Downloads and Free Reading Options

GPRA (the government performance and results act of 1993)is a central component of a statutory framework that Congress has put in place over the last decade to improve the performance, management, and accountability of the federal government. Other major elements of the framework include financial management reforms, such a the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act, and information resources management improvements, such as the Clinger-Cohen Act. Through this statutory framework, Congress has sought to improve the fiscal, program, and management performance of federal agencies, programs, and activities. The effective implementation of this statutory framework, although important, is not an end in itself. Rather, the implementation of the framework is the means to an end-improved federal performance through enhanced congressional and executive branch decisionmaking and oversight. Traditionally, the danger to any management reform is that it can become a hollow, paper-driven exercise where management improvement initiatives are not integrated into day-to-day activities of the organization. In short, performance improvements within an agency will not occur just because, for example, the agency has published a strategic plan or the results of an audit of its financial statements. Rather, performance improvements performance improvements occur only when congressional and executive branch decisionmakers use these and other documents-and the management systems that generate them-to help inform decisions and improve confidence in the accountability and performance of the federal government.

On May 4, 2006, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation hosted a lunch in Seattle and a dinner in Spokane with the distinguished Maurice McTigue. As a former Member of New Zealand's Parliament, Cabinet Minister and Ambassador, McTigue was able to speak from experience on the benefits of forcing government to focus on the performance of its spending.McTigue spoke about his role in what is known as the "New Zealand Miracle" and how Washington could accomplish the same results.According to McTigue, New Zealand was in a similar situation to what Washington is now experiencing. Facing ongoing budget deficits and rampant public debt, in 1984 New Zealand's elected officials decided it was time for meaningful government reform. Budget writers asked a simple question: "What did we get in public benefits as a result of the expenditure of money?" Answering this question led to major reforms and resulted in overwhelming economic success for the country.

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology. [For the 2019 report, see ED610814.]

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology. [For the 2019 report, see ED610814.]

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology. [For the 2019 report, see ED610814.]

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology. [For the 2019 report, see ED610814.]

214 p. 24 cm

214 p. 24 cm

The General Accounting Office (GAO) examined the effectiveness of using strategic human capital (HC) management to drive transformational change in federal agencies and reported on its own implementation of a new competency-based performance management system. First, the potential impacts of the following three broad HC reform opportunities to transform federal agencies were discussed: (1) aligning individual and organizational performance; (2) implementing results-oriented pay reform; and (3) instituting the position of chief operating officer (COO) in selected federal agencies to provide the sustained management attention essential for addressing key stewardship responsibilities in an integrated manner while helping to facilitate the transformation process within the given agency. Next, GAO's model of strategic HC management was explained. The model, which highlights the thinking that agencies should apply in managing HC strategically, is based on eight critical success factors that are arranged as follows to correspond with four cornerstones of effective strategic HC management: (1) leadership (commitment to HC management, role of the HC function); (2) strategic HC planning (integration and alignment, data-driven HC decisions); (3) acquiring, developing, and retaining talent (targeted investments in people, HC approaches tailored to meet organizational needs); and (4) results-oriented organizational cultures (empowerment and inclusiveness, and unit and individual performance linked to organizational goals). (MN)

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) provides a strategic management framework intended to improve federal performance and hold agencies accountable for achieving results. Effective implementation of this framework requires agencies to clearly establish results-oriented performance goals for which they will be held accountable, measure progress towards those goals, determine the strategies and resources to cost effectively accomplish the goals, and then use performance information to make the programmatic decisions necessary to improve performance. One way to embed such a framework throughout agencies is to align individual employee performance expectations with agency goals so that individuals understand the connection between their daily activities and their organization's success.

Congress clearly has shown its interest in agency performance planning to better inform its decisions. As you requested, this report provides summary information based on our review and evaluation of the fiscal year 2000 performance plans of the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act. As agreed with your offices, our first objective was to summarize our observations on the extent to which the agencies' plans include three key elements of informative performance plans: (1) clear pictures of intended performance, (2) specific discussions of strategies and resources, and (3) confidence that performance information will be credible. For each of these elements, we characterized each agency's plan in one of four ways, based on the degree to which the plan contains informative practices associated with that element. These practices, drawn from Results Act requirements, related guidance, and the more informative features of the fiscal year 1999 performance plans, are identified in our published work.

