Evaluators and the enhanced Commonwealth performance framework
| Author | David Morton,Brad Cook |
| Published date | 01 September 2018 |
| Date | 01 September 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X18795539 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X18795539
Evaluation Journal of Australasia
2018, Vol. 18(3) 141 –164
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1035719X18795539
journals.sagepub.com/home/evj
Evaluators and the enhanced
Commonwealth performance
framework
David Morton and Brad Cook
Department of Finance, Australia
Abstract
The enhanced Commonwealth performance framework was introduced on 1 July 2015
under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. It should allow the
Australian Parliament and public to understand the proper use of public resources,
whether the accountable authorities of Commonwealth entities and companies
are achieving their purposes and who is benefitting from Commonwealth activity.
Demonstrating the achievement of purposes amounts to demonstrating outcomes
and impacts. It requires Commonwealth entities and companies to move past an over-
reliance on input- and output-focused performance measures. There is a clear role
for evaluators in helping entities make this important adjustment. The opportunities
lie in helping a larger cross-section of the Commonwealth public service understand
and use the evaluators’ toolbox – for example, program theory and qualitative
analysis – to improve the quality of published performance information available to
the Commonwealth’s stakeholders. The evaluation community has the opportunity to
become a centre of key expertise, and to make a critical contribution to building the
capability of ‘performance professionals’ across the public sector.
Keywords
evaluation, government, performance framework, performance stories, public
resource management
Introduction
Performance in the public sector is more than financial. The business of government is
complex and so public sector performance is complex. Providing meaningful
Corresponding author:
David Morton, Department of Finance, 1 Canberra Ave., Forrest, ACT 2603, Australia.
Email: david.morton@finance.gov.au
795539EVJ0010.1177/1035719X18795539Evaluation Journal of AustralasiaMorton and Cook
research-article2018
Article
142 Evaluation Journal of Australasia 18(3)
information on the results achieved from the use of public resources is a cornerstone
of the Australian government’s accountability to the Australian Parliament and public.
This line of accountability is dependent on the quality of performance information. By
establishing a single performance framework across the Commonwealth – with com-
mon reporting – the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013
(PGPA Act) aims to improve performance information and strengthen lines of public
accountability. Like other elements of the PGPA Act, the enhanced Commonwealth
performance framework is based on principles, and so provides a flexible approach
that can accommodate the diversity, complexity and contestability of public sector
activity and performance. It is worth stressing that the framework is not focused on
enabling performance-based budgeting or results-based management (e.g., as
described as ‘direct performance budgeting’on p. 2 of Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, 2008). Its role is to provide robust information as one
of a number of inputs used to inform the allocation of public resources by Parliament.
In this regard, the enhanced Commonwealth performance framework has similar
objectives to the Government Performance and Results Act 1993 in force in the United
States (U.S. Congress, 1993).
The performance framework commenced on 1 July 2015 and applies to all
Commonwealth entities1 and companies2 captured under the PGPA Act. It places
renewed attention on demonstrating the value created when public resources (includ-
ing taxpayer contributions) are used. It establishes a space in which to trial new
approaches to increase the relevance of performance information generated by
Commonwealth entities and companies. It creates opportunities for evaluators to use
their tools and way of thinking to frame questions about what counts as meaningful
performance information in particular circumstances, and what this information says
about the extent to which an entity or company is achieving its purposes. Evaluation
studies will continue to have a role in the performance framework. However, an
emphasis on challenging entities to use program theory to identify more meaningful
performance information, and on combining quantitative and qualitative information
to tell rich performance stories, creates a larger space in which evaluators can have
influence. Evaluators are comfortable with such concepts as qualitative styles of anal-
ysis and constructing narratives, but the broader public sector is not. The wider oppor-
tunities for the evaluation community are likely – in the short to medium term – to
consist of adapting relevant tools for wider operational use.
The draft report of the statutory independent review of the PGPA Act states that the
Commonwealth performance framework has been a positive reform, and that it has
begun to make a significant, albeit patchy, contribution to improving on the quality of
performance reporting (e.g., pp. 1–15 Alexander & Thodey, 2018). Through a com-
parison against performance reforms established in other countries (e.g., recent initia-
tives implemented by the New Zealand and UK governments), the reviewers’ draft
report implies that Australia’s approach confronts similar issues being faced else-
where, and that it represents an appropriate response to these challenges in the
Australian context. They acknowledge ‘rich and insightful performance information is
unlikely to come from the application of hard and fast rules or the widespread use of a
To continue reading
Request your trial