Public Budgeting and Management Performance

¶ … Public Budgeting and Management Performance

Over the last several years, there has been an emphasis on developing strategies that tied directly to public performance management. Part of the reason for this, is because information has surfaced, highlighting the tremendous amounts of waste that are occurring on the governmental level in comparison with the private sector. Evidence of this can be seen with a report that was conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). They found that in U.S. government there is conservatively between: $150 billion and $200 billion in waste every single year. (Schieneder, 2002, pg. 59) This is troubling, because despite a host of different efforts to control the total amounts of unnecessary spending. The reality is that this is continuing to rise at an alarming rate.

As a result, a variety of the programs have been introduced to help more effectively focus governmental resources where they are needed the most. At the same time, these efforts are concentrating on increasing accountability through what is known as performance management. These are programs that are designed to provide administrators with effective tools in controlling the different funds and where they are allocated. To determine the usefulness of these various programs we will be looking at a number of pieces of literature on the subject. Once this occurs, it will offer specific insights about how performance management is helping or hurting the way various levels of government are providing different services. This is the point when we will be able to see the true impact of these programs and if they are making a difference in dealing with these issues.

The Effects of Performance Management and if it Improving Governmental Accountability

Performance-based management programs are utilized by nearly every single level of government. Their track record is somewhat mixed, depending upon how this tool is applied and the overall scope of what it is being used for. As far as successes in this area, it has been effective at addressing certain issues inside the different levels of government. Evidence of this can be seen with information that was collected from Forrester (1997). He found that performance management programs are effective at improving accountability in understanding how various resources are being used and tracking where these funds are being spent. Part of the reason why it is so successful, is because this creates a change in behavior and the organizational culture of most governments. This helps to improve accountability and the way various services are provided to the general public. At which point, administrators will have more effective control in determining what projects are the most in need of receiving some form of assistance. Over the course of time, this allows these entities to be more responsive to the general public and avoid the tremendous amounts of waste often associated with governmental programs. (Forrester, 1997, pp. 466 -- 484) This is significant, because it is showing how performance management can create a change in attitudes and the way government employees are conducting their jobs. Once this occurs, it means that there are greater amounts of accountability. As, they willing to: go the extra mile for everyone and it will carefully monitor how they are utilizing these different resources to achieve their objectives.

However, other kinds of research is indicating that performance management is not the end all solution in addressing the various needs of the general public. The reason why, is because this system has been used sparingly by different levels of government. As, some will embrace this tool to: help improve the kinds of services that they are delivering. While others, will focus on how they can address specific issues, without using any kind of performance management procedures. The results are that this has created a spotty track record among various administrators.

Evidence of this can be seen by looking no further than a study that was conducted by Melkers (2005). She found that after looking at 300 local governments. There was a disparity in how performance management tools were being utilized. What was happening was that many different local municipalities were less enthusiastic about its use and the performance measures. While various county governments, found this tool to be effective in helping them to control their budget. The reason why this was occurring, is because if the performance management system is implemented in half measures (like with many cities). It will not provide the desired results or change the operating environment. But, when it is completely integrated into the budgetary process it will improve communication and the way various departments are working together. This is when there will be an improvement in how the various resources are being utilized to address a host of objectives. (Melkers, 2005, pp. 180 -- 189) The information from this study is important, because it is showing how performance management is not the end all solution in addressing the various challenges facing municipal governments. Instead, an approach needs to be taken that will carefully examine how this will be implemented into the culture of the government and the way they are tackling these problems.

Moreover, other types of research are indicating that at all levels of government will face similar problems if performance management systems are not effectively integrated. As, they will be unable to: address a host of different challenges facing most institutions. The reason why, is because the various half measures that are used are not confronting the culture inside the government and the overall levels of bureaucracy that have been established. This is problematic, because it can lead to a number of different challenges down the road. As, it will appear as if there is some kind of effective measures for addressing wasteful spending and the squandering of various resources. Yet, underneath it all there is no change in the budgetary process or how it is addressing these kinds of issues.

A good example of this can be seen with a study that was conducted by Joyce (2003). He found that the U.S. government was utilizing various performance management systems since the early part of the 20th century. The reason why, is because everyone realized that this was an ongoing problem and they wanted to find a way to improve accountability. However, the problem was that this was only implemented in half measures, with many of the performance management tools being utilized by the CBO and Congress. This is despite the fact that various laws were passed, which were designed to improve the use of this protocol such as: the Government Performance and Results Act. Yet, many of these various measures were not effectively embraced by the other branches of the government. This created a situation where different half measures were implemented that did not address the underlying problem. To deal with these issues, Joyce recommends that a number of reforms must be implemented to improve the use of the performance management system. The most notable include:

Developing better integration procedures for: ensuring that all of the various agencies are implementing performance management tools as much as possible.

Utilizing these procedures in every facet of the budgetary process including: development, execution, auditing and evaluations.

Reforming how expectations are to be: analyzed, the way investigations are conducted and what areas will impede an agency's performance. (Joyce, 2003, pp. 4 -- 47)

This is important, because it is illustrating how this system can address the various issues of government waste. Yet, when it is only implemented in half steps, the process will not be effective in dealing with the underlying problems. At which point, the odds increase that waste and the squandering of different resources will continue well into the future. In many ways, this helps to explain why the U.S. government continues to have a number of different budgetary issues. This is despite the fact, that a host of reforms have been implemented in addressing these various challenges. Over the course of time, these half measures have meant that the underlying problems will continue to persist.

Furthermore, the research from Heinrich (1999), is illustrating how the performance management system must be completely integrated for it to be effective. The reason why, is because when it is not, inevitable abuses of the system will continue well into the future. This is because it does not change the culture. (Heinrich, 1999, pp. 363 -- 378)

Evidence of this can be seen with the survey that she conducted at local job training agency. What Heinrich found, was that when this is first being introduced, it is touted as an effective way of addressing the underlying issues facing most governments. However, if it is not completely integrated into the agency, this program will more than likely fail. The reason why, is because it is not changing the environment or the way various services are being delivered. This is problematic, because it will help to contribute to an increase towards the ineffectiveness in addressing these challenges. (Heinrich, 1999, pp. 363 -- 378)

As a result, Heinrich found that those entities that were able to implement the entire performance management system into the agency were most effective. This is because, the various goals and the costs of providing these services are directly tied to this protocol. Once this takes place, it means that there are greater amounts of accountability. This is the point, that an agency can be able to improve communication and corroboration in achieving their different objectives. These elements are significant, because they are illustrating how the current approach that is being utilized, can improve their ability to address a wide variety of issues. However, in order for this kind of approach to be able to deal with a host of challenges it must be fully implemented. Otherwise, this will not change the environment of the agency and it will lead to similar kinds of problems in the future. (Heinrich, 1999, pp. 363 -- 378)