Presentation on theme: "ADD Perspectives on Accountability Where are We Now and What does the Future Hold? Jennifer G. Johnson, Ed.D."— Presentation transcript:
ADD Perspectives on Accountability Where are We Now and What does the Future Hold? Jennifer G. Johnson, Ed.D.
ACCOUNTABILITY GPRA (PPRs) PPRsDDPIE The system formerly known as PART Indicators of Progress (PPRs) MTARS 5-YEAR APPLICATION Where are we now?
ACCOUNTABILITY ACTIVITIES PPRs MTARS 5-year Application DDPIE OUTPUTS Indicators of Progress (PPRs) DDPIE OUTCOMES GPRA (PPRs) PART DDPIE Compliance Another view Compliance
Current MTARS: conducted annually GPRA: have baseline data established PPR and Indicators of Progress: underwent a two-year strategic review via analysis of logic model with assistance from a workgroup. DDPIE: in OMB clearance process 5-year applications: group submitting annually; peer review panel
GPRA (PPRs) PPRs DDPIE New Federal Accountability Framework Indicators of Progress (PPRs) MTARS 5-YEAR APPLICATION What can the future hold?
ACCOUNTABILITY ACTIVITIES PPRs MTARS 5-year Application Accreditation DDPIE OUTPUTS Indicators of Progress (PPRs) Accreditation DDPIE OUTCOMES Indicators of Progress (PPRs) 5 Year PPR GPRA (PPRs) New Federal System Accreditation DDPIE Compliance Another view of the Future Compliance
Future MTARS –Revise process annually –Need to review and revise self-assessment checklists Accreditation –Explore possibility –Many considerations: Is there a way to integrate it with MTARS? What are the implications of accreditation? What would be the procedures?
Future PPR & Indicators of Progress –Changes to the indicators of progress based on recommendations from Workgroup and feedback from Network –Recommendations from workgroup on what would get measured (note: ultimate outcomes not measured) Development of a 5 year PPR template Review guidance for 5-year applications Findings from DDPIE
Obama Administration “Building A High-performing Government” http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives/ 6 themes Theme 1: Putting Performance First: Replacing PART with a New Performance Improvement and Analysis Framework
Performance Improvement Officer Performance Improvement Officer (PIO) designated to coordinate agency performance management activities (November 13, 2007 Executive Order (EO) on Improving Government Program Performance) Help head of the agency: –define clear goals –measure progress –hold people accountable for achieving results. Performance Improvement Council (PIC) to facilitate collaboration between PIOs on performance management efforts
PART Points out strengths: established performance measures across Federal programs. Points out weaknesses: little impact in encouraging the actual use of performance measurement as a performance improvement tool.
No longer focus on grading programs as successful or unsuccessful Require agency leaders to: –Set priority goals –Demonstrate progress in achieving goals –Explain performance trends. A reformed performance improvement and analysis framework
Emphasis on program evaluation …the Administration will conduct quality research evaluating the effectiveness of government spending in order to produce better results.
Moving forward Administration will work with agency leaders and the PIC to develop options for: Establishing a comprehensive program and performance measurement system that shows how Federal programs link to agency and Government-wide goals; Reforming program assessment and performance measurement processes to emphasize the reporting of performance trends, explanations for the trends, mitigation of implementation risks, and plans for improvement with accountable leads;
…moving forward Streamlining reporting requirements under GPRA and PART to reduce the burden on agencies and OMB; Improving the communication of performance results to Congress, the public, and other stakeholders through better data display in agency reports and the ExpectMore.gov website; and Launching a comprehensive research program to study the comparative effectiveness of different program strategies to ensure that programs achieve their ultimate desired outcomes.
Congressional Activities Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act (H.R. 2139) Includes provisions for program evaluation Based on draft legislation and supporting materials prepared by a small working group, including members of the AEA Evaluation Policy Task Force (EPTF) and the Lundy Foundation, Reflects principles in the EPTF's "Evaluation Roadmap for a More Effective Government."
Key evaluation provisions A requirement for the President to develop and implement a rigorous system to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of United States foreign assistance The establishment of measurable performance goals Criteria for selection of programs to be subject to various evaluation methodologies Establishment of an evaluation organization unit in each Federal agency involved in foreign assistance activities Requirements to apply the lessons learned and results from evaluation activities in the planning and implementation of foreign assistance programs Requirements to publish all evaluation plans and reports Requirements for annual evaluation plans
Key evaluation provisions Consultations among Federal agencies, governments of host countries, international and indigenous nongovernmental organizations, and other relevant stakeholders Capacity building for evaluation in Federal agencies and for recipient countries Annual budgeting for evaluation Establishment of a Foreign Assistance Advisory Council with biennial reports of its activities to the President and the Congress Annual reports from the President to the Congress on the use of evaluation Definitions of key evaluation terms A 5% set aside of foreign assistance funds to pay for evaluations