Rocky J. Dwyer argues that a credible demonstration of public sector impacts depends on understanding the distinction between inputs, outputs, outcomes and indicators. The first aim of the paper is to provide an enhanced understanding of the current literature, reports and documentation on estimating the impacts and results of government programming and policies. Secondly, it shares the definitions and guidelines used to demonstrate economic impacts. Finally, it presents current best practices in measuring incremental impacts. All of which, Dwyer contends, provides new ways of approaching measurement and accountability that are more effective, strategic, comprehensive and credible to the public.
Abstract
A credible demonstration of policy or program impact depends on
understanding the distinction between inputs, outputs, outcomes, and indicators. Moreover, to be trusted by the public, performance reporting needs to focus more selectively on identifying the key measures of performance that will be recognized by stakeholders. The first aim of the article is to provide those involved in the practice of program evaluation with an enhanced understanding of the current literature, reports and documentation on estimating the impact and results of government programming and policies. Secondly, it shares the definitions and guidelines used to demonstrate economic impacts. Finally, it presents current
best practices in measuring incremental impact. All of which, we contend, provides program evaluation staff with new ways of approaching measurement and accountability that are more effective, strategic, comprehensive and credible to the public.
Dwyer Telling a More Credible Performance Story Old Wine in New Bottles
Showing posts with label performance measurement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label performance measurement. Show all posts
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Lessons Learned from Performance Based Budgeting in Latin America
From the Culture of Control to Culture of Performance
Mario Saginés, Senior Advisor, Institutional Capacity and Finance Sector, Inter-American Development Bank described Performance Based Budgeting for government. Mr. Saginés provided insight from experience in Latin America.
PBB does not mean that countries always allocate based exclusively on results. He described four necessary components are: performance information, the use of information in budgetary exercises, incentives for managers to reach goals, and increasing management skills. Management in government can be restricted by rules from making decision. That way, managers can be held accountability.
The benefits of PBB include improved accountability, government services, and efficiencies. PBB brings budgeting in line with government objectives. Mr. Saginés showed graphs that showed how countries with a lower income tend to collect revenues at a lower ratio to GDP. Many Latin American countries spend more than many countries yet achieve poorer results.
Mr. Saginés pointed out that many PBB initiatives are started by bad reasons. For example, PBB should not be used to increase controls because it limits the ability to manage based on performance frameworks. Excessive detailed management is often legally required. This reduces flexibility. He recommends a more macro approach. PBB has become fashionable in the donor community. Mr. Saginés suggests that this should the only reason to implement PBB. He questioned whether accrual budgeting is required to have effective performance based budgeting.
There is a broad menu of PBB framework options. Some countries use more performance measurements to set budgets than others. There is no established model. Mr. Saginés suggested that a practical middle ground is appropriate for most countries. He recommended against using allocation formulas based on performance results.
Many countries use program-based performance budgeting. He cautioned that the concept of “program” is not universally understood. Program budgeting can be complex to manage.
Budget execution for PBB requires culture change. It can be a long and painful process. Mr. Saginés presented details from PBB experiences in Latin America.
Many countries focus on indicators but not on using these to determine resource allocation. A radar graph showing 5 measurements for results-based management was shown. Performance based budgeting and monitoring in Latin America is not as advanced as general financial management.
Monitoring and evaluation is required for effective PBB. Mr. Saginés recommends the use of performance results during budget deliberations. This does not mean that allocations should be directly related to performance. Performance is one of the characteristics that must be used during budget preparation.
Mario Saginés, Senior Advisor, Institutional Capacity and Finance Sector, Inter-American Development Bank described Performance Based Budgeting for government. Mr. Saginés provided insight from experience in Latin America.
PBB does not mean that countries always allocate based exclusively on results. He described four necessary components are: performance information, the use of information in budgetary exercises, incentives for managers to reach goals, and increasing management skills. Management in government can be restricted by rules from making decision. That way, managers can be held accountability.
The benefits of PBB include improved accountability, government services, and efficiencies. PBB brings budgeting in line with government objectives. Mr. Saginés showed graphs that showed how countries with a lower income tend to collect revenues at a lower ratio to GDP. Many Latin American countries spend more than many countries yet achieve poorer results.
Mr. Saginés pointed out that many PBB initiatives are started by bad reasons. For example, PBB should not be used to increase controls because it limits the ability to manage based on performance frameworks. Excessive detailed management is often legally required. This reduces flexibility. He recommends a more macro approach. PBB has become fashionable in the donor community. Mr. Saginés suggests that this should the only reason to implement PBB. He questioned whether accrual budgeting is required to have effective performance based budgeting.
There is a broad menu of PBB framework options. Some countries use more performance measurements to set budgets than others. There is no established model. Mr. Saginés suggested that a practical middle ground is appropriate for most countries. He recommended against using allocation formulas based on performance results.
Many countries use program-based performance budgeting. He cautioned that the concept of “program” is not universally understood. Program budgeting can be complex to manage.
Budget execution for PBB requires culture change. It can be a long and painful process. Mr. Saginés presented details from PBB experiences in Latin America.
Many countries focus on indicators but not on using these to determine resource allocation. A radar graph showing 5 measurements for results-based management was shown. Performance based budgeting and monitoring in Latin America is not as advanced as general financial management.
Monitoring and evaluation is required for effective PBB. Mr. Saginés recommends the use of performance results during budget deliberations. This does not mean that allocations should be directly related to performance. Performance is one of the characteristics that must be used during budget preparation.
1.30 2.30pm Embarking On Perf Mgmt Latin America (Mario Marcel)
View more presentations from icgfmconference.
1.30 2.30pm Embarking On Perf Mgmt Latin America (Mario Sangines) English
View more presentations from icgfmconference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
