10th Annual Performance Report Scorecard AGENDA Welcome Hon. Maurice McTigue Study Results Dr. Jerry Ellig Henry Wray Remarks Hon. Mark Warner Awards Hon. Mark Warner Hon. Maurice McTigue Q - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – 10th Annual Performance Report Scorecard AGENDA Welcome Hon. Maurice McTigue Study Results Dr. Jerry Ellig Henry Wray Remarks Hon. Mark Warner Awards Hon. Mark Warner Hon. Maurice McTigue Q PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 151a08-YzVjY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

10th Annual Performance Report Scorecard AGENDA Welcome Hon. Maurice McTigue Study Results Dr. Jerry Ellig Henry Wray Remarks Hon. Mark Warner Awards Hon. Mark Warner Hon. Maurice McTigue Q

Description:

Share best practices and encourage agencies to improve quality of disclosure ... Get performance information good enough that legislators can use ... Big Movers ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:79
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: kme2
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 10th Annual Performance Report Scorecard AGENDA Welcome Hon. Maurice McTigue Study Results Dr. Jerry Ellig Henry Wray Remarks Hon. Mark Warner Awards Hon. Mark Warner Hon. Maurice McTigue Q


1
10th Annual Performance Report Scorecard
AGENDA Welcome Hon. Maurice
McTigue Study Results Dr. Jerry Ellig
Henry Wray Remarks Hon. Mark
Warner Awards Hon. Mark Warner Hon.
Maurice McTigue QA Full text
www.Mercatus.org/Scorecard
2
Motivation for the Project
  • Share best practices and encourage agencies to
    improve quality of disclosure
  • Encourage managers to use performance information
    to manage agencies
  • Get performance information good enough that
    legislators can use it for oversight and budgeting

3
Project Design
  • Team of 3 experts with experience in government
    and/or performance management evaluates reports
  • 12 criteria based on GPRA requirements
  • Evaluate reports from 24 CFO Act agencies
  • Each evaluation reviewed by a member of advisory
    panel
  • Entire report reviewed by entire advisory panel

4
A caveat
  • This Scorecard evaluates only the quality of
    agency reports, not the quality of the results
    they produced for the public. Actual agency
    performance may or may not be correlated with
    report rankings in this Scorecard.

5
How We Score the Reports 1-5 rating scale
  • 3 Categories
  • Transparency
  • Public Benefits
  • Leadership
  • 4 criteria in each category
  • Criteria tightened each year to reflect previous
    years best practices
  • Total score can range from 12 to 60

6
What did the research team examine?
  • Pilot format
  • Required citizens report
  • Other materials clearly identified by the
    citizens report (e.g. Performance Reports,
    Financial Reports)
  • Traditional format
  • Performance and Accountability Report
  • Optional citizens report (for effect on
    readability criterion)

7
Top Three Swap Places
8
Big MoversNote Reports that dropped in
the rankings did so because they achieved about
the same or slightly lower scores as in FY 07.
9
40 of Budget is Covered by Satisfactory
Disclosure
10
16 of Recovery Act Appropriations Are Covered by
Very Good Reporting
11
Ten Years of Progress
12
Ten Years of ProgressAll 4 agencies FY
2008 reports were much better than their FY 1999
reports
13
Areas of Greatest Improvement
  • Accessibility
  • Readability
  • Results linked to costs
  • Management challenges

14
Best Practices
  • Prominent home page links
  • Written for general audience
  • Substantive transmittal letters
  • Citizens reports
  • Costs linked to individual measures
  • Progress ratings for management challenges

15
Pilot Score Improvement Widespread
  • 7 agencies were pilots both years
  • 6 improved their scores this year
  • More scored average (36) or higher this year
  • Caveat Higher scores dont always signify better
    content

16
Main Reason Better Access to Data
  • FY 08 citizens reports had more useful content
  • FY 08 citizens reports had better links to other
    data sources
  • FY 08 snapshots helped for some reports

17
PARs vs. Pilots Conclusions So Far
  • Either format can work
  • Both formats can be improved
  • There may be better alternatives to either format
  • Report quality depends more on content than
    format

18
Format Improvements
  • PARs
  • Shorten
  • Include citizens report
  • Pilots
  • More substantive citizens reports
  • User-friendly links to source documents

19
Improvements for Both Formats
  • More prominent links and better contact
    information online
  • More informative transmittal letters
  • Plain language throughout
  • Reader-friendly tables and graphics
  • Clear, concise, outcome-oriented metrics
  • Candor in all aspects of reporting

20
For More Information
  • Mercatus Scorecard web page
  • www.mercatus.org/scorecard
About PowerShow.com