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

201

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
201
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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.

×