and accomplishments relating to
  legislative intent
• Review quality of information reported
• Provide training on reporting and use of
  performance information

17
AccountabilityCornerstone of Good Government

• Accountability in government does not happen
  just because a nation has a democratically
  elected government or a constitution that
  provides basic rights to its citizen. Both the
  leaders and the public have to believe in
  accountability and collectively strive to
  establish and maintain it.
• We cant take accountability in government for
  granted it takes a concerted effort of everyone
  involved. Performance reporting is one important
  step in that effort.

18
References

• Idaho Legislature. House Bill No. 300, 2005
  Legislative Session, www3.state.id.us/oasis/H0300.
  html.
• Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee,
  Washington Legislature. Linked Deposit Program
  Sunset Review, Sept. 1999, www1.leg.wa.gov/jlarc/.
  
• Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee,
  Washington Legislature. Environmental Restoration
  Jobs Act, Oct. 1998, www1.leg.wa.gov/jlarc/.
• Mohan, R. Understanding Performance
  Measurement. NLPES News, no. 83, Fall 2002,
  http//www.ncsl.org/programs/nlpes/news/news1002.h
  tm.

19
References

• Mohan, R., Tikoo, M., Capela, S., and Bernstein,
  D. Increasing Evaluation Use Among Policymakers
  Through Performance Measurement. In a
  forthcoming volume of New Directions for
  Evaluation, R. Mohan and K. Sullivan (eds.),
  Spring 2007.
• Office of Performance Evaluations, Idaho
  Legislature. Strategic Planning and Performance
  Measurement, Dec. 2004, www.idaho.gov/ope/public
  ations/reports/r0404.htm.
• Office of Performance Evaluations, Idaho
  Legislature. Public Education Technology
  Initiatives, Jan. 2005, www.idaho.gov/ope/publicat
  ions/reports/r0501.htm.