DOES LOCATION MATTER? BUDGET FUNCTION LOCATIONS AND THE USE OF MANAGEMENT TOOLS By AMANDA KAUFMAN A paper submitted to the faculty of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Public Administration SPRING 2011 This paper represents work done by a UNC-Chapel Hill Master of Public Administration student. It is not a formal report of the School of Government, nor is it the work of School of Government faculty. Executive Summary The organizational location of the budget function varies in local governments, with four common locations being within finance, administrative services, an independent office, or as a subunit of the mayor’s or manager’s office. This paper examines the relationship between these locations and management tools, such as performance measurement and strategic planning, used during the budget process. Results show that, as a whole, the use of management tools is not significantly impacted by the location of the budget function.
33
Embed
DOES LOCATION MATTER? BUDGET FUNCTION LOCATIONS AND …
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DOES LOCATION MATTER? BUDGET FUNCTION LOCATIONS AND THE USE OF
MANAGEMENT TOOLS
By
AMANDA KAUFMAN
A paper submitted to the faculty of
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Master of Public Administration
SPRING 2011
This paper represents work done by a UNC-Chapel Hill Master of Public Administration student.
It is not a formal report of the School of Government, nor is it the work of School of Government faculty.
Executive Summary
The organizational location of the budget function varies in local governments, with four
common locations being within finance, administrative services, an independent office, or as a
subunit of the mayor’s or manager’s office. This paper examines the relationship between these
locations and management tools, such as performance measurement and strategic planning, used
during the budget process. Results show that, as a whole, the use of management tools is not
significantly impacted by the location of the budget function.
1
Introduction
Budgeting is an important function in local government, as it reflects organizational priorities and
determines the allocation of resources. “The budget process is the one common thread that links the parts
of the organization together,” (Bland 2007, 3). The organizational location of the budget function varies
among local governments. Four common organizational locations of this function include a finance
department, an administrative services department, an independent office, and a subunit of the mayor’s or
manager’s office. Little is known about how the budget process of development, implementation, and
evaluation is affected by the organizational placement of the budget function.
Background
While very little literature exists on the organizational location of the local government budget function,
literature discussing its internal operations has linked differences among local governments to the
organizational placement of the function. As the budget function moves away from a location in a
finance department, or as the population of the jurisdiction increases, the literature broadly describes the
focus of the local government budget function as changing from financial accountability to policy
development. This is demonstrated in Figure 1.
Literature has addressed distinctions between certain management tools used in local government
budgeting and the correlation with population. A 1996 survey of 510 jurisdictions found that while most
budget functions (67 percent) were placed within a finance department, as the population increased, it was
more likely to be placed in a separate office and report directly to the chief executive (O’Toole, Marshall,
and Grewe 1996, 25-29). Figure 11
Similarly, a 1985 survey of
551 jurisdictions found that
those with greater
populations were more likely
to have a budget director
(Peterson, Watt, and Zorn
1986, 30). A survey of 10
large jurisdictions,
conducted in 1999 by the
GFOA Consulting and
Research Center, found that
large jurisdictions utilize nearly the same management tools in budgeting (Michel 2002, 20-25). The
aforementioned 1996 survey found that most jurisdictions, regardless of size, participate in revenue
forecasting, but that larger jurisdictions are more likely than smaller jurisdictions to have performance
measures and to monitor efficiency and effectiveness. The study recognized the greater capacity of larger
jurisdictions as a potential explanation of these differences (O’Toole, Marshall, and Grewe 1996, 26).
Other literature has attempted to explain differences in the use of management tools in local government
budgeting through the organizational location of the budget function. A 2003 Government Finance
Review article stated policy-oriented budget functions are likely placed under the chief executive, while
more administrative functions are likely located in a finance department (Christensen, McElravy, and
Miranda 2003, 20). Organization and Design of an Effective Budget Function, a GFOA publication,
stated that the local government budget function location could be arranged on a spectrum, where at one
end, it mainly acts as a facilitator of the budget process, but has an increasing role in budgeting as it
1 Organizational Location and Core Values adapted from Bland, Robert L. 2007. A Budgeting Guide for Local
Government. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
Population adapted from various sources; refer to sources discussed in the second paragraph under “Background.”
