Why Government Outcomes Are So Hard to Measure

(And What You Can Do About It)

Jefferson Memorial, Washington, DC -- Shutterstock

Government agencies at all levels face increasing pressure to demonstrate meaningful performance and outcomes.

Whether it's federal requirements like the Federal Performance Framework, Federal Agency Performance Act of 2024, GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Evidence Act, OMB Guidance (Circular A-11, Part 6), state performance budgeting requirements, or local accountability mandates, the age of activity measures is over.

Taxpayers and oversight bodies expect more than hearing about milestones achieved and effort expended. They want evidence that activities accomplish goals and improve public safety, enhance community wellbeing, or achieve intended policy outcomes.

But measuring performance against strategy and outcomes persists as a significant challenge, despite years of attention.

For government agencies, this challenge is particularly difficult for several reasons:

1. Government outcomes are often intangible - They are hard to describe in concrete terms, so they are often described with vague language.
   

2. Government outcomes are often long-term - Social and societal conditions change slowly and outcomes can't be measured within traditional planning cycles.
   

3. Government outcomes are systemically complex - The desired outcomes are affected by many organizations and aren't within control of any single one. Agencies resist being accountable or measured on outcomes they can't fully control.
   

4. Government agencies are execution-driven - They focus on delivery of programs and services. When measurement does happen, it typically tracks what was done, not what was accomplished.
   

5. Government agencies lack performance measurement capability - Agency leadership development programs really don't emphasize strategic performance management. Guidance documents outline requirements but don't help build the knowledge or capability to actually measure performance meaningfully. Performance measurement isn't seen as integral to management.

These five challenges create a perfect storm for poor measurement. As a result, most measures reported for complex outcomes are really measures of activity or effort like "Percentage of claims processed within 16 weeks" or "Number of new partnerships created".

Government oversight bodies and legislative stakeholders want, and increasingly require, agencies to use evidence and performance measurement to inform decisions and improve mission.

The fundamental challenge is that measuring performance at the organizational and strategy level requires a different mindset and approach than measuring activities and operations.

To succeed at finding the outcome measures that are right for our governmental organizations we need to invest in, and develop, an internal measurement and performance management capability and treat it like the vital and integrated management process that it is.

We need a roadmap to develop the capabilities within agencies to measure government performance and outcomes. The roadmap is not difficult, but it does need to be deliberate.

1. Invest in the first wave of internal measurement capability.

2. Start with a fresh understanding of why we need to measure.

3. Measure the outcomes and strategic goals first.

4. Align the organization by building a cause-effect map.

5. Encourage and hold the space for ownership and buy-in.

6. Use measures to drive continuous improvement toward targets.

7. Reflect and learn, then go back to Step 1.

Download our White Paper "How to Measure Government Outcomes" for the roadmap to measure government agency outcomes meaningfully -- a practical, step-by-step approach that directly addresses each of these unique challenges. You are welcomed to share with your colleagues.

Get the White Paper

Measuring Government Outcomes