Exploring the Topography of Performance and Effectiveness of U.S. Federal Agencies
| Published date | 01 March 2013 |
| Author | Sung Min Park,M. Ernita Joaquin |
| Date | 01 March 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0091026013484411 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2013
Article
Public Personnel Management
42(1) 55 –74
Exploring the Topography
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
of Performance and
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0091026013484411
ppm.sagepub.com
Effectiveness of U.S. Federal
Agencies
M. Ernita Joaquin1 and Sung Min Park2
Abstract
We have a proliferation of tools to evaluate federal agencies’ performance and
effectiveness. This article explores how effectiveness and performance values are
distributed across government agencies based on three well-known assessment
instruments used during the Bush administration: the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Management Scorecard, the Performance Assessment Rating Tool
(PART), and the Best Places to Work (BPTW) survey. A cluster analysis of the scores
from these assessment tools allows us to examine the topography of the agencies
in terms of the relationship between the tools and the context of performance,
namely, the type of mission carried out by the agencies. Depending on the policy
mission type, some agencies fare better in some assessment measures than others. By
comparing scores from PART and OMB Scorecard with the BPTW survey, we also
find a complex picture when leadership-driven performance metrics are compared
with the results of an employee-based assessment of organizational effectiveness.
Keywords
performance measurement, PART, scorecard, BPTW, policy typology
Introduction
The last decade saw increased efforts to improve government through various perfor-
mance assessment systems. From the Clinton administration’s National Performance
Review (NPR), the mantra of making government cost less yet work better evolved to
1San Francisco State University, CA, USA
2Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
Corresponding Author:
Sung Min Park, Department of Public Administration and Graduate School of Governance, Sungkyunkwan
University, Seoul, 110-745, Korea.
Email: sm28386@skku.edu
56
Public Personnel Management 42(1)
the results-oriented philosophy of the recent Bush administration. The theory was that
managers who were supposedly hampered by stringent rules in human, financial, and
other management areas needed freedom to manage in ways that would result in more
efficiency and accountability to their political superiors (Barzelay, 1992).
During the last few decades, cutbacks provided the rationale to push managers to
raise organizational performance while lowering costs. But to do this effectively, per-
formance assessment tools were needed to supplement resource allocation decisions in
government, a notion that is not new and can be traced to performance budgeting.
From its origins at the local level to its adoption in the federal budget in the late 1940s
and in many states in the 1990s, the promise of performance budgeting is that organi-
zational performance can be measured through relevant yardsticks that would value
the use of scarce resources and promote accountability to agency principals (Rubin,
1998). Today the federal government has many such yardsticks in its arsenal, includ-
ing the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Scorecard for the 2001 President’s
Management Agenda (PMA), the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and
the Best Places to Work (BPTW) survey.
Federal Performance and Effectiveness Assessment Tools
This study investigates federal agency and employee performance based on their scores
from three types of performance and effectiveness measures: the OMB Scorecard, the
PART, and the BPTW survey (see Table 1). In this article, two cluster models reveal
how different types of performance are distributed across the federal government.
U.S. federal agencies in recent decades have been evaluated under three major
assessment systems: the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the OMB
Scorecard for the PMA, and the PART. While GPRA was a product of bipartisan con-
gressional efforts in 1993, PART and the Scorecard represented the Bush administra-
tion’s desire to implement management reforms following its idea of a more businesslike,
results-oriented government.1 GPRA tries to link agency mission with performance by
means of strategic planning and performance planning (Moynihan, 2008).
