Federal Performance Reporting: What a Difference Ten Years Males! since CPRA Implementation, the Annual Reporting Quality Has Improved Substantially, and Agencies with Better Reports Increasingly Use Performance Information as a Management Tool

By Ellig, Jerry | The Public Manager, Summer 2009 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Federal Performance Reporting: What a Difference Ten Years Males! since CPRA Implementation, the Annual Reporting Quality Has Improved Substantially, and Agencies with Better Reports Increasingly Use Performance Information as a Management Tool


Ellig, Jerry, The Public Manager


In 1999--a decade ago--federal agencies issued their first annual performance reports mandated by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. That same year, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University launched a research project to evaluate the quality of the reports each year. Ten years makes a difference:

* Ten years ago, one agency's report almost filled a copier paper box and weighed 30 pounds. For fiscal year 2008 (FY08), twenty agencies produced brief "citizens' reports" to make their performance results more accessible to the general public; most of these reports were shorter than thirty pages.

* Ten years ago, sixteen agencies made their reports available online, but only four clearly labeled the report as their annual performance report and made it easy to find. For FY08, twenty three reports were available online shortly after they were due to Congress. Thirteen agencies posted their reports on time, created a direct link on their homepage, permitted downloads as both single and multiple files, and provided contact information for questions or comments.

The content of the reports has improved substantially as well, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

By the Numbers

Each year, our researchers examine the reports produced by the twenty-four agencies covered under the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, which account for the vast majority of federal outlays.

The scoring process evaluates (1) how transparently an agency discloses its successes and failures, (2) how well an agency documents the tangible public benefits it claims to have produced, and (3) whether an agency demonstrates forward-looking leadership that uses annual performance information to devise strategies for improvement. An expert team evaluates each report on twelve criteria--four each for transparency, public benefits, and leadership. On each criterion, the report receives a score that can range from 1 (no useful content) to 5 (best practice that other agencies should adopt). The maximum possible score is 60, and the minimum is 12. An average of 3 points on every criterion yields a score of 36, which could be considered "satisfactory."

Figure 1 shows that average scores have risen by about 15 percent. Some individual agencies improved their reports by much larger amounts. The U.S. Department of Labor's report was the most improved over the decade, rocketing from 36 points and fifth place in FY99 to a record 56 points and first place in FY08. Seven agencies gained more than 10 points between FY99 and FY08: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Departments of State, Health and Human Services (HHS), Commerce, Justice, and Agriculture. The Department of Homeland Security also increased its score by 13 points since FY04, the first year its report was included in the scorecard.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

These score data understate the full extent of improvement, however, because the research team tightens the scoring criteria over time as new best practices emerge. Our reevaluation of the best four reports from FY99 finds that these reports would rank well below average when judged on the same twelve criteria, but using FY08's higher standards.

Table 1 shows where these FY99 reports would have ranked compared with the reports agencies produced for FY08. Evaluated by FY08 standards, the best FY99 report, from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) would rank just sixteenth in FY08. The three other FY99 reports reevaluated under FY08 standards were from the Departments of Transportation, Veterans Affairs, and Education. All would have done worse under FY08's tighter standards. From these evaluations, we estimate that the average quality of performance reports has improved by about 75 percent since FY99.

Best Practices

Because the Mercatus scorecard explicitly identifies best practices every year, comparing some FY99 best practices with their FY08 counterparts is not difficult.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Federal Performance Reporting: What a Difference Ten Years Males! since CPRA Implementation, the Annual Reporting Quality Has Improved Substantially, and Agencies with Better Reports Increasingly Use Performance Information as a Management Tool
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?