Results-based Accountability Research Articles

Results-Based Accountability: there is more to it than the right tools

Craftsmanship in social intervention, as with all craftsmanship, entails more than merely developing and using a set of tools. It is also about choosing the right tool at the right moment, about knowing the possibilities and limitations of each tool and about quickly finding another tool if the results are not as expected. In this article, we reflect on our experiences with a particular tool, Results-Based Accountability (RBA). The context is the neighbourhood regeneration process in Katendrecht. This peninsula neighbourhood is located in the centre of what used to be a lively harbour area of Rotterdam (the Netherlands). We claim that adopting a proven method of citizen participation is no guarantee of results if the local context is not taken into account and if local decisions are not related to decision-making processes at higher policy levels. We will focus on three topics. Firstly, we will discuss the merits of the Results-Based Accountability participation method in its own right. Secondly, we will draw attention to the limitations of procedures that rely heavily on decision-making, such as RBA, and to complement this method, we will suggest the development of a shared story or narrative. Finally, we will focus on the relevance of the policy environment for neighbourhood regeneration. Having elaborated these issues we will then be able to assess the value of RBA in neighbourhood regeneration processes. Zoals voor alle ambachten geldt, behelst goed vakmanschap in sociale interventiepraktijken meer dan het ontwikkelen en toepassen van gereedschap. In interventiepraktijken is het immers ook van belang om op het juiste moment de juiste “gereedschappen” te gebruiken en over te schakelen op een andere werkwijze als de gehanteerde benadering niet werkt. In dit artikel worden de praktijkervaringen besproken die zijn opgedaan met een specifiek gereedschap dat in sociale interventiepraktijken wordt gebruikt: de Results-Based Accountability (RBA). Deze ervaringen zijn opgedaan in de Rotterdamse wijk Katendrecht, in het kader van de stedelijke vernieuwing. De auteurs claimen dat een bewezen methode als RBA alleen succes zal hebben als rekening wordt gehouden met de context waarin een interventie plaatsvindt en als centrale (op stedelijk niveau) en decentrale besluitvormingsprocessen (op het niveau van de wijk en de interventie) rekening houden met elkaar. Drie onderwerpen passeren daarbij de revu. Allereerst wordt ingegaan op de positieve aspecten van de methode RBA. Vervolgens wordt gewezen op de nadelen van methoden die sterk leunen op besluitvormingsprocessen, zoals RBA. De auteurs stellen voor om als aanvulling op de methode het “verhaal” van de buurt te reconstrueren. Ten derde wordt de beleidscontext waarin de interventie plaatsvindt belicht, waarna het artikel wordt besloten met een oordeel over de waarde van RBA als gereedschap in de stedelijke vernieuwing.

The climate regime as global forest governance: can reduced emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) initiatives pass a dual effectiveness test?

SUMMARY For two generations, policy makers, environmental groups, industry associations and other stakeholders have given global forest deterioration concerted and sustained attention. Widespread disappointment over the failure to achieve a binding global forest convention at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit has been followed by frustration over the relatively limited impact to date of post-Rio forest-related global policy initiatives, including intergovernmental and non-state efforts. This paper argues that “reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” (REDD) initiatives will yield significant impacts only if decision makers are committed to a results-based “dual effectiveness” test, addressing both forest degradation and global emissions reductions, and involving significant and measurable global-scale targets. While the importance of such a commitment may appear obvious, lessons from past forest and climate efforts suggest that greater results-based accountability is needed to overcome short-t...