Congress clearly has shown its interest in agency performance planning to better inform its decisions. As you requested, this report provides summary information based on our review and evaluation of the fiscal year 2000 performance plans of the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act. As agreed with your offices, our first objective was to summarize our observations on the extent to which the agencies' plans include three key elements of informative performance plans: (1) clear pictures of intended performance, (2) specific discussions of strategies and resources, and (3) confidence that performance information will be credible. For each of these elements, we characterized each agency's plan in one of four ways, based on the degree to which the plan contains informative practices associated with that element. These practices, drawn from Results Act requirements, related guidance, and the more informative features of the fiscal year 1999 performance plans, are identified in our published work.

In 2002 the "Council of the Great City Schools" and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the "Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project" to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project was to: (1) Establish a common set of key performance indicators (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The project's teams have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the metric definitions ensuring that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. From the KPI definitions, the surveys are developed and tested to ensure the comparability, integrity and validity of data across school districts. "Council of the Great City Schools" is pleased to present the 2014 edition of "Managing for Results in America's Great City Schools" and continues to improve the quality of service as it relates to the "Performance Management and Benchmarking Project," which continues to provide a source of national benchmarks, and serves as an important tool for performance management. Highlights from the report include: (1) the turnaround time from initial release of surveys to the release of results has dramatically improved; (2) the launching of a new "results preview" feature that reduces the time for districts to see their own data to only about 24 hours after the data is submitted; (3) establishing a high level of stability and continuity from year to year; and (4) surveys used in the past two cycles were identical, making the data collection process more predictable for districts.

In 2002 the "Council of the Great City Schools" and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the "Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project" to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project was to: (1) Establish a common set of key performance indicators (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The project's teams have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the metric definitions ensuring that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. From the KPI definitions, the surveys are developed and tested to ensure the comparability, integrity and validity of data across school districts. "Council of the Great City Schools" is pleased to present the 2014 edition of "Managing for Results in America's Great City Schools" and continues to improve the quality of service as it relates to the "Performance Management and Benchmarking Project," which continues to provide a source of national benchmarks, and serves as an important tool for performance management. Highlights from the report include: (1) the turnaround time from initial release of surveys to the release of results has dramatically improved; (2) the launching of a new "results preview" feature that reduces the time for districts to see their own data to only about 24 hours after the data is submitted; (3) establishing a high level of stability and continuity from year to year; and (4) surveys used in the past two cycles were identical, making the data collection process more predictable for districts.

"Managing for Results in America's Great City Schools, 2012" is presented by the Council of the Great City Schools to its members and the public. The purpose of the project was and is to develop performance measures that can improve the business operations of urban public school districts nationwide. This year's report includes data from 61 of the Council's 67-member districts (91 percent) and provides a fully tested set of Power Indicators that superintendents and school boards can use to assess the overall performance of their district's business operations. It also provides a set of what the authors call Essential Few Measures that, along with the Power Indicators, can be used by chief executives to assess the performance of individual departments and operations. This report also provides an overview of the automated ActPoint[R] KPI performance management system, which was developed in partnership with TransACT Communications, Inc. Act Point[R] KPI is a fully-automated intelligence tool that allows districts to input raw data into smart on-line surveys; measure performance on selected Key Performance Indicators; compare performance to peer groups; and manage results for improved performance using the data-modeling tool. For the first time, the Council used the ActPoint[R] KPI system to produce this year's written report, "Managing for Results in America's Great City Schools, 2012." This report also provides "Case Studies of Best Practices" that answer the question, "What are the effective management practices of top performing urban school districts that allow them to run effective financial and business operations?" The intention of these case studies is to document practices underneath positive indicators and to increase collaboration between executives of top-performing districts and districts striving to improve their performance. Ultimately, the authors hope to enhance urban schools' ability to learn from each other and to better determine how large urban school systems work and what it takes to improve them. Appended are: (1) The Performance Management System; (2) Case Studies of Best Practices; (3) Grants Management; and (4) Accounts Payable.

Both GPRA and the CFO Act are key components of a statutory framework that the Congress put in place during the 1990s to promote a new focus on results and improved management.4 Among their complementary purposes, both acts seek to improve congressional decision-making by providing information on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs and spending, and to help federal managers improve service delivery by providing them with information about program results, cost, and service quality. Among its major purposes, GPRA aims for a closer and clearer linkage between requested resources and expected results. The general concept of linking performance information with budget requests is commonly known as performance budgeting.5 GPRA establishes a basic foundation for performance budgeting by requiring that an agency's annual performance plan cover each program activity in the President's budget request for that agency. GPRA does not specify any level of detail or required components needed to achieve this coverage. Further, the act recognizes that agencies' program activity structures are often inconsistent across budget accounts for the purposes of the act and thus gives agencies the flexibility to consolidate, aggregate, or disaggregate program activities, so long as no major function or operation of the agency is omitted or minimized.

Both GPRA and the CFO Act are key components of a statutory framework that the Congress put in place during the 1990s to promote a new focus on results and improved management.4 Among their complementary purposes, both acts seek to improve congressional decision-making by providing information on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs and spending, and to help federal managers improve service delivery by providing them with information about program results, cost, and service quality. Among its major purposes, GPRA aims for a closer and clearer linkage between requested resources and expected results. The general concept of linking performance information with budget requests is commonly known as performance budgeting.5 GPRA establishes a basic foundation for performance budgeting by requiring that an agency's annual performance plan cover each program activity in the President's budget request for that agency. GPRA does not specify any level of detail or required components needed to achieve this coverage. Further, the act recognizes that agencies' program activity structures are often inconsistent across budget accounts for the purposes of the act and thus gives agencies the flexibility to consolidate, aggregate, or disaggregate program activities, so long as no major function or operation of the agency is omitted or minimized.

Both GPRA and the CFO Act are key components of a statutory framework that the Congress put in place during the 1990s to promote a new focus on results and improved management.4 Among their complementary purposes, both acts seek to improve congressional decision-making by providing information on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs and spending, and to help federal managers improve service delivery by providing them with information about program results, cost, and service quality. Among its major purposes, GPRA aims for a closer and clearer linkage between requested resources and expected results. The general concept of linking performance information with budget requests is commonly known as performance budgeting.5 GPRA establishes a basic foundation for performance budgeting by requiring that an agency's annual performance plan cover each program activity in the President's budget request for that agency. GPRA does not specify any level of detail or required components needed to achieve this coverage. Further, the act recognizes that agencies' program activity structures are often inconsistent across budget accounts for the purposes of the act and thus gives agencies the flexibility to consolidate, aggregate, or disaggregate program activities, so long as no major function or operation of the agency is omitted or minimized.

Includes bibliographies and indexes

This testimony discusses the essential actions that the federal government needs to take in order to manage its most important asset - its people, or human capital. An organization's people define its culture, drive its performance, embody its knowledge base, and are the key to successful merger and transformation efforts. As such, strategic human capital management is the critical element to maximizing government's performance and assuring its accountability for the benefit of the American people.

xiv, 193 pages : 24 cm

xiv, 193 pages : 24 cm

Includes bibliographical references

Includes bibliographical references

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology.

This report describes 50 initial statistical indicators developed by the Council of the Great City Schools and its member districts to measure big-city school performance on a range of operational and business functions, and presents data city-by-city on those indicators. The analysis marks the first time that such indicators have been developed in education and data on them collected from the nation's largest urban school systems. The purpose of the project is to help the nation's urban public schools measure their performance, improve their operational decisions, and strengthen their practices. Teams of school-district experts in transportation, food services, maintenance and operations, procurement, and safety and security developed the indicators. Preliminary data were collected from the major city school systems. The results were fine-tuned using Six Sigma quality-assurance procedures to ensure uniformity and rigor. Additional data were collected using the fine-tuned measures, and the final data were analyzed and presented in this report. Each of the indicators in this report includes information about why the measure is important, how it is defined and calculated, what the range of responses were across the city school districts, and how the indicators' values are affected by other school district practices. The Council expects that school boards and superintendents in the major cities will be able to use these indicators and the data gathered on them to assess their own business operations, measure progress on operational reforms, and demonstrate greater transparency in district operations to the public. They will be able to use the highest performing districts to set benchmarks and identify best practices in each of the business areas.

