Planning and performance measurement can improve government management of programs, policy decision-making, and the public’s confidence in government.

Clarifying Goals, Reporting Results Joseph s. wholey

Over the past two decades, budget deficits have risen and public confidence in government has dropped to historically low levels in the United States and in many of the other industrialized democracies. Today we see limited gov- ernment resources, increasing demand for effective public services, and increasing demand for accountability to the public.

This paper explores current efforts to use planning and performance mea- surement in meeting these challenges t using lessons learned in several federal agencies to begin testing the theory underlying the Government Performance and Results Act. The paper is intended to encourage evaluators to involve themselves in current agency efforts to define, measure, and improve govem- rnent performance-and thus to help preserve government and civilization itself in these difficult times.

The Government Performance and Results Act

In the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (EL. 103-62), responding to findings that managers and pslicymakers are handicapped by inadequate information on performance and inspired by the growing use of performance measurement in other countries and at state and local levels in this country Congress prescribed planning to identify agency goals and annual

The views and opinions expressed by the author are his own and should not be construed to be the policy or position of the General Accounting Office or the University of Southern California. The author thanks Jonathan Breul, Valerie Caracelli, Herbert Jasper, Gail Mac- Coll, Raymond Olsen, Christopher Wye, Carolyn Yocom, and the editors for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

95

CLARIFYING GOALS, REPORTlNG RESULTS 103

tribute to agency planning and performance measurement efforts (US. General Accounting Office, 1997). Evaluators have skills that are needed as agencies work to identify realistic goals, develop appropriate output and outcome mea- sures, evaluate performance, report results, and use performance information to improve management, improve program effectiveness, improve policy deci- sion making, and improve public trust.

Requirements to identify goals and measure performance create demands that evaluators can help meet through training, technical assistance, and tech- nical support. Evaluators can and should help in clarifymg stakeholder expec- tations and priorities, defining performance measures (especially outcome measures) €or agency programs, and assessing the feasibility and likely utility of alternative performance measurement systems. The evaluability assessment process-in particular, the use of logic models-can help agencies to meet these challenges (see Scheirer, 1994; and Wholey, 1994). Once quantitative or qualitative performance indicators have been selected, evaluators can help in collecting, analyzing, communicating, and using performance information.

The Government Performance and Results Act offers evaluators a myriad of opportunities to demonstrate their worth in meeting the challenges of improving government management, performance, and credibility As profes- sionals and as citizens, we cannot let these opportunities pass by.

References Army Research Laboratory. Applying the Principles of the Governmat Performance and Results

Act to the Research and Development Function. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Pubhc Administration, 1996.

Avdellas, N. J.. Use ofStrutegic Planning at the Bureuu ofLand Mmgment . Washmgton, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. The Social Construction ofReality Garden City, N.Y.: Dou- bleday, 1966.

Department or Energy. Use and Development of Performance Measures. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

Dolbeare, M. A,, and Dody, B. GPRA Case Study: The Deparhnent of Veterans National Cemetery System. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

Gore, A. From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less. New York PIumeJPenguin Books, 1993.

Groszyk, W. Using Peghmunce Measurement in Government. Paper presented at the Public Management Service Activity Meeting, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, Nov. 1995.

Gullen, D., Iskandar, A., and Tiongson, E. The Pension Benejit Guarunty Corporation und Its Eudy Warning Program. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

Inter-American Foundation. Development and Use of Outcome Information in Government. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

Internal Revenue Service. Case Study on the Strategic Management Process at the IRS. Wash- ington, D.C.: American Swiety for Public Administration, 1996.

Ladwig, A. M., and Steinberg, G. A. Strategic Planning and Strategic Management Within NASA. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

Malek, F. V. Washingon’s Hidden Tragedy: The Failure to Make Government Work. New York: Free Press, 1978.

104 PROGRESS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN EVALUATION

National Academy of Public Administration. Toward Useful Performance Measurement: kssm karnedfvom Initial Pilot Performance Plans Prepared Under [he Government Perfor- mance and Re5uIfsAct. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1994.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Strategic Planning and Perfurmance Mea- surement. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

National Science Foundation. Strategic Planning at the National Science Foundation. Wash- ington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996a.

National. Science Foundation.. Development and Use of Outcome Informution by the National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996b.

Newcomer, K. E., and Wright, R. T. “Effective Use of Performance Measurement at the Fed- eral Level.” PA Times. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, Jan. 1997.

Office of Child Support Enforcement. Strategic Planning in the Om of Child Support Enforce- ment. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

Olsen, R. GAA Status Report and Action Items. Memorandum to Members of the Government Accomplishment and Accountability Task Force. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, Dec. 14, 1995.

Olsen, R. T., and Epstein,J. “Performance Management: So What?“ PA Times. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, Jan. 1997.

Osborne, D., and Gaebler, T. Reinventing Government. Reading, Mass. : Addison-Wesley, 1992.

Pyhrr, P. Zero-Base Budgeting. New York Wiley, 1973. &din, A. M. Systematic Thinkingfor Social Action. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Insti-

tution, 1971. Scheirer, M. A. (1994). “Designing and Using Process Evaluation.” InJ. S. Wholey, H. P.

Hatry, and K. N. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Fran-

Trump. P. Strategic Planning in the Defense rogistics Agency (DLA), ,Washington, D.C.: Amer- ican Society for Public Administration, 1996.

US. Army Audit Agency. Applying the Principles of the Governmht Ptrfomance und Results Act and StrtEtegic Phning to the Inspector GenerallAudit Functim. Washington, D.C.: Amer- ican Society for Public Administration, 1996,

US. Coast Guard. Using Outcome Information to Redirect Programs: A Case Study of the Coast Guard’s Pibt Project Under the Government Performance and Results Act. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

US. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Report 103-58,103rd Congress, 1st sess., 1993;

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Management Case Study: public Hous- ing Management Assessment Program. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Use of Performance Infomalion in the Chesapeake Bay Program. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Per- formance and Results’Act. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1996.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Managingfor Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Per- formance. Washington, DL.: Author, 1997.

U.S. Public Health Service. Objective-Settingfor Improved Health: The Public Health Service Healthy People Program. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 1996.

Wholey, J. S. “Assessing the Feasibility and Likely Usefulness of Evaluation.” In J. S. Who- ley, H. P. Hatry, and K. N. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Pmctical Pruogvm Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1994.

cisco: JOSS~Y-~SS, 1994.

CLARIFYING GOALS, REPORTING RESULTS 105

JOSEPH S. WHOLEY is senior evaluatorfor Advanced Studies and Evaluation Method- ology Group, General Government Division, Government Accounting Office, Wmh- ington, D.C.