2
moves across the spectrum. For instance, budget functions located within the mayor’s or manager’s
office are likely oriented around policy and politics, while budget functions within finance or
administrative services departments are more separated from policy and politics, and instead focus on
technical or management-related issues (Michel 2002, 9, 27-32). Robert Bland defined the core values
and primary focus of the budget function within the context of its organizational placement in a local
government. He stated in his recent ICMA publication that, “the most fundamental issue for the manager
is the organizational placement of the budget function,” (2007, 29-32).
“Few large-scale studies exist on the responsibilities given to budget offices in actual practice,” (Michel
2002, 20). While existing studies point to various relationships between the use of certain management
tools in local government budgeting and the organizational location of the budget function, there is no
study that focuses primarily on the significance of the budget function location. The aim of this study is
to better understand how management tools are used during the budget process, and how the
organizational location of the budget function may impact the use of such tools. For this study, the
budget process was defined as development, implementation, and evaluation. The information gathered
also provides an inventory of current municipal budgeting practices. Specifically, the research question is
as follows:
Does the organizational placement of the local government budget function have an
impact on the use of management tools during the budget process?
Methodology
The organizational location of the budget function was condensed into four common locations for this
over 52 percent of the municipalities primarily use line item budgeting for budget development. This
may indicate that, while municipalities are tracking and reporting performance measures, not all of them
are using these measures to inform decision-making during the budget process. A 1996 study found that
only 31 percent of jurisdictions that had performance measures found them to be a useful tool for
decision-making during the budget process (O’Toole, Marshall, and Grewe 1996, 28). This also affirms
previous findings that found the use of performance measures was not an indication that they were also
being used during the budget process (O’Toole and Stipak 2002; Kelly and Rivenbark 2002).
Capacity may be one plausible explanation as to why performance measures and performance budgeting
have the highest presence in independent offices. Successful implementation of performance measures
and their use in decision-making requires participation across the organization. Placement of the budget
function in an independent office with departmental status may better position it to promote and
implement these management tools within the organization.
While not a management tool, the survey also included a question on whether the municipality had
received GFOA’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. The relationship between the budget
function location and the award was significant at p < .05.10
The budget functions within finance and
administrative services departments were split fairly evenly between having received and not having
received the award. Independent offices, however, were more likely to have received the award (82.4
percent), while those located within a subunit of the mayor’s or manager’s office were more likely to have
not received it (63.4 percent). Because criteria for this award includes performance measures and
linkages of unit goals and objectives to those of the overall organization, this finding may be related to the
use of performance measures and performance budgeting (GFOA 2011). If performance measures have
not been implemented, and if unit goals and objectives are not linked to those of the overall organization,
it becomes more difficult to receive this award.
Conclusion
Overall, this study did not find a significant relationship between management tools used during the
budget process and the organizational location of the municipal budget function. It also did not find a
strong correlation between the population of a municipality and the organizational location of its budget
function.
A plausible explanation for these findings may be that as leading professional organizations, including
GFOA and ICMA, and MPA programs continue to promote and offer training on these management
tools, they may be becoming the professional norm for local governments, regardless of population or
organizational location of the budget function.
The results from this study are important to understanding the current state of local government budgeting
by creating a new understanding of how management tools are being used in practice. Therefore, the
organizational location of the budget function may no longer be a fundamental issue for the manager, as
described by Bland (2007, 30). Rather, the critical managerial issue may be to build the innovative
capacity within the budget function, regardless of its location.
10
See Appendix V for the crosstab output.
References
Bland, Robert L. 2007. A Budgeting Guide for Local Government. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
Christensen, Peter, Jeff McElravy, and Rowan Miranda. 2003. “What’s Wrong With Budgeting?: A Framework for Evaluating and Fixing Public Sector Financial Planning Processes.” Government Finance Review 19 (5): 11-20.
Kelly, Janet M., and William C. Rivenbark. 2002. “Reconciling the Research: Municipal Finance Officers on the Role of Performance Data in the Budget Process.” Public Administration Quarterly 26 (2): 218-233.
Michel, R. Gregory. 2002. Organization and Design of an Effective Budget Function. Chicago: Government Finance Officers Association.
O’Toole, Daniel E., James Marshall, and Timothy Grewe. 1996. “Current Local Government Budgeting Practices.” Government Finance Review 12 (6): 25-29.
O’Toole, Daniel E., and Brian Stipak. 2002. “Productivity Trends in Local Government Budgeting.” Public Performance & Management Review 26 (2): 190-203.
Poister, Theodore H., and Gregory Streib. 1999. “Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice.” Public Administration Review 59 (4): 325-335.