This report describes statistical indicators developed by the Council of the Great City Schools and its member districts to measure big-city school performance on a range of operational functions in business, finance, human resources and technology. The report also presents data city-by-city on those indicators. This is the second time that indicators have been developed, data collected and analyzed, but the first time trend data on existing indicators have been generated on the business operations from the nation's largest urban school districts. In addition, this is the first time that indicators have been developed and data collected and analyzed on the financial and technology operations of these districts. Data have also been collected and analyzed on a sample of indicators for human resource operations. A more comprehensive set of indicators has been prepared to collect and analyze data that will be included in future reports. The overall purpose of this project is to help the nation's urban public schools measure their performance; improve their business, finance, personnel and technology operations; and strengthen their practices. The project's methodology entailed using teams of school-district experts in a range of operational functions in business, finance, technology and human resources to develop the indicators. Preliminary data were collected from major city school systems; the results were fine-tuned using Six Sigma quality-assurance procedures to ensure uniformity and rigor; additional data were collected using the fine-tuned measures; and the final data were analyzed and presented for publication. Each of the indicators in this report includes information about why the measure is important; factors that influence performance; how the indicator is defined and calculated; what the range of responses were across the city school districts; and how the indicators' values are affected by other school district practices. The Council expects that school boards and superintendents in the major cities will be able to use these indicators and the data gather on them to assess their own business, finance, human resources and technology operations; to measure progress on reforms in these areas; and to demonstrate greater transparency to the public. In addition, they will be able to use the highest performing districts to identify best practices based on districts showing particularly positive results. (Contains 11 footnotes, 172 figures, and 9 tables.)

This report describes statistical indicators developed by the Council of the Great City Schools and its member districts to measure big-city school performance on a range of operational functions in business, finance, human resources and technology. The report also presents data city-by-city on those indicators. This is the second time that indicators have been developed, data collected and analyzed, but the first time trend data on existing indicators have been generated on the business operations from the nation's largest urban school districts. In addition, this is the first time that indicators have been developed and data collected and analyzed on the financial and technology operations of these districts. Data have also been collected and analyzed on a sample of indicators for human resource operations. A more comprehensive set of indicators has been prepared to collect and analyze data that will be included in future reports. The overall purpose of this project is to help the nation's urban public schools measure their performance; improve their business, finance, personnel and technology operations; and strengthen their practices. The project's methodology entailed using teams of school-district experts in a range of operational functions in business, finance, technology and human resources to develop the indicators. Preliminary data were collected from major city school systems; the results were fine-tuned using Six Sigma quality-assurance procedures to ensure uniformity and rigor; additional data were collected using the fine-tuned measures; and the final data were analyzed and presented for publication. Each of the indicators in this report includes information about why the measure is important; factors that influence performance; how the indicator is defined and calculated; what the range of responses were across the city school districts; and how the indicators' values are affected by other school district practices. The Council expects that school boards and superintendents in the major cities will be able to use these indicators and the data gather on them to assess their own business, finance, human resources and technology operations; to measure progress on reforms in these areas; and to demonstrate greater transparency to the public. In addition, they will be able to use the highest performing districts to identify best practices based on districts showing particularly positive results. (Contains 11 footnotes, 172 figures, and 9 tables.)

This report describes statistical indicators developed by the Council of the Great City Schools and its member districts to measure big-city school performance on a range of operational functions in business, finance, human resources and technology. The report also presents data city-by-city on those indicators. This is the second time that indicators have been developed, data collected and analyzed, but the first time trend data on existing indicators have been generated on the business operations from the nation's largest urban school districts. In addition, this is the first time that indicators have been developed and data collected and analyzed on the financial and technology operations of these districts. Data have also been collected and analyzed on a sample of indicators for human resource operations. A more comprehensive set of indicators has been prepared to collect and analyze data that will be included in future reports. The overall purpose of this project is to help the nation's urban public schools measure their performance; improve their business, finance, personnel and technology operations; and strengthen their practices. The project's methodology entailed using teams of school-district experts in a range of operational functions in business, finance, technology and human resources to develop the indicators. Preliminary data were collected from major city school systems; the results were fine-tuned using Six Sigma quality-assurance procedures to ensure uniformity and rigor; additional data were collected using the fine-tuned measures; and the final data were analyzed and presented for publication. Each of the indicators in this report includes information about why the measure is important; factors that influence performance; how the indicator is defined and calculated; what the range of responses were across the city school districts; and how the indicators' values are affected by other school district practices. The Council expects that school boards and superintendents in the major cities will be able to use these indicators and the data gather on them to assess their own business, finance, human resources and technology operations; to measure progress on reforms in these areas; and to demonstrate greater transparency to the public. In addition, they will be able to use the highest performing districts to identify best practices based on districts showing particularly positive results. (Contains 11 footnotes, 172 figures, and 9 tables.)

