The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.
Volume IV, Number 1, 1998
Issue Topic: Performance Measurement
Promising Practices
Do You Really Want to Be Accountable for Results? Musings on Georgia’s Learnings
Janet Bitner of the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia, draws on the experiences of Georgia to share some insights about engaging assistance in the development of RBA systems.
The call for accountability rings throughout every hall, from United Way Boards to county commissioners to legislatures. But, accountable for what, with what tools, and with what systems? How do we use results to inform decision-makers, whether those decisions affect policies, operations, or budgets? Many of us wander into this accountability world with uninformed optimism, engage the best thinkers in designing new tools and systems, and then wonder why we hit so many walls in trying to implement results accountability.
Georgia's experience in approaching results accountability has taught us many lessons, of which the most important has been “don't embark on this bold journey without some appreciation and readiness for the complexity of change that will be required.” We have learned that you must be deliberate in planning for this journey, mapping out the route, preparing traveling partners, and selecting a pathfinder. You need to know what your destination is, and you must also be willing to engage in the work and invest in the human and financial capital required to get there. Georgia's experience has resulted in four major lessons:
1) Ensure that there is buy-in from top leadership from the outset. The system and policy changes required will not occur without the authority required to sustain the changes. This is even more crucial if you are looking at cross-system results that require shared accountability.
2) Recruit dedicated staff to this initiative; it cannot be managed part-time or on top of full-time responsibilities. Consider the functions that need to be managed: steering, guiding consultants, implementation, and building local capacity to manage in the long term.
3) Use outside technical assistance to build local and state capacity to sustain results accountability. Approach this in a manner that teaches new skills and concepts to staff; involves governing bodies fully in designing and using the new decision systems; directs resources to this work; and increases leadership buy-in to the efforts throughout the process.
4) Understand the complexity of this endeavor. Results-based change means more than rhetoric; it goes to the core of how you operate, how you set policy, and how you make funding decisions.
If you understand the above lessons, you will be able to make informed decisions about the consultants and technical assistance to help you implement a results-based system. Georgia has been fortunate—our consultants have added significant value to the work and have helped design conceptual and operational models and new decision support systems, all within a learning environment that is patient, allows for missteps, and rewards breakthroughs.
In order to ensure strong and effective consultant partnerships, our experience shows that those involved in developing a results-based system for their state, locality, or organization must consider the following:
1) Your responsibility
Be clear about your vision for a results-based accountability system and conduct a systemic assessment of the capabilities that need to be developed. Consider the following questions:
-
What is the current view of evaluation among stakeholders? Is the mindset one of after-the-fact “got-you” or is it one of developing ongoing information to improve decision making?
-
What is the state-of-the-art in information systems? Is the information provided that which decision makers need in order to be accountable for results? Can cross-system information as well as individual program information be produced?
-
What models exist for interpreting the data across information systems?
-
What capacity exists at the local and state levels for understanding, implementing, and using results-based decision models?
-
What models need to be developed that help decision makers translate new information into operational, policy, or investment decisions?
2) Consultant's competencies
Search for consultants who can design and foster new concepts. Results accountability is not a bag of tricks—it requires new thinking and new skills. Through interviews and references, determine if the consultant can:
-
Jointly develop and tailor the approach with the customer. There are no standard prototypes for results accountability.
-
Understand the different audiences in any one community or state that are key stakeholders in building accountability systems. These can include, among others, the boards, the executive leadership, the information systems staff, front-line workers, and audit/budget staff.
-
Use the learning process to develop buy-in for the changes required. Consultants should help create an environment that fosters a willingness to modify plans as those involved in the effort learn what works.
-
Understand the change process and ways of managing reactions to the threats and opportunities that develop. The consultant concurrently should be able to think holistically and systemically, recognizing the origins of current behaviors.
- Use the process to increase understanding, capacity, and ownership of shared accountability. A valued consultant partner will work with the varied personalities to build ownership.
Determining the consultant's competencies is difficult, but critical. These competencies could become part of your solicitation, by requesting the party to provide references or evidence of his or her approach to working with customers.
3) Previous consultant work
A request for a proposal should also address the consultant's experience with results accountability: What has he or she done to design new models? We in Georgia have yet to identify any individual, organization, community, or state that has implemented new accountability systems that are cross-system, community-based, and user friendly. We are all in the design phase, so look for evidence of thoughtful experimentation rather than for a perfect solution.
You might want to request the following from any potential consultant:
-
Models of conceptual and operational results-based accountability systems
-
Examples of partnering with multiple stakeholders in fostering joint planning, assessment, and evaluation
-
Examples of an ability to tailor technical assistance to political and operational realities
-
Examples of tools developed to create a system of accountability
-
Approaches to building capacity to sustain the changes independent of the consultant
-
Descriptions of past work, including scope and role as a consultant for results accountability; publications; and, individual references from community, state, and national partners
Since 1991, Georgia has been creating new community collaboratives willing to develop shared accountability. The communities and the state have been deliberate in being responsible for results accountability since 1994, developing new conceptual models, redesigning information systems, reconfiguring governance structures, and designing new decision systems. Georgia attempts to do this within a no-blame learning environment. The Georgia partners are proud of our progress over the past years, but we also understand that we have much to learn. We welcome the knowledge, advice, and support of our many national partners in these efforts. Results accountability is no quick fix but, in the long term, it will provide a means of assessing the effectiveness of our public and private investments in better results for children and families.
Janet S. Bittner
Family and Children Coordinator
The Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia