Title: 9th%20Annual%20Performance%20Report%20Scorecard%20%20AGENDA%20Welcome%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Hon.%20Maurice%20McTigue%20Study%20Results%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Dr.%20Jerry%20Ellig%20Henry%20Wray%20%20%20Remarks%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Hon.%20Jim%20Cooper%20AwardsHon.%20Jim%20Cooper
19th Annual Performance Report Scorecard
AGENDA Welcome Hon.
Maurice McTigue Study Results
Dr. Jerry Ellig Henry Wray Remarks
Hon. Jim Cooper Awards Hon.
Jim Cooper Hon. Maurice
McTigue QA Panel of AuthorsFull text
www.Mercatus.org/Scorecard
2Project 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
3A 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.
4How we score the reports 1-5 rating scale
5 Sets a standard for best practice
4 Shows innovation and creativity
3 Satisfactory
2 Partially complete
1 Fails to meet expectations
- 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
5Fiscal 2007 pilot format
- Financial report (November)
- Performance information published with
congressional budget justification (Feb. 1) - Highlights document (Feb. 1)
6What did the research team examine?
- Pilot format
- Required highlights document
- Other materials clearly identified by the
highlights document (eg, Performance Reports,
Financial Reports) - Traditional format
- Performance and Accountability Report
- Optional highlights document (for effect on
readability criterion)
7 Final Four Become Top Three
FY 2007 Rank FY 2007 Score FY 2006 Rank FY 2006 Score
Transportation 1 55 1 53
Labor 2 53 2 51
Veterans 3 51 2 51
8Big Movers
FY 2007 Rank FY 2007 Score FY 2006 Rank FY 2006 Score
HHS 5 37 24 25
DHS 5 37 21 30
State 18 31 4 50
USAID 14 32 5 42
Defense 24 17 16 32
9Lower overall scores
10Substantial room for improvement
11More of budget covered by satisfactory disclosure
12Anybody can do it!
13Pilots vs. PARs, fiscal 2007
PAR average score 37.33
Pilot average score 30.00
Difference 7.33
Difference 24
14Pilot vs. PAR scores, fiscal 2006-07
PAR Pilot
2006 37.73 34.11
2007 37.33 30.00
Change -0.4 -4.11
Change -1 -12
15The Pilot and Public Disclosure
- Performance information released in February
rather than November. - Once released, the information was harder to find
and use. - Little additional information that was not
available last November. - Well-done highlights documents (mainly those done
voluntarily by non-pilot agencies) add
significant value for lay readers.
16Availability of Performance Information
- Highlights for all 9 agencies (2 not timely
posted on line). - Highlights, performance report, and financial
report found for only 2 of 9 pilot agencies. - 3 of 9 performance reports useable.
- 3 could not be found by due date
- 3 embedded in budget justifications
17Observations
- Highlights and links to other documents must
improve substantially in order for the public to
get any value from performance reporting under
the pilot format. - Highlights should be improved and expanded
whether or not the pilot continues. - Scorecard offers Top Ten suggestions for
improving the highlights documents.
18For more information
-
- Mercatus Scorecard web page
- www.mercatus.org/scorecard