Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Mercatus   Ellig Wray Presentation April
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Mercatus Ellig Wray Presentation April


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Pilots vs. PARs: Some Preliminary Results Jerry Ellig & Henry Wray
  • 2. Project Design
    • Team of 3 experts with experience in govt. 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
  • 3. 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 year’s best practices
    • Total score can range from 12 to 60
    Fails to meet expectations 1 Partially complete 2 Satisfactory 3 Shows innovation and creativity 4 Sets a standard for best practice 5
  • 4. Pilots vs. PARs, fiscal 2007 24 % Difference 7.33 Difference 30.00 Pilot average score 37.33 PAR average score
  • 5. Pilot vs. PAR scores, fiscal 2006-07 -12 -1 % Change -4.11 -0.4 Change 30.00 37.33 2007 34.11 37.73 2006 Pilot PAR
  • 6. Public Disclosure
    • Whatever its impact on other users, the pilot was a step backward for public disclosure :
    • Access to performance information was delayed for several months.
    • Once released, the information was harder to find and use.
    • To the extent found, the information gave the public little if anything that was not available last November.
    • The one potential benefit for public disclosure: Some highlights documents (mainly those done voluntarily by non-pilot agencies) demonstrated the value they can add for lay readers, if done well .
  • 7. Performance Information
    • The pilot provided limited performance information that the general public could reasonably access and use:
    • We found and used all three relevant documents (highlights, performance report, and financial report) for only 2 of the 9 pilot agencies.
    • We used the highlights for all 9 agencies (although 2 were not timely posted on line). However, most failed to provide an insightful overview of agency performance and lacked user-friendly links to relevant information in other source documents.
    • We used only 3 of 9 performance reports. We could not find the reports for 3 agencies by the due date. The remaining 3 reports were embedded in budget justifications and thus beyond the practical reach of the general public.
  • 8. Observations
    • If the pilot continues, the highlights documents and their links to other source documents must improve substantially in order for the public to get any value from performance reporting.
    • Highlights documents can significantly enhance performance reporting for the general public. Therefore, they should be improved and expanded whether or not the pilot continues.
    • Our report will offer a number of specific suggestions for improving the highlights documents.