Using Performance Information in Government Budgeting and Reporting

This research paper reviews best practices for using performance information in government budgeting and reporting, focusing on the logic of results chains and case studies from the Government of Canada, the Province of Alberta, and the State of Oregon.

• The 'results chain' logic model distinguishes between activities and outputs, which are under direct government control, and intermediate or high-level outcomes, where attribution is more difficult due to external influences.
• The Government of Canada utilizes the Treasury Board Management Accountability Framework and the Management, Resources and Results Structure Policy (effective April 1, 2005) to standardize the reporting of financial and non-financial performance information.
• The Auditor General of Canada reported that despite federal frameworks, the quality of departmental performance reporting remains poor because basic reporting principles are not well understood, there are no incentives for good reporting, and a management culture exists that avoids admitting shortcomings.
• Alberta's 'Measuring Up' system evolved from a three-tier indicator structure (core government, key ministry, and internal management measures) to a goal-based budgeting system. The 2004-05 report featured 12 overarching goals and 76 performance measures, linking budgeted and actual expenditures directly to specific goals.
• A case study of the Toronto East General Hospital demonstrates a strategic management system that links a rolling three-year strategic plan to balanced scorecards and 'accountability action plans,' which specify responsible parties and timelines to achieve targets.
• The Oregon Benchmarks system, managed by the independent Oregon Progress Board, uses a broad societal vision ('Oregon Shines') and 90 specific benchmarks across seven indicator sets to guide state expenditure priorities and agency performance reporting.
• Oregon's system is noted for its longevity and integration, as it requires government departments to report to the Progress Board on how specific programs impact the high-level societal benchmarks.

APA

Barg, S., Anielski, M., & Waddell, J. T. (2006). Using Performance Information in Government Budgeting and Reporting. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/measure_performance_info.pdf

Chicago

Barg, Stephan, Mark Anielski, and Jan Trumble Waddell. Using Performance Information in Government Budgeting and Reporting. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2006. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/measure_performance_info.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Barg |first1=Stephan |last2=Anielski |first2=Mark |last3=Waddell |first3=Jan Trumble |title=Using Performance Information in Government Budgeting and Reporting |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=March 2006 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/measure_performance_info.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{barg2006using, author = {Barg, Stephan and Anielski, Mark and Waddell, Jan Trumble}, title = {{Using Performance Information in Government Budgeting and Reporting}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2006}, month = mar, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/measure_performance_info.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }