Linking Performance and Accountability Kristine Lee Leiphart, FTA Deputy CFO

1
Linking Performance and AccountabilityKristine
Lee Leiphart, FTA Deputy CFO

• American Association of State Highway and
  Transportation Officials
• Federal Highway Administration
• Federal Transit Administration
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program

2
Outline

• Evolution of Performance- and Results-Orientation
• Present Capabilities
• Performance Scanning Visit of England and Sweden
• Improve Performance Management
• Major Findings
• Implications in the U.S.
• Best Practices

3
Past Two Decades

• National Partnership for Reinventing Government
  (1993 2001)
• Implementation of Government Performance and
  Results Act
• Customer Service Standards, High Impact Agency
  Commitments
• Executive Performance Assessment Standards
• Presidents Management Agenda (2001 2009)
• Scorecard of Management Capacity, Proud to Be
  Memos
• Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
• Performance Budgets, Performance Pay
• Designation of Performance Improvement Officers
• Creation of Performance Improvement Council

1993
2001
2009
4
Present Capabilities

• Agency strategic plans
• Agency annual performance plans
• Strategic and program level results
• Program level assessments of performance
• Network of performance improvement
• officers within, across agencies
• Annual performance reports, highlights

5
Background of the Scan

• The US Congress is considering a performance
  management approach for Federal transportation
  programs and their grant recipients
• Accountability for achieving performance targets
  in exchange for continued Federal funding
• DOTs, transit agencies and MPOs all use some
  form of performance measurement
• However, few agencies have performance management
  systems that link performance to
  project-selection and budget processes

6
Purpose of the Scan

• Seek examples of goals translated into agency
  performance measures
• Find ways to set measures based on public,
  legislative input
• Find examples of performance tied to budgets
• Find ways to demonstrate accountability via
  performance measures
• Seek advice on what works, what doesnt

7
Major Findings

• National goals were clearly ingrained into
  transportation agency performance management
  systems
• Broad national goals not hard, specific targets
  imposed on agencies
• Performance outcomes, over process, were
  emphasized
• Budgets and targets were not linked
• Ambitious national visions spurred investment,
  not performance measures
• Transparency was apparent

8
Implications for the US

• Performance management takes time
• It may take a decade of trial and error
• Negotiated targets are needed
• States and Federal govts need to negotiate
  targets that meet local needs
• Continuous dialogue important
• Metrics should be combined with dialogue to
  achieve results
• Fewer not more measures
• Broad policy outcomes more important than many
  hard targets
• Dont over-emphasize short-term results
• Demand for short-term achievements creates
  incentive for easily targets
• Can skew focus away from important, long-term
  goals

9
Goals, Not Hard Targets

• Few hard targets were required of the agencies
• Central government articulated broad policy goals
• Agencies negotiated how to translate those broad
  goals into metrics, targets

Govt Goals
Larger group of agency goals, programs, measures
and targets
10
Budgets, Targets Not Linked

• There was not a strong linkage between agency
  performance and legislative budgeting
• Appropriations were not calibrated to achieve
  specific condition or performance targets
• Appropriations were not set to award or penalize
  accomplishments
• Budgets for system conditions remained
  incremental

11
Transparency and Accountability

• Voluminous results and outcomes are very clearly
  documented
• Frequent reporting and performance discussions
• The demand for results cascades down to the
  regional and individual levels
• Annual reports are common

12
Performance Management Evolution Implications
for US

• The major policy goals were remarkably
  consistent
• Safety
• System preservation
• Economic growth
• Environmental sustainability
• System operations (congestion and trip
  reliability).
• Asset management was strong

13
Implications for US

• Less is more, in terms of measures
• Evolution was from many measures to fewer
• Outcomes, rather than, outputs are emphasized

14
Implications for US

• Do it with people, not to them.
• Performance targets are negotiated, not imposed
• The metrics are benchmarks for continuous
  improvement, rather than milestones for penalty
• Performance agreements across agencies are common
• Managing to short term targets can compromise
  progress toward long term goals

15
Required Organizational Resources

• Dedicated people resources, focus, and
  prioritization were necessary for a budget
  increase.
• Enough organizational resources needed to conduct
  cost-benefit analyses of all projects.
• It is not always about resources  The Swedish
  governments administrative budget was decreased
  by 2 per year. It encouraged organization to
  focus on key initiatives, increasing
  efficiencies.
• Organizational resources to support performance
  management need to address project cost overruns
  as well as greater efficiencies.
• Support for performance resources is easier when
  there are visible and immediate effects to the
  public.

16
Changes Needed for Performance Management

• The Swedish Parliament is open to reorganize if
  that was required for organizational success.  
• The Swedish performance management model was
  based on a high level of trust and empowerment to
  do what was necessary to move the organization
  toward goals.
• The Swedish governments middle managers get
  together annually for 6 days to discuss progress
  with their performance management.

17
Congressional, OMB, and Agency Staff Opinions

• No comprehensive way for the public or Congress
  to see how the Federal government is performing
  and what agency goals or targets are.
• Too little attention paid to communicating
  performance targets and
• trendstoo much attention communicating
  percent of targets met.
• Too much attention to reviews and control, and
  not enough on advice and improvement.

18
Guiding Principles for Improving
PerformancePerformance information should be
used to improve performance, not just report
performance for accountability purposes. Given
this premise, Federal leaders should

• Communicate performance trends and targets, not
  target attainment and ratings.
• Encourage performance improvement with increased
  diagnostic analysis, practical experiments, and
  knowledge sharing.
• Present information in ways that meet the needs
  of specific audiences.
• Structure accountability mechanisms to encourage
  and inspire, not embarrass, reprimand, or punish.

19
Recommendations to Improve Performance -
Actions by the President

• Clearly identify presidential and cabinet
  priority targets.
• Assign responsibility for pursuing the targets,
  and meet with
• Cabinet members responsible for the priority
  targets.
• Have the Chief Performance Officer coordinate
  performance.
• Use the White House performance unit to run
  goal-focused, data-driven meetings pertaining to
  his priority targets.
• Identify and manage cross-agency targets and
  measures.
• Instruct White House Policy Councils to also
  identify measures, and a limited number of
  targets.

20
Recommendations (continued)

• Direct agencies to set direction of performance
  trends for key indicators.
• Continue, but revise the program review system.
• Engage external performance management expertise
  for agencies , programs.
• Reconvene Presidents Management Council with
  increased attention to performance.

21
Recommendations (continued)

• Immediately review agency performance trends and
  update priority targets. Review and refine
  organizational strategic and annual targets to
  reflect and communicate the new Administrations
  priorities.
• Run their own goal-focused, data-driven meetings.
• Identify information needs of key audiences for
  reporting performance targets. Pay increased
  attention to the presentation, dissemination, and
  use of performance information.
• Create agency web-based performance portals. Add
  a link to this portal on each agencys home page.

22
Actions by Performance Improvement Council

• Lead a process to review the Program Assessment
  Rating Tool.
• Process should shift the emphasis of PART from
  program rating to performance improvement.
• Consider specific revisions to PART. (e.g.,
  align PART targets with presidential priorities,
  allow agencies to define what constitutes a
  program, and consider eliminating or redefining
  the rating system.)

P A R T
23
Building a High-Performing Government

• Putting performance first
• Ensuring responsible spending of Recovery Act
  funds
• Transforming the Federal workforce
• Managing across collaborating Departments
• Reforming Federal contracting and acquisition
• Transparency, technology, and participatory
  Democracy
• Rule 1 never allow a crisis to go to waste. . .
  they are opportunities to do big things.