Jump to:Page Content
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Volume II, Number 1, Winter 1996
Issue Topic: Results-Based Accountability
Theory & Practice
The 1990s have brought significant changes to the public sector. From the Clinton administration's reinvention initiative to “create a government that works better and costs less” to Republican calls for devolving service responsibility to states and localities, there is a consensus that government has to change. In child and family services programs, as in others, this change has meant an increased focus on organizational responsibility and the development of systems to ensure that public institutions are accountable for program results. To date, a few states and many federal agencies have begun to develop results-based accountability systems for their programs. These efforts provide insights into the challenges of designing such systems and the opportunities they offer.
What is Meant by Results-Based Accountability Systems?
In one sense, public institutions have always been held accountable. Traditionally, however, accountability has been limited to inputs—what was bought and how wisely the money was spent. This “audit” mentality may have ensured that the ledger books were in order, but it provided little information about whether programs had their intended impact.
Results-based accountability calls for institutions to take responsibility for initiating some action and the results of that action. It requires that organizations articulate how public monies will be spent on services and products that have an impact on people's lives, monitor how effectively and efficiently these programs work, and take action to improve program results. As such, new systems for accountability share the following characteristics:
Results-based accountability systems do not, of themselves, provide sufficient information for organizational decision making. They provide a basis for assessing whether or not program results are being achieved. As such they answer three questions: What is the program trying to achieve? How is the program progressing? Have desired results been achieved? Program evaluation answers different, yet equally important, questions: Why were results achieved or not? What linkages exist between interventions and outcomes? What unintended effects have resulted? How do programs need to change? Accountability systems, when linked with program evaluation, are a powerful management tool: results-based accountability systems monitor program progress and evaluations identify why programs are succeeding or failing and what changes might be necessary.
When utilized successfully, results-based accountability systems offer:
Brizius, J. A., & Campbell, M. D. (1991). Getting results: A guide for government accountability. Washington, DC: Council of Governor's Policy Advisors.
Friedman, M. (1995). From outcomes to budgets: An approach to outcome-based budgeting for family and children's services. Manuscript in preparation, Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington, DC. [See description in New & Noteworthy.]
Wholey, J. S., & Hatry, H. P. (1992). The case for performance monitoring. Public Administration Review, 52, 604-610.
Young, N. K., Gardner, S. L., & Cole, S. M. (1994). Getting to outcomes in integrated service delivery models. In Making a difference: Moving to outcome-based accountability for comprehensive service reforms (Resource Brief No. 7). Falls Church, VA: National Center for Service Integration.
There are also a number of significant challenges to the development of accountability systems:
The development of good and useful accountability systems takes time. Stakeholders may have difficulty coming to agreement on outcomes, appropriate indicators may be difficult to identify, and new data collection instruments will need to be developed and tested. It likewise takes time to achieve and demonstrate the important people-level results that new accountability systems intend. Fortunately, the rewards for such an initial investment are potentially great.
Karen Horsch, Research Assistant, HFRP