1 / 18

9th Annual Performance Report Scorecard

Dive into the results and findings of the 9th Annual Performance Report Scorecard, evaluating agency reports for transparency, public benefits, and leadership. Understand the criteria and rankings to see where improvements can be made.

fostertodd
Download Presentation

9th Annual Performance Report Scorecard

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 9th 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 Q&A Panel of AuthorsFull text: www.Mercatus.org/Scorecard

  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. A 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.

  4. How we score the reports1-5 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

  5. Fiscal 2007 pilot format • Financial report (November) • Performance information published with congressional budget justification (Feb. 1) • Highlights document (Feb. 1)

  6. What 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

  8. Big Movers

  9. Lower overall scores

  10. Substantial room for improvement

  11. More of budget covered by satisfactory disclosure

  12. Anybody can do it!

  13. Pilots vs. PARs, fiscal 2007

  14. Pilot vs. PAR scores, fiscal 2006-07

  15. The 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.

  16. Availability 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

  17. Observations • 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.

  18. For more information Mercatus Scorecard web page: www.mercatus.org/scorecard

More Related