Demonstrating Results, An Introduction to Government Performance and Results Act, Performance Measures

Demonstrating Results, An Introduction to Government Performance and Results Act, Spring 1999

Performance Measures

Table 1: Categories of Measures

Category	Definition	Examples
Impacts	The degree to which broad social objectives are achieved	Increased competitiveness, enhanced level of education, income of graduates, improved quality of educational institutions
Outcomes	Accomplishment of program objectives attributable to program outputs	Academic performance improvement, students accepted at next level of education, graduates certified as teachers, employer satisfication
Outputs	The direct result of program activities	Number of students enrolled, targeted students completing training, students applying to next level of education
Activities	The work performed by the grantee that directly produces the core products and services	Amount of training given, counseling provided, conferences held, reports published
Inputs	Resources consumed by the organization	Generally limited to funds and grant years

The various types of measures may be viewed as a hierarchy. The higher one rises on the table, the more difficult it is to obtain data that unambiguously relate to a performance program indicator, but the more important the effect in addressing significant national problems.

Under GPRA, the Department of Education must account for both the activities that arise from its programs, such as grants awarded, loans processed, or training classes held, and the results that are attributed to those activities, such as a rise in SAT scores, increased college attendance by low-income populations, or enhanced competency in foreign languages. In order to assess the results of its programs, the Department must develop performance measures that focus on the higher levels of measures, namely, output, outcome and impact. These performance measures must: 1) indicate a level of expected results for each program, 2) allow objective information to be gathered regarding the targets, and 3) provide a basis for comparing actual program results with the proposed goals.

The activities supported by its programs, such as the type and amount of training offered, publications distributed, number of counselors involved, hours of activity conducted, or types of students recruited by the grantee, must be linked to the consequences of the activities, such as the extent to which students who receive fellowships to pursue Ph.D.s receive their degrees and are employed in faculty positions after graduation.

Assessing results rather than simply tabulating activities will require fundamental changes in the collection, analysis and reporting of performance information. If the Department is to develop and report on appropriate targets for performance, the data from grantees must be reliable, clear, comprehensible and comparable on some basis. This will not be easy to obtain, nor fully achieved immediately. In some cases, the data that are needed are not now being collected and, in others, the validity and comparability of the data are poor. Each succeeding cycle in this annual process of planning, implementation, and assessment, however, should provide new insights for improving the quality of the data, and as a result a better understanding of the outcomes and impacts of the Department's programs.