Too frequently performance measurement is viewed as an unfunded mandate, both by organizations within and outside the Federal government. Program staff thus reluctantly comply by using administrative data that has been gathered for some other purpose and typically relates to outputs or activities as opposed to outcomes. Administrative data can be used for performance metrics if it relates to the strategic objectives of the agency and is measuring outcomes. For example, reporting the number of grants awarded is not an acceptable metric but noting that by awarding these grants 5645 children are exposed to an additional 45 minutes of physical activity daily in after school programs could be. The Administration’s request that programs use administrative data should be accompanied with a note that professional assistance may be needed to assist the agency is selecting the proper metric.

There are many more positive examples of performance improvement & accountability than mentioned in Barrett & Greene's article. See www.AuditorRoles.org for roles & practices government auditors have been playing to improve performance & accountability. Note that the "Auditor Roles in Performance Measurement Project" at that site does not only has examples of performance auditing of specific programs, but also auditing the underlying performance management systems (or lack of same) that government agencies use to manage performance. And also to audit the relevance & reliability of performance measures & data.