Considerations in Implementing a Performance
Download
Report
Transcript Considerations in Implementing a Performance
Considerations in
Implementing a
Performance-Based
Federal-aid Program
Jeffrey F. Paniati
Secretary, Standing Committee On
Performance Management
February 23, 2009
FHWA Perspective
Time is right for performance-based
program
SAFETEA-LU Commissions, GAO,
Congressional Committees, AASHTO, USDOT
all agree
Must not only refocus Federal program, but
also establish accountability for performance
Clear expectation that performance
approach will be implemented aggressively
Considerations
Key performance areas
Most appropriate performance
measures
National goals
State performance targets
Accountability for performance
Goals of PerformanceBased Program
Improve performance in key areas of
national interest
Shift emphasis of Federal oversight
from process to performance
Improve decision making
Improve accountability
Performance Areas
What are the most appropriate areas to be
managed for performance?
Want a relatively few performance areas
that broadly reflect national interests
Safety
Pavement and bridge condition
Congestion
Freight
Environment (?)
Other (?)
Performance Measures
Directly related to highway investment
Outcome oriented
Reflect most important aspects of
performance
Not unduly burdensome to collect
Understood by public
Change within acceptable timeframe
National Performance
Goals
Who sets national goals: Congress?
USDOT? States? Collaborative
process?
My Perspective: National goals should
be set by USDOT in consultation with
States and other stakeholders
USDOT then shares accountability for
meeting those goals
Performance Goals, Targets
Performance targets should be aligned
with available resources
Targets should recognize differences
among States
Targets should have short enough
timeframe to allow effective oversight
Accountability
Should influence decision making
Should be based on reasonable targets
and expectations
Should be consequences for failure to
meet targets
Options include funding flexibility and
level of oversight
Loss of Federal funds generally not an
effective option
Phased Implementation
Aggressive but realistic timeframe
Improve States’ capabilities to link
investment to performance in key areas
Improve data required to measure
performance
Perhaps institute pilot programs for
more advanced States
Phase in measures to promote improved
performance
Federal-State
Relationships
Could represent significant change in
Federal-State relationships
FHWA
traditionally has managed for
process, not performance
Not necessarily more oversight, just a
different kind of oversight
“Performance Partnership” with both
FHWA and the States being accountable
On-Going FHWA Efforts
Currently developing authorization proposal
with underlying themes of performance and
accountability
Two major research projects
One to provide support for developing
legislative proposal
Another to provide technical basis for
regulations to implement performancebased program
Must get this right for it to be effective