In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

characterize a program as using some sort of performance tool (e.g., use of pay-forperformance , performance-based contracting). Neither use tells us much about actual program performance, and they largely indicate the attraction of attaching the term to cast an object in a positive light. Once wediscount those mentions, 234 mentions of performance remain, or 1 for almost every 14 pages of legislative talk. What’s left? The remaining mentions of performance can be divided into four categories that have consequence for our understanding of how the concept of performance is discussed. The first category is a statement about future performance, indicating the expectation about a program’s potential achievement, or speculating on the effect of management innovation or additional funding on achievement .This category of performance was mentioned 57 times.The second category is the discussion of the use of performance information. The use of performance information was mentioned 21 times. The majority of references about use came in appropriations bills, urging agencies to use performance information, particularly in making decisions about contracts or grants. For example, a House appropriations bill urged that a program “use a portion of the increased funding provided to increase support for existing health centers based on performance-related criteria in addition to site and service expansion applications.”29 The documents examined show no discussions of legislators using the information themselves. Perhaps the most interesting finding from the content analysis is that the lack of use by legislators (or at least lack of discussion of use) of performance information stands in stark contrast to a consistent demand for more data. Mentions related to the creation, development, funding, or presentation of data on program implementation occurred 109 times. These mentions came primarily in the form of legislative requirements in an appropriations bill (73 times). Forty-nine of these references came from the area of education, where policymakers called for program after program to develop performance measures. An example is the following: The Committee fully expects that the Uniform Management Information and Reporting System, required by the No Child Left Behind Act, will be developed and implemented so that data and other pertinent information is collected in a uniform manner both within a particular State and across all States, and that it be reported by every State to the Secretary of Education. The Committee looks forward to reviewing such information in future program performance reports and congressional justifications.30 The robust demand for the creation of performance information shows that Congress is perfectly capable and willing to require what it considers to be relevant performance information from agencies, which helps explain some of the resis132 Chapter Seven tance that congressional actors have shown toward OMB efforts to revise the CJs. It is not so much that Congress is opposed to performance information, but it wants to decide when and how such data will be created. The final category is discussion of performance as actual achievement, where an actor portrayed a program as effective or ineffective.This category of performance was mentioned 47 times. It was mentioned mostly by either executive branch officials (24 times) or program stakeholders (16 times), both of whom where generally supportive of the program. An example comes from James Roche, secretary of the Air Force, at a hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, on March 19, 2003: I’m proud to report our proposed budget increases investment in new technologies by five percent over the last year. Next year we’ll fund 22 FA-22s if the budget is approved, continuing our move to a sustained production rate. We are attempting to get stability in this program so as to replicate what occurred with the C-17 where we can bring cost down and increase reliability. Mr. Chairman, you remember very well the C-17 and some of the terrible days it went through, and it barely survived. And yet today we will receive a C-17 and within 48 hours it’s in the area of operations doing its mission, without any additional work.The FA-22 program is improving. It’s currently meeting or exceeding all key performance requirements. There are only 7 instances when discussions of actual achievement of programs suggest that performance was less than satisfactory. Such discussions tended to be abstract, without reference to any benchmark or performance target. Instead, the general need for improvement is mentioned and honored by those involved. Actual quantitative performance indicators were mentioned to reflect program achievement...

Share