Report on Aligning Public Sector Performance Management with Sustainable Development Goals

Overview: A Framework for SDG Achievement

In an era of fiscal constraints, policymakers are increasingly focused on enhancing government efficiency and effectiveness to meet global commitments, particularly the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Performance management systems, also known as outcome monitoring systems, are critical instruments for this purpose. They enable governments to measure the performance of publicly funded programs aimed at improving key outcomes directly linked to the SDGs, such as decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), good health and well-being (SDG 3), and peace, justice, and strong institutions (SDG 16).

Effective performance management systems provide a continuous feedback loop, tracking progress on key indicators to determine if government programs are advancing the 2030 Agenda as intended. This data empowers managers to allocate resources to areas needing improvement, helps policymakers make informed budget decisions, and strengthens accountability (SDG 16.6) by offering clear information on public service effectiveness. Despite the widespread adoption of such systems, many governments face challenges in using this data to drive decision-making and in coordinating these systems with other evidence-based policymaking efforts. This report outlines how performance data can be leveraged to advance the SDGs and presents four key actions to enhance these systems for greater impact.

1. Identify objectives, measures, and benchmarks directly aligned with SDG targets.
2. Analyze and report targeted, disaggregated performance information to ensure no one is left behind.
3. Create institutional opportunities to utilize performance data for SDG strategy development.
4. Coordinate outcome monitoring with other evidence-based policymaking efforts for a holistic approach to the 2030 Agenda.

How Performance Data Informs SDG Implementation

Outcome monitoring systems are fundamental to applying an evidence-based framework to government activities in pursuit of the SDGs. States utilize these systems to improve program delivery, strategically allocate resources for maximum SDG impact, and ensure public accountability. The following examples illustrate how performance data can be used to make informed decisions that accelerate progress on the Sustainable Development Goals.

Early Identification of SDG Implementation Gaps

Outcome monitoring systems serve as a surveillance tool to track progress on SDG-related indicators over time. By establishing benchmarks and targets, these systems can detect areas where performance is lagging. In New Mexico, the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) uses quarterly performance reports from state agencies to monitor government operations. This data highlights programs needing attention, prompting further analysis or evaluation. This process allows for early identification of challenges in achieving state-level objectives that contribute to goals like SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), enabling timely corrective action.

Informing Strategies for SDG Acceleration

Data indicating underperformance can catalyze discussions on improving strategies to meet SDG targets. In Colorado, the Department of Human Services uses its C-Stat performance management system to hold monthly meetings where leaders review data and develop strategies for outcome improvement. This data-driven approach has led to significant advancements, such as a 95% reduction in the use of isolation for mentally ill patients, directly contributing to SDG 3.4 (promote mental health and well-being).

Targeting Resources to Achieve SDG Equity

Performance data, particularly when disaggregated geographically, is essential for targeting resources to areas of greatest need, a core principle of the 2030 Agenda’s commitment to “leave no one behind.” The “Get Healthy Idaho” plan uses population health data to inform funding decisions, strategically targeting resources to address health disparities and advance progress on SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). This ensures that interventions are directed where they can have the most significant impact on vulnerable populations.

Monitoring Progress on National and Sub-national SDG Frameworks

Many governments use strategic plans to outline their priorities, which often align with the SDGs. Outcome monitoring systems provide a transparent mechanism for tracking progress against these plans. Connecticut’s “Healthy Connecticut 2020” system tracks progress on its state health improvement plan, which functions as a sub-national strategy for SDG 3. Action teams use a data dashboard to measure performance, identify areas for improvement, and ensure strategies remain aligned with long-term health goals.

Actions to Improve SDG-Aligned Performance Management Systems

To maximize the effectiveness of outcome monitoring systems, governments can take specific actions to ensure they collect meaningful data, present it in actionable ways, and integrate it into decision-making processes. These actions build upon existing systems to enhance their contribution to achieving the SDGs.

Action 1: Identify Appropriate Objectives, Measures, and Benchmarks Aligned with SDG Targets

An effective system requires meaningful outcome measures that reflect SDG priorities. This involves aligning long-term state objectives—such as economic growth (SDG 8), quality education (SDG 4), and public health (SDG 3)—with specific SDG targets.