This report describes statistical indicators developed by the Council of the Great City Schools and its member districts to measure big-city school performance on a range of operational functions in business, finance, human resources and technology. The report also presents data city-by-city on those indicators. This is the second time that indicators have been developed, data collected and analyzed, but the first time trend data on existing indicators have been generated on the business operations from the nation's largest urban school districts. In addition, this is the first time that indicators have been developed and data collected and analyzed on the financial and technology operations of these districts. Data have also been collected and analyzed on a sample of indicators for human resource operations. A more comprehensive set of indicators has been prepared to collect and analyze data that will be included in future reports. The overall purpose of this project is to help the nation's urban public schools measure their performance; improve their business, finance, personnel and technology operations; and strengthen their practices. The project's methodology entailed using teams of school-district experts in a range of operational functions in business, finance, technology and human resources to develop the indicators. Preliminary data were collected from major city school systems; the results were fine-tuned using Six Sigma quality-assurance procedures to ensure uniformity and rigor; additional data were collected using the fine-tuned measures; and the final data were analyzed and presented for publication. Each of the indicators in this report includes information about why the measure is important; factors that influence performance; how the indicator is defined and calculated; what the range of responses were across the city school districts; and how the indicators' values are affected by other school district practices. The Council expects that school boards and superintendents in the major cities will be able to use these indicators and the data gather on them to assess their own business, finance, human resources and technology operations; to measure progress on reforms in these areas; and to demonstrate greater transparency to the public. In addition, they will be able to use the highest performing districts to identify best practices based on districts showing particularly positive results. (Contains 11 footnotes, 172 figures, and 9 tables.)

This report discusses how Congress can use the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) as it seeks to reduce the cost and improve the performance of the federal government. There is a broad consensus within the federal government, and among students of its institutions, that part of the solution to the federal government's fiscal problems must be better management of its programs and activities. The American people also are rightly demanding that government operate in a more efficient and businesslike manner. However, improving management in the federal sector will be no easy task, but GPRA can assist in accomplishing it. As its title indicates, GPRA'5 focus is on results. In crafting GPRA, Congress recognized that congressional and executive branch decisionmaking had been severely handicapped by the absence in many agencies of the basic underpinnings of well-managed organizations. Our work has found numerous examples of management-related challenges stemming from unclear agency missions; the lack of results-oriented performance goals; the absence of well-conceived agency strategies to meet those goals; and the failure to gather and use accurate, reliable, and timely program performance and cost information to measure progress in achieving results.

This report discusses how Congress can use the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) as it seeks to reduce the cost and improve the performance of the federal government. There is a broad consensus within the federal government, and among students of its institutions, that part of the solution to the federal government's fiscal problems must be better management of its programs and activities. The American people also are rightly demanding that government operate in a more efficient and businesslike manner. However, improving management in the federal sector will be no easy task, but GPRA can assist in accomplishing it. As its title indicates, GPRA'5 focus is on results. In crafting GPRA, Congress recognized that congressional and executive branch decisionmaking had been severely handicapped by the absence in many agencies of the basic underpinnings of well-managed organizations. Our work has found numerous examples of management-related challenges stemming from unclear agency missions; the lack of results-oriented performance goals; the absence of well-conceived agency strategies to meet those goals; and the failure to gather and use accurate, reliable, and timely program performance and cost information to measure progress in achieving results.

In response to your request, this report provides an overview of certain major statutes that Congress has enacted to instill a more performance-based approach to the management and accountability of the federal government. This statutory framework includes the Government Performance and Results Act; financial management statutes, such as the Chief Financial Officers Act; and information resources management statutes, such as the Clinger-Cohen Act. The framework also includes the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act, debt collection and credit reform legislation, and the Inspector General Act. Our objectives were to (1) summarize the acts' purposes and requirements; (2) provide a time line illustrating the various reporting requirements these statutes call for in relation to the congressional budget process; and (3) identify the status of agencies' implementation of these statutes and compliance with their requirements, if we had done recent work on these efforts.

