Resumen de la matriz de identificación de los peligros y la valoración de los

Accountability, Normanton (1966) argues, can only be discharged through clear and effective reporting. Such reporting permits citizens, parliamentarians, and other stakeholders to strengthen their understanding of public sector activities, as well as maintain and build confidence in government (CCAF-FCVI, 1996; Bruijn, 2002). Under RBM, outcome or performance reporting, while frequently harder than resource, process and output reporting, serves to enhance accountability even in the most complex situations (CCAF-FCVI, 1996:116).

Public sector reporting of programme performance and results has a number of benefits. It can enhance accountability and trust in government (Moore, 2003), provide information for improved programmes and services and better parliamentary scrutiny of them (CCAF-FCVI, 2000), and serve as an incentive for departments and agencies to manage for the results they have set out to achieve (Auditor General of Canada, 2003b).

To be effective, public reporting must address several issues. First, it must focus on the few, most important aspects of performance and provide users with both the information and context they need to interpret the meaning and significance of the results that have been achieved (CCAF-FCVI, 2001b). Second, it was suggested that public reporting should link, preferably electronically, to enhanced, detailed

information and analysis for those with a desire for detailed assessments and accountability (Personal discussions with TBS officials, 2003).

In Canada, CCAF suggests that credible performance reporting enables all stakeholders to:

• locate the ongoing discussion of performance and performance expectations in a meaningful context and provide key reference points

• promote accountability as a substantive means for improving performance • provide electronic and paper links to addition performance reporting • develop the capacity of all participants to play their roles in governance,

management and accountability processes (CCAF-FCVI, 2002:3).

The CCAF has also identified, through a study with key stakeholders, nine principles of effective public reporting. These are reproduced in full in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Guidelines for Effective Public Performance Reporting

Source: (CCAF-FCVI, 2001b:3)

The formal reporting regime in place at the time of the research interviews (2004) required each department to table in Parliament an annual Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) outlining their business plans, programme objectives, indicators, and performance expectations for following three years. The second annual component, the Departmental Performance Report (DPR), describes programme performance during the previous fiscal year, and must report against objectives laid out in the respective RPP, clearly linking planned results to actual results. This cycle of

GUIDELINES for PUBLIC PERFORMANCE REPORTING FOCUSING ON CRITICAL THINGS

A good public performance reporting should:

• Focus on the few, critical aspects of performance

• Explain the basis on which these particular aspects have been chosen. RELATING GOALS AND RESULTS

A good public performance reporting should:

• State the goals and performance expectations being sought

• Relate the results achieved to these stated goals and performance expectations. PUTTING RESULTS IN CONTEXT

A good public performance reporting should put results in proper context by relating results achieved to the ongoing capacity to meet or improve on current performance expectations. A good public performance reporting should put results in their proper context by:

• Explaining what the key risks are and how risk has influenced choices made in relation to policy, goals and performance expectations

• Relating results achieved to the risks, and levels of risk, accepted.

A Good performance reporting should put results in their proper context by describing other key performance factors that are central for users to:

• understand why the entity is doing what it is doing; and,

• interpret the meaning and significance of the performance information being reported. RELATING RESOURCES TO RESULTS

A good public performance reporting should recognize and explain the important linkage between resources and results through the integration of financial and non-financial performance information.

PRESENTING COMPARATIVE INFORMATION

A good public performance reporting should compare current performance to that of prior periods when such information will significantly enhance the ability of users to understand or use the performance information being reported.

A Good public performance reporting should compare performance to that of similar entities when such information will significantly enhance the ability of users to understand or use the performance information being reported.

ADDRESSING THE RELIABILITY ISSUE

A good public performance reporting should state the basis on which confidence is held in the reliability of the performance information being reported.

performance planning and reporting was intended to encourage performance management and enhance accountability (Thomas, 2004a).

As of 2005, the Auditor General of Canada (2005) noted only limited progress in moving towards outcome based reporting in annual DPRs and/or other public performance reporting. The Auditor General expressed that while the volume of reports is impressive, the quality and impacts have been marginal. Performance reports generally have focused mainly on inputs and outputs; few have successfully confronted the difficult conceptual and analytical challenges of attributing ‘real- world’ outcomes to programme activities. Earlier reviews concluded that few targets are stated, result commitments tend to be non-measurable, and few linkages are drawn between successive annual planning and reporting documents (Treasury Board of Canada, 1999; Auditor General of Canada, 2003c). Furthermore, a tendency of public servants towards ‘information overload’ is noted when reporting on complex

programmes (Wilson Committee, 1975; Aucoin, 1995). This is also reflected in the general dissatisfaction of Parliamentarians with the quality of performance

information available (CCAF-FCVI, 2001a).