|
Session Title: Managing the Tension between Performance Measurement and Evaluation in the Emerging Political Environment
|
|
Panel Session 922 to be held in Centennial Section F on Saturday, Nov 8, 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Theories of Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| George Julnes,
Utah State University,
george.julnes@usu.edu
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Eleanor Chelimsky,
Independent Consultant,
oandecleveland@aol.com
|
| Abstract:
Often viewed with some suspicion by opposing proponents, performance measurement and evaluation are being brought together more frequently by government initiatives. This panel will examine how the tension between these two approaches can be managed best in the current changing political environment. The presentations and discussion will examine the challenges to effective management of performance management and evaluation and will suggest solutions for moving forward.
|
|
Tensions in Integrating Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement
|
| Stephanie Shipman,
United States Government Accountability Office,
shipmans@gao.gov
|
|
To become more accountable for results, federal agencies increased both performance measurement and program evaluation activities over the past decade. Urged by GPRA, managers raised their sights from outputs to outcomes and set goals to show how programs contributed to agency missions. OMB's PART presses agencies further to obtain independent, comprehensive evaluations of program effectiveness and relevance. Clearly, program evaluations are particularly well-suited to supplement performance monitoring by exploring reasons for observed outcomes and assessing program net impact. But, the fact that evaluations are constructed to provide answers to specific questions about program performance creates additional tensions beyond simple supplementing routine monitoring. While performance monitoring usually provides feedback to program managers, evaluations may aim to answer the questions of other stakeholders - who may define program success differently, or fundamentally question the need for the program. Integrating the results of these approaches creates tensions around the roles of audience and context.
|
|
|
Dimensions of Use and Their Relationships with Evaluation and Performance Measurement
|
| Patria de Lancer Julnes,
Utah State University,
patria.julnes@usu.edu
|
|
This presentation will discuss a theory of use of performance measurement information that builds from the experiences of evaluative efforts. The discussion centers around a model of use that focuses on the purposes, audiences, and types of knowledge use applicable to the practice of performance measurement. A classic argument made against performance measurement is the apparent lack of use of performance measurement information by decision makers. The standard response is that this argument is based on an insistence on finding evidence of instrumental use, whereas substantial evidence suggests that most use is conceptual or symbolic. This presentation discusses a broader model that includes these different forms of use and indicators that relate to them.
| |
|
Tensions Between Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement: The United States Federal Experience
|
| Kathryn Newcomer,
George Washington University,
newcomer@gwu.edu
|
|
Executive leaders and program managers have been asking increasingly more questions about the effectiveness of federal programs during the last decade, in part due to requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act, passed by Congress, and in part due to the assessment tool introduced by the Bush Administration’s President’s Management Agenda. Measuring programmatic performance and making judgments about results has been more transparent than ever before. The level and number of foci of dialogue about appropriate ways to measure and judge have also increased. The recent federal experience presents some good lessons about how program measurement and evaluation play out in a highly political arena that may provide useful guidance as we move to the next chapter of the federal experience with evaluation.
| |