Peterson, John E., Pat Watt, and Paul Zorn. 1986. Organization and Compensation in Local Government Finance. Chicago: Government Finance Officers Association.
Rivenbark, William C. 2003. “Strategic Planning and the Budget Process: A Survey of Municipal Government.” Government Finance Review 19 (5): 22-27.
Rivenbark, William C. 2007. “A Manager’s Toolbox.” In Managing Local Government Services: A Practical Guide, ed. Carl W. Stenberg and Susan Lipman Austin. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
Sokolow, Alvin D., and Beth Walter Honadle. 1984. “How Rural Local Governments Budget: The Alternatives to Executive Preparation.” Public Administration Review 44 (5): 373-383.
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Alabama: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-01).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Arkansas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-05).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Florida: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-12).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Georgia: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-13).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Kentucky: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-21).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Louisiana: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-22).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Mississippi: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-28).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in North Carolina: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-37).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in South Carolina: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-45).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Tennessee: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-47).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Virginia: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-51).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. 2010. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in West Virginia: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (SUB-EST2009-04-54).
According to the organizational chart, which of the following best describes the location of the budget function in your municipality? (Please select one)
The budget function is part of the Finance Department, along with other financial activities. An example of another financial activity included in this department would be accounting.
The budget function is part of an Administrative Services Department, where the Administrative Services Director holds department director status and is responsible for additional activities. Examples of additional activities included in this department would be human resources and fleet management.
The budget function is an independent office with departmental status.
The budget function is part of the Mayor or Manager's Office, and functions as a subunit of the chief executive. Which of the following best describes financial forecasting in your municipality? (Please select one) Financial forecasting focuses primarily on revenues and expenditures for the forthcoming budget year.
Financial forecasting focuses primarily on revenues and expenditures for the forthcoming budget year, and
multi-year forecasting is prepared on an as-needed basis.
Financial forecasting that focuses on revenues and expenditures is prepared for the forthcoming budget year, and multi-year forecasting is prepared as part of the municipality's routine work plan. It is regularly monitored and updated.
Which of the following best describes how your municipality monitors financial condition? (Please select one)
Selected financial indicators are calculated and reported on an annual basis. (Examples of financial indicator measures include fund balance as a percentage of expenditures and liquidity)
In addition to calculating and reporting financial indicators on an annual basis, a financial condition analysis is conducted on an as-needed basis. (Conducting a financial condition analysis when pursing a bond is an example of using this tool on an as-needed basis)
Calculating and reporting financial indicators and analyzing the financial condition of the municipality are part of the annual work plan, including annual reports to the governing body.
Which of the following best describes how your municipality funds capital asset acquisition, replacement, and maintenance? (Please select one)
All capital is budgeted through the annual budget ordinance or through separate capital project ordinances on an as-needed basis.
A capital budget is formally adopted by the governing board.
A capital budget and a capital improvement plan (CIP) are formally adopted by the governing board. These include long-range plans and policies that anticipate future capital needs.
Which of the following best describes performance measurement in your municipality? (Please select one)
Performance measures have not yet been implemented.
Performance measurement is a voluntary activity. Certain departments track performance measures.
Departments are required to track and report performance measures. Workload measures are primarily used.
Departments are required to track and report a collection of performance measures, including workload, outcome, and efficiency measures.
Departments are required to track and report a collection of performance measures, including workload, outcome, and efficiency measures. These measures are a major part of the organization's decision-making process and are linked to organization-wide goals. (Strategic plans and balanced scorecards are examples of how performance measures can be linked to organization-wide goals)
Which of the following best describes budget development in your municipality? (Please select one)
Line item budgeting is primarily used for budget development.
Performance measures are reported in the budget document and line item budgeting is primarily used for budget development.
Performance measures complement line item budgeting for decision-making purposes, and allocation requests are supported with performance data.
Performance measures are used for decision-making purposes at the organizational level, and allocation decisions by the governing board are supported with performance data.
Performance measures are used for decision-making purposes at the departmental and organizational levels, and allocation decisions by the governing board are supported with performance data.
The next two questions inquire about program evaluation and policy analysis in your municipality. An example of a program evaluation is examining the efficiency and effectiveness of a municipal recycling program. An example of policy analysis is examining the equity between increasing the tax rate or implementing a fee to fund a municipal recycling program.