This report describes statistical indicators developed by the Council of the Great City Schools and its member districts to measure big-city school performance on a range of operational functions in business, finance, human resources and technology. The report also presents data city-by-city on those indicators. This is the second time that indicators have been developed, data collected and analyzed, but the first time trend data on existing indicators have been generated on the business operations from the nation's largest urban school districts. In addition, this is the first time that indicators have been developed and data collected and analyzed on the financial and technology operations of these districts. Data have also been collected and analyzed on a sample of indicators for human resource operations. A more comprehensive set of indicators has been prepared to collect and analyze data that will be included in future reports. The overall purpose of this project is to help the nation's urban public schools measure their performance; improve their business, finance, personnel and technology operations; and strengthen their practices. The project's methodology entailed using teams of school-district experts in a range of operational functions in business, finance, technology and human resources to develop the indicators. Preliminary data were collected from major city school systems; the results were fine-tuned using Six Sigma quality-assurance procedures to ensure uniformity and rigor; additional data were collected using the fine-tuned measures; and the final data were analyzed and presented for publication. Each of the indicators in this report includes information about why the measure is important; factors that influence performance; how the indicator is defined and calculated; what the range of responses were across the city school districts; and how the indicators' values are affected by other school district practices. The Council expects that school boards and superintendents in the major cities will be able to use these indicators and the data gather on them to assess their own business, finance, human resources and technology operations; to measure progress on reforms in these areas; and to demonstrate greater transparency to the public. In addition, they will be able to use the highest performing districts to identify best practices based on districts showing particularly positive results. [For the Spring 2008 edition of this report, see ED502289.]

xiv, 188 p. ; 23 cm

The Results Act requires that the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) direct each executive agency to prepare an annual performance plan, beginning with fiscal year 1999. The performance plan is one of three components of the Results Act, the others being the strategic plan, submitted by agencies in September 1997, and the annual report due March 31, 2000. The performance plan should describe (1) annual performance goals and measures, (2) the strategies and resources to achieve those goals, and (3) procedures to verify and validate reported performance. The act requires that performance goals be linked to the program activities in agencies' budgets and be expressed in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form. 0MB is to use agency performance plans to develop the overall federal government performance plan submitted annually to Congress, beginning with the President's fiscal year 1999 budget.

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decision's. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decision's. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology. [For the 2014 report, see ED559393.]

iv, 198 pages ; 28 cm

iv, 198 pages ; 28 cm

Specifically, this report answers the following questions: (1) What analytic and technical challenges are agencies experiencing as they try to measure program performance? (2) What approaches have they taken to address these challenges? And, in particular, because program evaluation studies are similarly focused on measuring progress toward program goals and objectives, (3) How have agencies made use of program evaluations or evaluation expertise in implementing performance measurement? Indeed, the Act recognizes and encourages a complementary role for program evaluation by requiring agencies to describe its use in performance planning and reporting.

xix, 244 p. ; 23 cm

xix, 244 p. ; 23 cm

xix, 244 p. ; 23 cm

xxxii, 195 p. : 23 cm

xxxii, 195 p. : 23 cm

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology. [For the 2016 report, see ED610811.]

In 2002 the Council of the Great City Schools and its members set out to develop performance measures that could be used to improve business operations in urban public school districts. The Council launched the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project to achieve these objectives. The purposes of the project were to: (1) Establish a common set of "key performance indicators" (KPIs) in a range of school operations, including business services, finances, human resources, and technology; (2) Use these KPIs to benchmark and compare the performance of the nation's largest urban public school systems; and (3) Use the results to improve operational performance in urban public schools. The teams leading the project's work have used a sophisticated approach to define, collect and validate school-system data. This process calls for each KPI to have a clearly defined purpose to justify its development, and extensive documentation of the "metric definitions" ensures that the expertise of the technical teams is fully captured. At the core of the methodology is the principle of "continuous improvement." The teams are instructed to focus on operational indicators that can be "benchmarked" and are "actionable," and thus can be strategically managed by setting improvement targets. Each page of this report shows detailed information for a single KPI measure. Sections include: (1) Accounts Payable; (2) Cash Management; (3) Compensation; (4) Financial Management; (5) Grants Management; (6) Procurement; (7) Risk Management; (8) Food Services; (9) Maintenance & Operations; (10) Safety & Security; (11) Transportation; (12) Human Resources; and (13) Information Technology. [For the 2016 report, see ED610811.]

209 p. : 24 cm