• Use Research to Identify Outcomes: States can draw on established frameworks, such as the federal Healthy People 2020 initiative, which provides science-based objectives that align with SDG 3.
• Identify Predictive Short-Term Measures: For long-term SDGs, tracking short- and intermediate-term indicators is crucial. Colorado’s monitoring of home visiting program implementation ensures that evidence-based practices, which are precursors to achieving long-term goals for child well-being (related to SDGs 1, 3, and 4), are followed correctly.
• Align Programs with SDG Outcomes: In Illinois, the Budgeting for Results (BFR) methodology evaluates state programs based on their alignment with expected outcomes. An analysis of criminal justice programs confirmed their effectiveness in reducing recidivism, a key component of SDG 16.3 (promote the rule of law).
• Benchmark Performance: Comparing results against benchmarks, such as national standards or performance in similar jurisdictions, provides context for assessing progress. Florida’s Department of Children and Families compares its performance on child welfare indicators against all 50 states, guiding strategies to improve safety and well-being for children (SDG 16.2).

Action 2: Analyze and Report Targeted Performance Information for Inclusive SDG Monitoring

In line with SDG 17.18, which calls for high-quality, timely, and reliable data disaggregated by relevant characteristics, states must break down performance data to identify disparities.

• Compare Performance Across Jurisdictions: New York’s Prevention Agenda dashboard provides county-level health data, enabling local health departments to design targeted interventions to address specific community needs and reduce health inequities (SDG 10).
• Compare Performance Across Providers: Florida’s CBC Scorecard tracks the performance of 18 contracted agencies providing child welfare services, fostering accountability and driving improvements in services that protect vulnerable children (SDG 16.2).
• Compare Performance Across Population Groups: Minnesota’s statewide dashboard disaggregates 40 key indicators by race, gender, income, and other factors. This practice reveals hidden disparities and ensures that policies are designed to improve outcomes for all population groups, fulfilling the pledge to leave no one behind.

Action 3: Create Opportunities to Make Better Use of Performance Data for SDG Review

Collecting data is insufficient; institutional mechanisms must exist to ensure its use. This involves creating regular forums where policymakers and stakeholders can discuss performance data and strategize on SDG implementation, thereby strengthening institutional capacity (SDG 16.6).

• In Washington, the Results Washington team coordinates monthly meetings where agency directors and the governor’s office discuss progress on statewide objectives, using performance dashboards to frame problem-solving conversations on complex issues like homelessness (SDG 1.1, SDG 11.1).
• In Wisconsin, semi-annual meetings between agency leaders and the governor’s office use quarterly performance data to review progress, identify problems, and improve services, embedding a cycle of continuous improvement into government operations.

Action 4: Coordinate and Combine Outcome Monitoring With Other Evidence-Based Policymaking Efforts

Performance data is most powerful when integrated with other sources of evidence. Aligning performance monitoring with program evaluations, cost-benefit analyses, and research clearinghouses provides a comprehensive picture for decision-making, directly supporting SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• New Mexico’s Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) uses a “Legislating for Results” framework that combines performance data, program effectiveness research, and cost-benefit analysis to inform budget recommendations. This systematic approach has led to increased investment in evidence-based early childhood programs, advancing SDG 4.2 (quality early childhood development).
• In Minnesota, the state budget office used performance data from its dashboard alongside national research to guide the development of its biennial budget, ensuring that new initiatives were supported by strong evidence of effectiveness in achieving priority outcomes aligned with the SDGs.

Creating and Sustaining a Data-Driven Culture for the 2030 Agenda

A systematic approach to performance management is crucial for achieving statewide goals and the SDGs. To ensure these systems are resilient to leadership changes and evolving priorities, governments can take several key steps to foster a culture of accountability and continuous improvement.

• Engage Leadership and Maintain Support: Strong support from executive and legislative leaders, often codified in law or executive order, is essential for validating and sustaining performance management efforts across government.
• Train Staff to Use Performance Data: Building institutional capacity (SDG 17.9) requires training staff to use performance data in their daily operations. Initiatives like Colorado’s Performance Management Academy equip public servants with the skills to drive a culture of continuous improvement.
• Support Agency Collaboration in Achieving Shared Goals: Many SDGs require multi-agency collaboration. Holding agencies accountable for collective goals through shared performance metrics can spur greater coordination on complex challenges like climate action (SDG 13) or sustainable cities (SDG 11).
• Combine Performance Management with Other Government Improvement Efforts: Integrating performance data with evaluation findings, cost-benefit analyses, and process improvement frameworks provides a more complete picture of government performance and its contribution to the SDGs, fostering effective, accountable, and transparent institutions (SDG 16.6).

Conclusion

As governments strive to increase efficiency, transparency, and accountability, performance management systems serve as an indispensable platform for monitoring progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals. By aligning objectives with SDG targets, reporting disaggregated data, and creating routines for data-driven decision-making, these systems can transform public administration. While capacity constraints can be challenging, a strategic focus on utilizing existing information and resources can empower governments to more effectively engage in evidence-based policymaking and deliver on the promise of a sustainable and equitable future for all.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   The article frequently uses health as a primary example of a policy area where performance management is applied. It discusses programs aimed at improving health outcomes, such as decreasing rates of diabetes, tobacco usage, and obesity in Idaho. It also mentions Colorado’s success in reducing the use of isolation for mentally ill patients and Connecticut’s “Healthy Connecticut 2020” plan, which tracks goals related to health promotion and disease prevention, like reducing high blood pressure.

