The Management Accountability Framework, the culture of public administration, and transparency Rebecca Jensen, MA, MPA (cand.) University of Manitoba Presentation to IPAC, August 24, 2010

What has shaped accountability in theory and practice? Changes in forces acting on democratic government – Media scrutiny – Decline in public trust New Public Management – Reduced scope and capacity – Public Choice Theory/Niskanen New Political Governance – Greater scrutiny and criticism of public service – Greater mistrust between cabinet and senior public service

Factors shaping MAF Push for more accountability Recognition that performance measurement should be standardized and coordinated Desire for a tool for public sector improvement from within Sequel to the Modern Comptrollership Initiative Extension of comptrollership beyond finances and physical resources

MAF Today

MAF and the dialectics of accountability

MAF in action MAF has consequences The single most important source of information for deputy heads and the TBS on the general state of management performance within institutions. – one of MAFs architects Access to information not a priority of MAF What isnt measured also matters

Access-related performance 6 th round of MAF – IM ratings consistently poor PWGSC – poor performance in > negative ratings – better score in > attributed by DM in part to MAF scrutiny DFAIT – needs improvement in – acceptable in , due to acting on feedback

MAF through the eyes of ATIP staff Measures ATIA compliance too narrowly Creates tension between satisfying MAF and loyalty to department/senior management/minister Tension between increasing volume requests (and pressure to respond) and constraints on resources Constricted by political agenda management

Conclusions Definite specific improvements caused by MAF and its incentives Increased burden on ATIP officers already constrained by NPM/NPG Value for money? Positive and negative changes MAF competes with NPG -> does this change how the public service behaves?