Program Accountability for Students who are Visually Impaired

Administrators across the country are collecting and analyzing program and student-specific data to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004), and state performance plans. Although most states are not required to disaggregate data for students who are visually impaired (that is, those who are blind or have low vision), educational programs that serve this population are mandated to analyze these data for the effectiveness of programs. One such process is results-based accountability, which Friedman (2005) described as a disciplined way of thinking and taking action that can be used to improve the performance of programs, agencies, and service systems. Multiple data points are required to meet the mandates of the federal and state requirements, such as data on students' achievement in both academics (reading, math, and science) and functional outcomes or instruction in the Expanded Core Curriculum (ECC) content area (Hatlen, 1996), least restrictive environment, timely and accurate assessments, and use of research or evidence-based instructional strategies. PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY Friedman (2005) described accountability as the relationship between persons or groups in which one is responsible to another for something that is important. Program accountability is about a cultural change from perception to data-driven decision making. It answers the question about whether a particular program is working or not working to improve the outcomes of its students. In addition, it allows professionals to clarify their most important purposes, to set measurable goals that demonstrate if the purposes have been met, and then to take action. Programs, agencies, and service systems that provide for the education of children and youths who are blind or have low vision are responsible to parents, students, and state and federal data systems to demonstrate their effectiveness. Although much attention of late has been paid to the definition of highly qualified teachers in the No Child Left Behind Act, the real question is, Is anyone better off from receiving our services? Friedman (2005) identified seven questions for programs to address that can help answer this question: 1. Who are our customers? 2. How can we measure if our customers are better off? 3. How can we measure if we are delivering services well? 4. How are we doing on the most important of these measures? 5. Who are our partners? 6. What works to do better? 7. What do we propose to do? For programs to be able to answer the proposed questions quantifiably, a rigorous process must be in place to collect and analyze program-specific and student-specific data. One such process is Quality Programs for Students with Visual Impairments (QPVI), developed by the first author in 1985. Although another program-review process specific to visual impairment was found in a literature review (California Department of Education, 1997), it appeared to be more subjective and outdated and lacked an analysis of specific data on students. QPVI Seeing the need for program accountability, the first author developed the QPVI process on the basis of her perspective as a teacher of students who are visually impaired in public schools, in a special-purpose school (a school for students who are blind), and in regional services. Since the 1980s, QPVI has evolved in keeping with public laws and promising practices in the field of visual impairment. The result is a multifaceted program-accountability process that is designed to be applicable to any service delivery model, including special-purpose schools. What follows is a brief description of the key features of the process and how QPVI has been used to gather data to document the current status of a program and to plan for continued improvement in a program for students with visual impairments, including those who are deaf-blind or have additional disabilities. …

Creating desirable organizational characteristics

What are the factors that lead to desirable organizational characteristics? This article examines this question by proposing a model to explain the ability of some organizations to create a focus on results and high levels of managerial authority. The new public management literature points to these two organizational characteristics as key steps for improving public performance and providing results-based accountability. Employing a national survey of US state government health and human service agency managers we find that political support for the organization and purposeful reform efforts do lead to desirable organizational characteristics. In addition, strong internal communication fosters a focus on results, and organizational culture shapes the decision-making authority of managers.

Managing for Results in State Government: Evaluating a Decade of Reform

State governments in the United States have enthusiastically embraced the idea of managing for results. This appears to represent a victory for New Public Management policy ideas transferred from New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The managing for results doctrine that emerged from these countries called for an increased focus on results but also increased managerial authority to achieve results. In return, it was claimed, governments would enjoy dramatic performance improvement and results-based accountability. This article assesses the implementation of public management reform in the United States and argues that the managing for results doctrine has been only partially adopted. State governments selected some of the New Public Management ideas but largely ignored others. In short, state governments emphasized strategic planning and performance measurement but were less successful in implementing reforms that would enhance managerial authority, undermining the logic that promised high performance improvements.

Creating Desirable Organizational Characteristics: How Organizations Create a Focus on Results and Managerial Authority

What are the factors that lead to desirable organizational characteristics? This paper examines this question by proposing a model to explain the ability of some organizations to create a focus on results and high levels of managerial authority. The New Public Management literature points to these two organizational characteristics as key steps for improving public performance and providing results-based accountability. Employing a national survey of U.S. state government health and human service agency managers we find that political support for the organization and purposeful reform efforts do lead to desirable organizational characteristics. In addition, strong internal communication fosters a focus on results, and organizational culture shapes the decision-making authority of managers.

Accountability, Rationality, and New Structures of Governance: Making Room for Political Rationality

Abstract: This article argues that the new institutional arrangements and results- or performance-based accountability run the risk of overlooking several political realities and considerations. The new arrangements and processes represent a preference for economic rationality over bureaucratic rationality. They give little consideration to political rationality, which is concerned with collective values and power relationships. In managerial terms, it is not clear that the new arrangements will be any more durable than their numerous predecessors. The focus on performance targets has led to a decline in program evaluation. It tends to marginalize a number of ethical concerns, reduces the role and scope of citizens, and ignores the conflicts that frequently arise when clients’ interests are at odds. Performance management and results-based accountability represent a constitutional revolution, but there is little sign that Members of Parliament are interested in or able to make good use of the new management reports. Accountability, at any rate, is a word that should probably be used only for the relationship between a subordinate agency and the authority from which it obtains its mandate and resources. Accountability also implies a theory of motivation. It is worth considering the strength of motivation for executive agency leaders to conform to what their political masters want from them. Finally, a postmodern look at agency suggests that targets cannot replace attention to public-sector ethics.

Coming Soon to Your Department: Institutional Effectiveness Plans

institutional effectiveness a top priority at Francis Marion. First, and most important, the university was scheduled to undergo its reaccreditation visit by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) in March 1997. Second, in its 1996 legislative session, the South Carolina General Assembly had enacted a revolutionary performance-based funding model which held public institutions to high standards of results-based accountability. Student retention, graduation rates, and the scholarly output of faculty members were all soon receiving unprecedented attention. Finally, a new administrative team took the helm of