Which of the following best describes program evaluation in your municipality? (Please select one)
Program evaluation is not a part of the organization's routine work plan.
Program evaluation is done on an as-needed basis.
Program evaluation is a routine part of the organization's work plan to periodically evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of municipal departments and programs.
Which of the following best describes policy analysis in your municipality? (Please select one)
Policy analysis is not a part of the organization's routine work plan.
Policy analysis is done on an as-needed basis.
Policy analysis is an annual part of the organization's routine work plan.
Which of the following best describes strategic planning in your municipality? (Please select one)
No strategic plan or long-term goals are in place.
The organization has an informal strategic plan with long-term goals.
A strategic plan with long-term goals has been formally adopted by the governing board and is used for departmental and organizational decision-making during the budget process.
Has your municipality received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from GFOA?
Yes
No
What is the population of your municipality?
Below 25,000
25,000-50,000
50,000-75,000
75,000-100,000
100,000-150,000
150,000 and Above
Please use the space below if you have additional comments or have questions and would like to be contacted.
Appendix III
Distribution of Budget Function Locations by Population Grouping
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Department
Independent
Office
Subunit of
Mayor’s or
Manager’s
Office
Population Count % Count % Count % Count %
Below 25,000 27 73.0 4 10.8 - - 6 16.2
25,000-50,000 81 73.6 6 5.5 1 .9 22 20.0
50,000-75,000 27 65.9 6 14.6 3 7.3 5 12.2
75,000-100,000 9 64.3 4 28.6 1 7.1 - -
100,000-150,000 4 26.7 2 13.3 4 26.7 5 33.3
150,000 and Above 15 51.7 3 10.3 8 27.6 3 10.3
Missing 1 1
Appendix IV
APPE NDI X I I I Financial Forecasting
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Financial Forecasting *
Budget Function Location
248 100.0% 0 .0% 248 100.0%
Financial Forecasting * Budget Function Location Crosstabulation
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of Mayor
or Manager
Financial Forecasting Focuses on
revenues/expenditures for
forthcoming budget year
Count 43 6 3 10 62
Expected Count 40.8 6.5 4.3 10.5 62.0
% within Financial Forecasting 69.4% 9.7% 4.8% 16.1% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
26.4% 23.1% 17.6% 23.8% 25.0%
% of Total 17.3% 2.4% 1.2% 4.0% 25.0%
Focuses on
revenues/expenditures for
forthcoming budget year;
multi-year forecasts are
also prepared on
as-needed basis
Count 67 9 6 16 98
Expected Count 64.4 10.3 6.7 16.6 98.0
% within Financial Forecasting 68.4% 9.2% 6.1% 16.3% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
41.1% 34.6% 35.3% 38.1% 39.5%
% of Total 27.0% 3.6% 2.4% 6.5% 39.5%
Forthcoming budget year
and multi-year forecasts
are part of routine
workplan; they are
regularly monitored and
updated
Count 53 11 8 16 88
Expected Count 57.8 9.2 6.0 14.9 88.0
% within Financial Forecasting 60.2% 12.5% 9.1% 18.2% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
32.5% 42.3% 47.1% 38.1% 35.5%
% of Total 21.4% 4.4% 3.2% 6.5% 35.5%
Total Count 163 26 17 42 248
Expected Count 163.0 26.0 17.0 42.0 248.0
% within Financial Forecasting 65.7% 10.5% 6.9% 16.9% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 65.7% 10.5% 6.9% 16.9% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.383a 6 .881 .886
Likelihood Ratio 2.363 6 .883 .891
Fisher's Exact Test 2.324 .898
Linear-by-Linear Association .919b 1 .338 .357
N of Valid Cases 248
a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.25.
b. The standardized statistic is .959.
