Does the Final Score Truly Count? Performance Report Scorecards and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

• Author: Timothy P. Schmidle
• Published date: 01 November 2012
• Date: 01 November 2012
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02658.x

926 Public Administration Review • November | December 2012

Does the Final Score Truly Count? Performance

Report Scorecards and the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993

An Overview of the GPRA and the

Performance Report Scorecard Project

Under the GPRA, federal agencies must prepare stra-

tegic plans, performance plans with program-specif‌i c

goals and performance indicators, and performance

reports.  ese requirements are actually relatively minor,

notwithstanding the goals and rhetoric accompanying

the GPRA (Moynihan and Lavertu 2012). Government

Performance and Results: An Evaluation of GPRA’s First

Decade ref‌l ects its authors’ af‌f‌i liation with the Mercatus

Center at George Mason University, “the world’s pre-

mier university source for market-oriented ideas.”1  e

center undertook a 10-year, self-funded Performance

Report Scorecard project to assess the quality of GPRA-

mandated performance reports from 24 federal agencies

and independent departments.  e Scorecard did not

critique agency performance; rather, it “assessed the

quality of disclosure, not the quality of results” (xxiii).

Performance reports were rated on three topics:

transparency (“How easily can a non-specialist f‌i nd

and understand the report?”), public benef‌i ts (“How

well does the report document the outcomes the

agency produces for the public and compare them

with costs?”), and leadership (“How well does the

report demonstrate that agency managers use per-

formance information to make decisions?”) (xxiii–

xxiv). Potential scores on each topic’s four criteria

ranged from 1 (“no useful content”) to 5 (“potential

best practice”);2 thus, a report’s total score could be

anywhere from 12 to 60 points. Over the Scorecard’s

10-year period, 56 points was the highest score (for

the U.S. Department of Labor’s performance report

in f‌i scal year 2008) and 17 points the lowest (U.S.

Department of Defense, f‌i scal year 2007). An agency’s

ranking did not necessarily carry over to the following

year, as scoring standards were tightened over time

with the emergence of “new best practices.”

An Overview of the Book: Part I (GPRA and the

Quality of Performance Information)

Chapter 1 reports total scores and accompanying

rankings from the f‌i rst and last year (f‌i scal years 1999

Jerry Ellig, Maurice McTigue, and Henry Wray, Govern-

ment Performance and Results: An Evaluation of

GPRA’s First Decade, American Society for Public

Administration Series in Public Administration and

Public Policy (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2011).

321 pp. $59.95 (cloth), ISBN: 9781439844649.

Government Performance and Results: An

Evaluation of GPRA’s First Decade by Jerry

Ellig, Maurice McTigue, and Henry Wray

is an uneven work.  e book’s primary strength is

its critique of federal agencies’ performance reports

mandated by the federal Government Performance

and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).  ereafter, the

content is a rather curious selection (particularly given

the book’s subtitle); the remaining material focuses

principally on topics that are, at best, tangential to

the GPRA. Furthermore, although the compilation of

government performance information rather than its

application receives the greatest attention (Moynihan

2009; Schick 2001), performance measurement’s

utility lies in its actual use (Metzenbaum 2009).  e

book’s recommendations for fostering greater use

of performance information are few in number and

narrowly targeted. As such, the monograph’s authors

provide little guidance as to how the performance

reports that they so ably critique can constitute more

than mere compliance with the GPRA’s reporting

requirements.

 e intent of the book is indicated only in pass-

ing, with the authors’ observation that their book

constitutes an “attempt to answer” six questions:

“What factors make performance reports relevant and

informative?,” “Has the quality of information dis-

closed to the public improved?,” “Why do some agen-

cies produce better reports than others?,” “Has GPRA

led to greater availability and use of performance

information by federal managers?,” “Has GPRA led

to greater use of performance information in budget

decisions?,” and “What steps would make federal

management and budget decisions more performance

oriented?” (xix).

Sonia M. Ospina and Rogan Kersh, Editors

Timothy P. Schmidle

New York State Workers’ Compensation Board

Timothy P. Schmidle is a researcher

in the policy and research unit of the New

York State Workers’ Compensation Board.

He did his graduate work in labor relations

at Cornell University and in public adminis-

tration at Syracuse University.

E-mail: schmidletps@live.com

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 72, Iss. 6, pp. 926–934. © 2012 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.111/j.1540-6210.2012.02658.x.