Accountability in the Public Sector

¶ … accountability in the public sector is largely dependent upon the ability to evaluate performance. Any quality improvement initiative requires some type of formal and informal monitoring process so that progress can be evaluated over time. Therefore, performance improvement is linked to the concept of managing for results (MFR), in which some kind of output and outcome performance indicators are institutionalized and monitored, usually in accordance with predetermined goals. Moynihan and colleagues, in their 2003 article, Look for the Silver Lining: When Performance-Based Accountability Systems Work, examine how these goals are stated, and how realistic they are in practice, in the context of results-based government.

According to Moynihan et al. (2003) in order for MFR systems to be effective, "there must be very serious commitment to purposes, processes, and outcomes, as well as to increased transparency-characteristics markedly absent in the implementation of results-based reform at the federal level" (p. 470). MFR systems have been examined at length in the United States, primarily through two key projects: The Government Performance Project (GPP) and its sister project, The Federal Performance Project (FPP). The five primary systems examined in these projects are as follows: (1) financial management; (2) human resources management; (3) information technology management; (4) capital management, and (5) managing for results. Moynihan et al. note that the criteria-based models upon which these assessments were reliant provide an exceptional data collection tool that can be used to assess public management systems both effectively and gainfully. As such, they call for the criteria-based grading of state governments as a means of increasing transparency and providing clearer benchmarks of evaluation.

The first step in developing a performance-based budget format is for government administrators and policymakers to formulate goals and objectives for various activities or services provided by each department or organizational unit. The next step involves developing performance measures that are valid indicators by which to gauge whether goals and objectives have been met. While states vary in their procedures, ultimately, a link between cost and output must be made, thereby permitting an evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the endeavor and the development of management responses. According to Moynihan et al. (2003) MFR legislation in many states details exactly the type of information to be featured in agency strategic plans or budget proposals" (p. 484). However, in some states, this MFR link is only an indirect one whereby objectives, spending levels and trends, and performance outputs for a department or activity are reported in separate sections clustered together in a budget document.

As strong proponents of performance-based accountability, Moynihan et al. are convinced that their inclusion promotes efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability, and ultimately improves management. However, the authors are aware that certain drawbacks exist as well. Opponents complain that performance objectives are often arbitrary and selected purely because "good" data already exist, thereby minimizing the need to establish new, expensive data collection and analytic mechanisms. Another shortcoming is that some indicators selected are not valid measures of the outputs they are purported to capture nor are they comparable across organizational units. The tendency for the measures selected to emphasize quantity rather than quality is yet another shortcoming of performance-based formats recognized by Moynihan et al., although more governments are including citizen satisfaction survey results to address the lack-of-quality-indicators criticism. Ultimately, the article's key findings can be summarized in the four lessons learned from the states that the authors provide: (1) the importance of working proactively to identify roles and responsibilities; (2) the importance of committed leadership; (3) the importance of balancing political, managerial and performance measurement accountability; and (4) The importance of clarity and simplicity.

The article also brings to light the legitimacy of other readings in this unit; most notably, Wamsley and colleagues' (1987) Public Administration and the Governance Process. Although this essay was written almost a quarter of a century ago, the statements expressed about accountability and transparency are as relevant today as they were at the time of the writing. Wamsley et al.'s "concern for the more inclusive principals we commonly call the public interest" (p. 301) largely mirror the concerns of Moynihan and colleagues, particularly in regard to the need for a more organized, efficient and trustworthy way to measure accountability across the board. The manner in which these deficiencies differ and converge at the city, state, and federal level is also an issue that evokes more questions than answers (Johnston et al., 2004).