Government Public Performance Reporting—Is It Worth the Effort?

Abstract

Call it what you will—performance management, managing for results, data-driven decision making—it is what good government managers aspire for these days. We true believers take as an article of faith that reliable, timely data on inputs, outputs, activities, outcomes and, often, societal level measures are essential for effective and efficient governance. We also believe that public accountability demands that performance data be publicly available. But who actually uses the vast amount of information that is produced? Does it really improve the lives of citizens by enhancing government performance? The practice of reporting how governments and individual agencies perform their duties has been popular in the United States for the past 25 years. As part of a larger government accountability initiative championed by United States’ presidents, state governors, and mayors, these government performance reports generally come in two types: Type 1—reports are mandated by a specific authorizing environment, usually by law, as a tool to exercise oversight of a government agency with no underlying strategic plan requirement; and Type 2—reports are intended to quantify and track achievement of the goals identified in a government-sponsored strategic planning document or set of “strategic priorities.” In practice, most public reports combine certain parts of both oversight and planning function to match their earlier order of appearance.