2. SDG 4: Quality Education

   The goal of developing a “well-educated public” is mentioned as a key state objective. More specifically, the article details New Mexico’s efforts to address low literacy rates among children by investing in early childhood programs and tracking reading levels. It also references Illinois’s evaluation of correctional education programs (basic skills and post-secondary) to improve outcomes for incarcerated individuals.

3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   The article identifies “job creation” and “growing the economy” as key outcomes that state governments aim to improve through their programs. It also provides an example of a job placement program and the importance of contextualizing its performance data, particularly when serving challenging populations like formerly incarcerated individuals, which relates to providing decent work for all.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   This SDG is addressed through the article’s emphasis on disaggregating performance data to identify and address disparities. It highlights Minnesota’s practice of breaking down data by race/ethnicity, gender, income, and geographic location to ensure services are effective for all population groups. The article also notes that disaggregated data can help target resources to counties, neighborhoods, or populations with the greatest need, thereby reducing inequalities of outcome.

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   This is the most central SDG to the article’s theme. The entire text is about making government institutions more “efficient and effective,” “accountable,” and “transparent” through evidence-based policymaking and performance management systems. It discusses strengthening public accountability, making informed policy and budget decisions, and ensuring publicly funded programs achieve expected results. Specific examples related to justice include Illinois’s use of performance data to evaluate programs aimed at reducing recidivism and Florida’s system for tracking child safety and welfare to prevent abuse and neglect.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.

  This target is directly supported by examples such as Idaho’s plan to decrease rates of diabetes, tobacco usage, and obesity, and Connecticut’s goal to reduce the rate of adults with high blood pressure. Colorado’s success in reducing the use of isolation for chronically mentally ill patients by 95 percent directly addresses the promotion of mental health and well-being.

• Target 4.6: By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy.

  This target is reflected in New Mexico’s focus on improving child literacy rates, where performance monitoring identified low rates and led to investments in pre-K programs. The state then tracked the percentage of participants reading at grade level. Illinois’s evaluation of “correctional basic skills education” also aligns with this target by focusing on adult education.

• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

  The article’s discussion of Minnesota’s statewide dashboard, which disaggregates 40 key indicators by “race/ethnicity, gender, income, geographic location, and disability status,” directly relates to this target. This practice is explicitly used to identify where services are not working for certain groups and to improve them, thereby promoting inclusion and reducing disparities.

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

  This target is the core subject of the article. The text describes how states are developing “performance management systems” and “outcome monitoring systems” to “strengthen accountability by providing constituents with clear information on the effectiveness of services.” The entire framework of evidence-based policymaking, from program assessment to budget development and evaluation, is aimed at achieving this target.

• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

  The article explains that performance management systems help policymakers “make informed policy and budget decisions.” By using data on program effectiveness and community well-being, decision-making becomes more responsive to the actual needs of the population rather than being based on assumptions. The use of disaggregated data, as mentioned for Minnesota and New York, ensures that decision-making is inclusive of the needs of different demographic and geographic groups.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions several specific and implied indicators used by states to measure program performance and progress towards outcomes.

• Health Indicators (SDG 3):
  • Rates of diabetes, tobacco usage, and obesity (Idaho).
  • Percentage reduction in the use of isolation for mentally ill patients (Colorado).
  • Percentage of residents in a State Veterans Nursing Home on anti-psychotic medications (Colorado).
  • Rate of adults with high blood pressure (Connecticut).
  • Rate of unplanned pregnancies (Connecticut).
• Education Indicators (SDG 4):
  • Literacy rates among children (New Mexico).
  • Percentage of program participants reading at grade level in kindergarten and third grade (New Mexico).
• Justice and Safety Indicators (SDG 16):
  • Recidivism rates for individuals leaving state prison (Illinois).
  • Key performance indicators for child welfare, including rates of child abuse, neglect, and abandonment (Florida).
  • Measures of child safety, permanency, and well-being (Florida).
• Institutional Performance Indicators (SDG 16):
  • Timeliness of services and compliance with statutory requirements (Colorado’s home visiting programs).
  • The article also implies the use of disaggregated indicators as a measurement strategy itself, such as breaking down health or education data by race, gender, income, and geography to measure progress on reducing inequality (SDG 10).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: pew.org