1. 9 th Annual Performance Report Scorecard AGENDA Welcome Hon. Maurice McTigue Study Results Dr. Jerry Ellig Henry Wray Remarks Hon. Jim Cooper AwardsHon. Jim Cooper & Hon. Maurice McTigue Q&APanel of Authors Full text: www.Mercatus.org/Scorecard

2. Project Design Team of 3 experts with experience in govt. and/or performance management evaluates reports 12 criteria based on GPRA requirements Evaluate reports from 24 CFO Act agencies Each evaluation reviewed by a member of advisory panel Entire report reviewed by entire advisory panel

3. A caveat … This Scorecard evaluates only the quality of agency reports, not the quality of the results they produced for the public. Actual agency performance may or may not be correlated with report rankings in this Scorecard. This Scorecard evaluates only the quality of agency reports, not the quality of the results they produced for the public. Actual agency performance may or may not be correlated with report rankings in this Scorecard.

4. How we score the reports 1-5 rating scale 3 Categories Transparency Public Benefits Leadership 4 criteria in each category Criteria tightened each year to reflect previous year’s best practices Total score can range from 12 to 60 5Sets a standard for best practice 4Shows innovation and creativity 3Satisfactory 2Partially complete 1Fails to meet expectations

5. Fiscal 2007 pilot format Financial report (November) Performance information published with congressional budget justification (Feb. 1) Highlights document (Feb. 1)

6. What did the research team examine? Pilot format  Required highlights document  Other materials clearly identified by the highlights document (eg, Performance Reports, Financial Reports) Traditional format  Performance and Accountability Report  Optional highlights document (for effect on readability criterion)

7. Final Four Become Top Three FY 2007 Rank FY 2007 Score FY 2006 Rank FY 2006 Score Transportation155153 Labor253251 Veterans3512

8. Big Movers FY 2007 Rank FY 2007 Score FY 2006 Rank FY 2006 Score HHS5372425 DHS5372130 State1831450 USAID1432542 Defense24171632

9. Lower overall scores

10. Substantial room for improvement

11. More of budget covered by satisfactory disclosure

12. Anybody can do it!

13. Pilots vs. PARs, fiscal 2007 PAR average score37.33 Pilot average score30.00 Difference7.33 % Difference24

14. Pilot vs. PAR scores, fiscal 2006-07 PARPilot 200637.7334.11 200737.3330.00 Change-0.4-4.11 % Change-12

15. The Pilot and Public Disclosure Performance information released in February rather than November. Once released, the information was harder to find and use. Little additional information that was not available last November. Well-done highlights documents (mainly those done voluntarily by non-pilot agencies) add significant value for lay readers.

16. Availability of Performance Information Highlights for all 9 agencies (2 not timely posted on line). Highlights, performance report, and financial report found for only 2 of 9 pilot agencies. 3 of 9 performance reports useable.  3 could not be found by due date  3 embedded in budget justifications

17. Observations Highlights and links to other documents must improve substantially in order for the public to get any value from performance reporting under the pilot format. Highlights should be improved and expanded whether or not the pilot continues. Scorecard offers “Top Ten” suggestions for improving the highlights documents.

18. For more information Mercatus Scorecard web page: www.mercatus.org/scorecard