PART evaluated program performance and effectiveness and its results were used
to inform budgetary decision making in OMB and Congress, although without much
success. The Bush administration created PART to focus on selected agency programs
only each year. For each program, OMB asked a series of standard questions on pro-
gram purpose and design, strategic planning, program management, and program
results, and weighted the scores in a final calculation to reflect 20% for program pur-
pose and design, 10% for strategic planning, 20% for program management, and 50%
for program results. Thus, final PART score for a program was a percentage-based
score from 0% to 100%, with 100% reflecting the top score. OMB reported the scores
for each section and then classified final scores into four categories of effectiveness:
Ineffective (final PART scores between 0% and 49%), Adequate (final PART scores
between 50% and 69%), Moderately effective (final PART scores between 70% and
84%), and Effective (final part scores between 85% and 100%). A fifth category was
called Results Not Demonstrated.
Joaquin and Park
57
Table 1. Federal Agency Performance and Effectiveness Assessment Tools: PART,
Scorecard, and BPTW.
PART
Characteristics and measures
OMB Scorecard
The Scorecard was a traffic-light scoring system that graded 26
agencies quarterly on the 5 PMA components: (a) human capital, (b)
competitive sourcing, (c) e-government, (d) budget and performance
integration, and (e) financial management. OMB and agencies set
“Green Plans” and milestones that agencies must strive to meet
for each component. All agencies started in red. Yellow indicated
progress and green means that agencies have met their goals and
targets. Agencies could be downgraded from green to yellow to
red again. OMB published the Scorecard throughout the Bush
administration, hinting the budgetary sanctions connected to the tool.
PART scores
Approximately 30 questions are required for federal managers to
answer about program sections and a set of weights is assigned to
each section, resulting in a final cumulative PART score: Program
Purpose and Design scores reflect whether the program has a
clear purpose and if the program is designed to meet that purpose
(20%). Strategic Planning scores reflect whether the program’s
agency has established suitable annual goals and long-term goals
for its programs (10%). Program Management scores indicate
whether the program has good management including appropriate
financial oversight controls and program improvement methods
(20%). Program Results scores indicate whether the program is
achieving performance results according to strategic planning goals
(50%). PART results were meant to inform budgetary decisions in
Congress and OMB.
BPTW index scores The BPTW in the Federal Government rankings were designed to
and rankings
improve the public sector work environment and organizational
effectiveness. Partnership for Public Service and American
University’s ISPPI use data from the Office of Personnel
Management’s Federal Human Capital Survey to rank 279 federal
agencies and subcomponents. The BPTW score is calculated both
for the organization as a whole and also for specific demographic
groups. Agencies and subcomponents are also scored in 10
workplace environment (“best in class”) categories (www.
bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/about/).
Number of cases
26 agencies’ scores
Note: PART = Performance Assessment Rating Tool; BPTW = Best Places to Work; OMB = Office of
Management and Budget; PMA = president’s management agenda; ISPPI = Institute for the Study of Public
Policy Implementation.
Unlike PART’s focus on evaluating agency programs, the Scorecard focused on
agency implementation of the 2001 PMA in five key areas: (a) human capital manage-
ment, (b) competitive sourcing of commercial services, (c) financial management, (d)
e-government, and (e) budget and performance integration. The Scorecard worked
58
Public Personnel Management 42(1)
under the Bush administration in the following way: OMB assigned each agency a
score for each agenda item under the PMA using traffic lights of red, yellow, or green.
With a set of criteria developed with the President’s Management Council (PMC),
OMB since 2002 assessed each agency on their progress in implementing those five
key components every quarter. Agencies were enticed to move from “red” indicating
unsatisfactory performance or a starting condition of weakness in that area, to “yel-
low” indicating progress toward a set goal or deliverables within strict timelines, to
“green” representing achievement of the milestones. Most agencies were red at the
beginning, but many moved to green by the end of the Bush administration.
Complementing these two top-down, external measures of performance, we looked
at an internal, bottom-up measure of agency effectiveness, namely, the BPTW rank-
ings. This is consistent with the literature that broadening participation in assessment
contributes to improvement in governance (Yang & Holzer, 2006). The BPTW annual
rankings in the federal government are dubbed “the most comprehensive and authori-
tative rating and analysis...
To continue reading
Request your trial