Performance Evaluation: Two Tools

Performance-based budgeting is universally acclaimed – but it requires specific tools to work!

I'm here to talk about two of those tools:

• The 7 Elements of Quality Program Design
• the Measuring Mississippi Data Analysis Tool

The first, and much better-developed, tool is conceptual: The 7 Elements of Quality Program Design.

You may be familiar with it; it's already gotten some national attention.

There's a detailed set of questions that go with each element, but the essentials are easy:

• Premise of new activity
• Needs assessment
• Description of new activity
• Research and evidence filter
• Implementation plan
• Fidelity plan
• Measurement and evaluation

Program premise

• What is this program trying to achieve?
• In what way are its efforts novel?
• Is it part of agency mission and state goals?

Needs assessment

• What is the extent of the problem, and to what extent does the program address it?
• This should be rigorously quantified and sourced. Show your work!

Program description

• What will you actually do in the program?
• How much will that cost, over short and long terms?
• What are the expected benefits of the program?
• Again, these should be quantified and sourced.

Research and evidence filter

• Why should we believe the program will work?
• This is where the math and science come in.
  • “Little Timmy” stories: Not good enough!
  • It's often a stumbling block.
• MISS. CODE ANN. §27-103-159 specifies a definition of 'evidence' and other terms.
  • This is useful to get everybody on the same page!

Implementation plan

• What resources and activities will the program require to get off the ground?

Fidelity plan

• What's your plan to ensure fidelity to the program design?

  • This element relates closely to the research base!

  Measurement and evaluation

• What is your empirical criterion of success for this program?

  • There's a tradeoff here with the research element!
  • As always, show your work.

Takeaway one: Everybody's children are above average.

• That is, responses to the seven elements will naturally (and generally blamelessly) emphasize a program's strong points and glide over the weak.
• But responses can't just be treated as a hoop to jump through; they must be evaluated by staffers competent in the math and research!
• Without such independent evaluation, the point is lost.

Takeaway two: These may seem complicated and unusual; they're actually rigorous and intuitive.

• The seven elements, at base, are just asking about things we already want to know:
  • Does this program work?
  • How much does it cost?
  • Are its effects a priority for us, compared to financially equivalent options?
  • et cetera!

ANSWERING these questions can sometimes get technical, but ASKING them is just common sense! We already want to know this stuff.

And the math and science involved aren't optional; they're necessary for answering some basic questions we have about programs.

• Basic numeric comparisons without rigorous empirical and mathematical context are useless!

Imagine two programs doing the same thing.

• One of them achieves 40 units of effect. Boo.
• The other achieves 80 units of effect. Yay!

The 7 Elements are primarily intended for use with intervention programs – and they're primarily for looking forward!

Intervention programs defined by opposition:

• Programs we need for their own sake
• Programs that do something for us

The distinction can get fuzzy, but not insolubly so.

Well, it's a pretty basic rule:

To know how you're doing, you need to know what you've done!

Which means that any (non-piecemeal) solution to the problem of backward-looking performance based budgeting starts with a program inventory.

• The inventory needs to be highly specific – to the level at which dollars turn into discrete results by virtue of discrete activities.

MS is in the process of a four-agency inventory pilot:

• Corrections
• Education
• Health
• Transportation

The project seems simple, but is surprisingly complex!

It's also necessary for several reasons:

• Accountability for money spent
• Accountability for performance
• Transparency for all stakeholders

It's not enough to have an inventory; we also have to make that inventory available!

But here we face a problem: Balancing the needs of public users and power users.

A possible solution

There's much left to be done on this project!

• Improve the current product
• Expand the inventory
• Change the culture
  • At the agency level
  • At the state level

But a project like this, carried out well, enables whole new kinds of performance evaluation.

• The aforementioned backwards-looking evaluation

  • If performance numbers aren't good for an evidence-based program, investigate fidelity!
  • Over time, establish meaningful baselines and find connections

• With enough data, we've even got the key to evaluating the non-intervention programs I mentioned earlier!

  • There are two basic relationships we can expect between spending on non-intervention programs and performance.
  • Each relationship indicates an optimization strategy!

Questions?