• PPN Home
• Programs that Work
• Research in Brief
• Service Delivery
  • Funding and Collaborations
  • Service Integration
  • Implementation
  • Evaluation
  • Decision-making
• Resources and Tools
• Partner Pages
• Search the Site

Service Delivery

Results-Based Decision-Making

What is results-based decision-making?

There has been a growing focus on determining "what works" and discontinuing or changing programs that may not be effective in achieving their goals. Particularly among human service agencies, where funding is relatively tight, there is a movement toward directing funding only to those programs and activities that can demonstrate effectiveness and away from those that cannot. As part of this movement, many organizations have adopted some form of results-based decision-making, which is another name for using data to monitor outcomes. For a more general discussion of these issues see Evaluating the Process and Monitoring Outcomes.

Also called outcomes-based accountability and performance measurement, results-based decision making has at its foundation the expectation that monitoring the results of an organization's activities, rather than the activities themselves, will make organizations more effective in meeting their goals. In focusing on outcomes, rather than the activities involved in service provision, organizations receive feedback about the success of their activities and can use this feedback to alter their operations in order to increase their success.

A basic description of the results-based decision making orientation is to "start with the results we want for children, families, and communities and work backward to the means to achieve those results" [1]. For example, rather than using traditional process measures of success, such as the number of clients served, an agency working with at-risk children might instead track an outcome/result such as improved performance in school. Based on available data, administrators could choose several indicators, such as high school graduation rates, test scores, and reading level, to track the agency's success in moving their clients toward meeting this outcome goal. A result is "a bottom-line condition of well-being for children, families or communities [that] cross over agency and program lines" [1]. Several corresponding indicators are used to measure progress toward the desired outcome or result.

Adopting results-based accountability is expected to provide several benefits [2]. They include:

• Reducing bureaucratic, top-down management. A results-based accountability model would encourage upper management to specify the desired outcomes/results and afford line staff and middle managers flexibility and discretion in establishing the means to achieve those results.

• Providing evidence of program effectiveness. Alternating an organization's orientation toward measuring results, rather than service provision activities, establishes a means to provide regular feedback about the effectiveness of those activities. It can highlight areas in need of change or enhanced resources, as well as provide evidence of program success to management, funding agencies, and the public.

• Increasing collaboration. Results-based accountability focuses on achieving goals that are often shared by other organizations. Thus, opportunities for collaboration may emerge in the provision of services and pooling of resources.

Despite these potential benefits, there are also some potential problems that may come with adopting results-based accountability, [2] including:

• Difficulty in anticipating when the organization should expect to observe results, particularly those that are considered long-term outcomes.

• The focus on quantifiable results may discourage organizations from focusing on the less measurable aspects of their mission or focusing on long-term goals.

• Measuring results may also lead to "creaming," agencies focusing their efforts on low-risk or easier-to-serve clients who are more likely to reach the desired outcomes than higher-risk clients or those who face greater challenges.

• There may be less accountability for any one agency because emphasis switches to community-wide results, which require the work of several organizations.

• The possibility that some may mistakenly believe that results-based accountability can be a substitute for safeguards against fraud, abuse, poor service, or discrimination.

An extension of this concept is results-based budgeting. According to a Finance Project report, "[A]ll budgeting is about dividing up available resources to do certain things. Results-based budgeting refers to a budget process that directly connects resource allocation to specific, measurable results selected by broad-based agreement among government and citizens. It is a process in which budgets are used to drive progress and leverage accountability, rather than simply to maintain the status quo" [3]. That is, dollars are allotted based upon the demonstrated effectiveness of the programs or services provided to avoid expending resources on unproven programs.

In practice, programs do not experience immediate budget cuts as the result of poor performance. A more likely response from funders is to provide increased technical assistance, training, or other resources in an attempt to diagnose or correct any problems. If the program continues to show disappointing results, the results-based budgeting strategy would recommend cutting the program's budget and reallocating the funds to more effective uses. In practice, however, we know of no programs whose funding has been terminated strictly due to a results-based budgeting approach.

While the concept has intuitive appeal, the lack of full implementation of the result-based budgeting approach may be because it poses some difficult challenges for funders and administrators. Among these challenges are identifying appropriate outcome data and establishing the infrastructure to collect and analyze that data, overcoming staff and/or management fears about assignment of blame if results are not positive, separating out the impact of several programs that may target the same goal, and determining an adequate waiting period before results can reasonably be expected [4].

More Information

Here are some sources of information about how to establish results-based planning:

• The Better Results business area of the Finance Project provides a number of publications on results-based decision making, including information on the basics of implementing results-based accountability for different types of organizations, establishing performance measures, and results-based budgeting www.financeproject.org.

• The Urban Institute has published several relevant reports highlighting important issues in adopting and utilizing results-based decision-making, including www.urban.org/pdfs/results-based-stategovt.pdf (PDF file), www.urban.org/publications/410067.html, and www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/citizens.pdf. (PDF file)