 |
|
||
This first appeared as a PATimes column in September 2005
Power to the People: Reflections on the ASPA International Symposium for Developing Effective Performance Measurement Systems in Government
By Jay Fountain and John Kamensky
The ASPA Conference in Milwaukee seems like eons ago. But we promised the organizers of the pre-conference CAP International Symposium on Practice-Based Performance Management to share our insights about what we saw and learned. We guess the best test of a successful symposium is-after six months, is there something worth remembering and sharing? In this case, the answer is "yes!"
There were the usual great presentations, great mini-workshops, and a great post-symposium reception sponsored by the IBM Center for the Business of Government. There was a lot of energy and excitement among the dozens of participants. We concluded from all this that there is a healthy level of development in the field. But there was more. . . .
The symposium not only touched on many of the familiar issues facing practitioners over the past decade in developing a supply of useful performance information; it also addressed cutting-edge issues surrounding the creation of a demand for the use of performance information, especially via performance budgeting. But the most intriguing theme that emerged is "what's next" in the performance management movement-increasing citizen engagement-and just how pervasive this theme seems to be globally.
In the development of a supply of performance information, the symposium discussed the evolution of the European Common Assessment Framework, which is beginning to be introduced in the United States as an organizational self-assessment tool. Where used successfully, it has contributed to dramatic increases in performance. We heard about how the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which covers states and localities, is improving the transparency of performance information via annual reporting.
In creating a demand for the use of performance information, we heard about efforts by auditors in Canada as well as in King County, Washington, to engage program officials constructively to act on performance information. We heard about efforts to encourage citizen participation through engagement and communication in Broward County, Florida and about the work of the National Center for Public Productivity at Rutgers University. There were presentations on how to recognize credible performance reports and on analyzing and using performance data. We received papers on the use of performance information in Italian economic development zones, as well as in South American, U.S. federal, and Florida performance budgeting efforts. Taken together, these presentations conveyed a broad sense of progress.
But the real set of insights for the participants came in understanding what seems to lie just ahead as the next challenge for those in the performance measurement community: greater citizen engagement in the governance process.
Dr. Geert Boukaert, the director of the Public Management Institute at the Catholic University of Leuven in The Netherlands, transfixed the audience in the opening session with his clear and compelling presentation of international performance information. He challenged us to forge better links between performance and citizen trust. He said, "If we can't trust government, how can we come together as a community to solve challenges we cannot solve as individuals, but only as a community?" He said, "Legitimacy matters," and you have to involve not only auditors and public employees, but also citizens. He also said, "we have to build new societal relationships."
This challenge was reflected in subsequent presentations on how the Sloan Foundation, the National Center for Public Productivity at Rutgers University, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, the Urban Institute, and the U.S. Agency for International Development are all involved in the essence of what the performance management movement is all about-improving results and communicating those results. Today's challenge is to figure out how to clearly communicate results to elected officials, customers, and citizens. Tomorrow's challenge is to find ways to engage citizens in a meaningful dialogue so they can understand and be empowered to use performance information in a responsible way to improve the performance of government and society.
The specific examples shared by symposium panelists were especially inspiring:
Each of these examples provided a sense of what is possible in years to come.
From these presentations we can see that the measurement of performance of governmental programs and the use of that information to manage programs, allocate resources, and communicate with elected officials and the public are at a very healthy level of development. That is confirmed by the fact that there is no end to the issues and concerns being set forth. Some of the identified issues include (a) there are many different approaches to measuring results and using that information but they are all similar in many ways; these include Total Quality Management (TQM), managing for results (MFR) or performance-based management, and the Balanced Scorecard. (b) Different terms are being used for the same or similar things and it causes confusion (for example, goals and objectives at times are used interchangeably). (c) All that is being focused on is generally directed toward the same thing-how to improve results and communicate those results, yet we are still far from understanding the many factors that influence results and what strategies are most successful in achieving effective and efficient results. (c) It is not clear that we understand exactly what we are accountable for and how to meet the obligation to be accountable.
After listening to these outstanding sessions, a number of specific issues were identified that are of concern if we are to continue to see the development of effective performance measurement systems in government. They include:
As this list of questions shows, there are many issues still to be addressed as the use of performance measures continues to grow. But its use is growing, the issues are being identified, and we see evidence that something is being done to work on them. We believe this indicates that the use of performance measurement in governments is in a very healthy period of growth and that the next few years will see greatly expanded use of result- based performance information.
When we reflected back on the symposium in the context of Comptroller General David Walker's keynote address, where he talked about the significant challenges facing our country in setting priorities for the future, we saw some hope and inspiration from this international symposium. This fall we in the United States will see the public reports on how well different federal programs perform and the first iteration of the Key National Indicators. Both can serve as a fact-based springboard for broader citizen engagement on how well we as a nation are performing. And we can say we could have seen it coming, based on what we learned at the symposium!
Special thanks for the symposium go to the key organizers, Patria de Lancer Julnes (Utah State University) and Fran Berry (Florida State University). Without their vision and persistence, it would not have happened. Their next challenge is reprising the symposium in an edited volume. We wish them luck!
Jay Fountain is with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board and can be reached at jrfountain@gasb.org. John Kamensky is a senior fellow with the IBM Center for The Business of Government; he can be reached at john.kamensky@us.ibm.com.