Motivation for the Project

1. 10th Annual Performance Report Scorecard AGENDA Welcome Hon. Maurice McTigue Study Results Dr. Jerry Ellig Henry Wray Remarks Hon. Mark Warner Awards Hon. Mark Warner Hon. Maurice McTigue Q&A Full text: www.Mercatus.org/Scorecard

2. Motivation for the Project • Share best practices and encourage agencies to improve quality of disclosure • Encourage managers to use performance information to manage agencies • Get performance information good enough that legislators can use it for oversight and budgeting

3. Project Design • Team of 3 experts with experience in government and/or performance management evaluates reports • 12 criteria based on GPRA requirements • Evaluate reports from 24 CFO Act agencies • Each evaluation reviewed by a member of advisory panel • Entire report reviewed by entire advisory panel

4. A caveat … This Scorecard evaluates only the quality of agency reports, not the quality of the results they produced for the public. Actual agency performance may or may not be correlated with report rankings in this Scorecard.

5. How We Score the Reports1-5 rating scale 3 Categories Transparency Public Benefits Leadership 4 criteria in each category Criteria tightened each year to reflect previous year’s best practices Total score can range from 12 to 60

6. What did the research team examine? • Pilot format • Required citizens’ report • Other materials clearly identified by the citizens’ report (e.g. Performance Reports, Financial Reports) • Traditional format • Performance and Accountability Report • Optional citizens’ report (for effect on readability criterion)

7. Top Three Swap Places

8. Big MoversNote: Reports that dropped in the rankings did so because they achieved about the same or slightly lower scores as in FY 07.

9. 40% of Budget is Covered by Satisfactory Disclosure

10. 16% of Recovery Act Appropriations Are Covered by Very Good Reporting

11. Ten Years of Progress

12. Ten Years of ProgressAll 4 agencies’ FY 2008 reports were much better than their FY 1999 reports

13. Areas of Greatest Improvement • Accessibility • Readability • Results linked to costs • Management challenges

14. Best Practices • Prominent home page links • Written for general audience • Substantive transmittal letters • Citizens’ reports • Costs linked to individual measures • Progress ratings for management challenges

15. Pilot Score Improvement Widespread • 7 agencies were pilots both years • 6 improved their scores this year • More scored average (36) or higher this year • Caveat: Higher scores don’t always signify better content

16. Main Reason: Better Access to Data • FY 08 citizens’ reports had more useful content • FY 08 citizens’ reports had better links to other data sources • FY 08 “snapshots” helped for some reports

17. PARs vs. Pilots: Conclusions So Far • Either format can work • Both formats can be improved • There may be better alternatives to either format • Report quality depends more on content than format

18. Format Improvements • PARs: Shorten Include citizens’ report • Pilots: More substantive citizens’ reports User-friendly links to source documents

19. Improvements for Both Formats • More prominent links and better contact information online • More informative transmittal letters • Plain language throughout • Reader-friendly tables and graphics • Clear, concise, outcome-oriented metrics • Candor in all aspects of reporting

20. For More Information Mercatus Scorecard web page: www.mercatus.org/scorecard