Performance management and evaluation meets culture and politics: Australia’s experience

Abstract

An underlying tension exists between the fundamental elements of accountability, government decision-making, performance management, evidence-based policy and the measurement of results. This article considers this through three lenses: evaluation of government policies and programs; program structures and performance indicators; and the challenges of big data. While use of new technologies and big data opens up opportunities for strengthened evidence-based policy, this does not address the tension between a disciplined results-based approach to government decision-making and the inherently political nature of these decisions. There remain also important challenges to the effective development and use of big data in government.

KEYWORDS:

• Public administration
• performance management
• evidence-based policy
• big data

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The Public Service Commissioner has overarching functions relating to the standards of integrity and conduct in the APS, and oversighting its capacity, accountability, effectiveness and performance.

2. This draws on Bray et al. (2019). This was one of six background papers commissioned by the recent Independent Review of the Australian Public Service chaired by David Thodey from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government. The papers comprised a literature review and key issues which needed to be addressed in the Inquiry’s task “to review the APS to ensure it is fit-for-purpose for the coming decades” (Thodey, 2019, p. 6).

3. A separate issue addressed by Bray et al. (2019), but not considered in this paper, is how the public service could best learn from its successes and failures. Amongst other issues, this pointed to a tension between the internal and reflective role of learning and the judgemental role, often accompanied by the allocation of responsibility and blame, which can be involved where evaluation has an accountability focus.

4. Derek Volker was a long serving senior public servant including being Secretary of the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Social Security, and Employment, Education and Training.

5. Peter Shergold is a former Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

6. This was an initiative to provide a fiscal stimulus following the Global Financial Crisis and improve the energy efficiency of Australia’s housing stock. The programme was very rapidly implemented and a number of issues were identified in its implementation including whether it led to unsafe work practices which resulted in injury and death.

7. Gruen proposes that this position be established on a similar basis to the Australian Auditor-General, as an independent officer of the Parliament who reports to the Parliament. While the appointment of the Auditor-General (for a 10 year term) is based on a recommendation by the Prime Minister, the nomination requires the approval of a Parliamentary committee. The independence of the Auditor-General is enshrined in the legislation which provides, subject to Commonwealth laws “the Auditor-General has complete discretion in the performance or exercise of his or her functions or power” Auditor-General Act 1997 (Cth) s8(4).

8. The “SMART” criteria were developed by Doran (1981).

9. In Australia, support for the unemployed and those unable to work, along with the aged, is through budget funded flat rate, non-time limited, means tested income support payments, rather than through social insurance.

10. This contrasts with an earlier joint inter-agency submission to a 2012 Senate Inquiry which considered similar issues. This previous submission devoted 20 pages to providing data and analysis on the standard of living of recipients of income support payments, including the incidence of financial disadvantage and stress. It further emphasised these other outcomes by outlining the core values and principles of the social security system including community acceptance; adequacy; equity and fairness; maintaining incentives and encouraging self-provision; consistency and financial sustainability (Australian Government, 2012).

11. This programme quarantined a proportion of individuals’ income support payments and restricted how this could be spent.

12. In both cases, the use of this data indicated that the programme had been unsuccessful in achieving its goals. See Cobb-Clark et al. (2017) and Doyle et al. (2017). Further details on the project are at Charles Darwin University (2019).

13. Additionally, people who have a My Health Record are able to restrict access to their data, even when confidentialised, for the purposes of research.

14. Deanna Amato v The Commonwealth of Australia, Federal Court of Australia – Vic (VID/2019/611-0).