Financial Condition Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Financial Condition *
Budget Function Location
245 98.8% 3 1.2% 248 100.0%
Financial Condition * Budget Function Location Crosstabulation
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of
Mayor or
Manager
Financial Condition Selected financial
indicators are
calculated/reported
annually
Count 30 4 3 10 47
Expected Count 30.9 5.0 3.3 7.9 47.0
% within Financial
Condition
63.8% 8.5% 6.4% 21.3% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
18.6% 15.4% 17.6% 24.4% 19.2%
% of Total 12.2% 1.6% 1.2% 4.1% 19.2%
Selected financial
indicators are
calculated/reported
annually; financial
condition analysis is
conducted as-needed
Count 52 12 5 14 83
Expected Count 54.5 8.8 5.8 13.9 83.0
% within Financial
Condition
62.7% 14.5% 6.0% 16.9% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
32.3% 46.2% 29.4% 34.1% 33.9%
% of Total 21.2% 4.9% 2.0% 5.7% 33.9%
Calculating/reporting
financial indicators and
financial condition are part
of routine workplan; reports
to gov. body
Count 79 10 9 17 115
Expected Count 75.6 12.2 8.0 19.2 115.0
% within Financial
Condition
68.7% 8.7% 7.8% 14.8% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
49.1% 38.5% 52.9% 41.5% 46.9%
% of Total 32.2% 4.1% 3.7% 6.9% 46.9%
Total Count 161 26 17 41 245
Expected Count 161.0 26.0 17.0 41.0 245.0
% within Financial
Condition
65.7% 10.6% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 65.7% 10.6% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.143a 6 .791 .798
Likelihood Ratio 3.030 6 .805 .817
Fisher's Exact Test 3.107 .806
Linear-by-Linear Association .726b 1 .394 .407
N of Valid Cases 245
a. 2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.26.
b. The standardized statistic is -.852.
Capital Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Capital * Budget Function Location 247 99.6% 1 .4% 248 100.0%
Capital * Budget Function Location Crosstabulation
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of
Mayor or
Manager
Capital All capital is budgeted
through the annual budget
ordinance or separate capital
project ordinances
as-needed
Count 58 9 0 13 80
Expected Count 52.8 8.1 5.5 13.6 80.0
% within Capital 72.5% 11.3% .0% 16.3% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
35.6% 36.0% .0% 31.0% 32.4%
% of Total 23.5% 3.6% .0% 5.3% 32.4%
A capital budget is formally
adopted by governing board
Count 21 2 2 6 31
Expected Count 20.5 3.1 2.1 5.3 31.0
% within Capital 67.7% 6.5% 6.5% 19.4% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
12.9% 8.0% 11.8% 14.3% 12.6%
% of Total 8.5% .8% .8% 2.4% 12.6%
A capital budget and CIP are
formally adopted by
governing board
Count 84 14 15 23 136
Expected Count 89.7 13.8 9.4 23.1 136.0
% within Capital 61.8% 10.3% 11.0% 16.9% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
51.5% 56.0% 88.2% 54.8% 55.1%
% of Total 34.0% 5.7% 6.1% 9.3% 55.1%
Total Count 163 25 17 42 247
Expected Count 163.0 25.0 17.0 42.0 247.0
% within Capital 66.0% 10.1% 6.9% 17.0% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 66.0% 10.1% 6.9% 17.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.454a 6 .107 .105
Likelihood Ratio 15.476 6 .017 .023
Fisher's Exact Test 12.382 .045
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.935b 1 .164 .166
N of Valid Cases 247
a. 2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.13.
b. The standardized statistic is 1.391.
Performance Measures
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Performance
Measurement * Budget
Function Location
247 99.6% 1 .4% 248 100.0%
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of
Mayor or
Manager
Performance
Measurement
Performance measures
have not yet been
implemented
Count 37 5 0 14 56
Expected Count 37.0 5.7 3.9 9.5 56.0
% within Performance
Measurement
66.1% 8.9% .0% 25.0% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
22.7% 20.0% .0% 33.3% 22.7%
% of Total 15.0% 2.0% .0% 5.7% 22.7%
Performance
measurement is
voluntary; certain
departments track
performance measures
Count 48 5 2 10 65
Expected Count 42.9 6.6 4.5 11.1 65.0
% within Performance
Measurement
73.8% 7.7% 3.1% 15.4% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
29.4% 20.0% 11.8% 23.8% 26.3%
% of Total 19.4% 2.0% .8% 4.0% 26.3%
Departments required to
track/report perf.
measures (workload,
outcome, or efficiency);
may be linked to org-wide
goals
Count 78 15 15 18 126
Expected Count 83.1 12.8 8.7 21.4 126.0
% within Performance
Measurement
61.9% 11.9% 11.9% 14.3% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
47.9% 60.0% 88.2% 42.9% 51.0%
% of Total 31.6% 6.1% 6.1% 7.3% 51.0%
Total Count 163 25 17 42 247
Expected Count 163.0 25.0 17.0 42.0 247.0
% within Performance
Measurement
66.0% 10.1% 6.9% 17.0% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 66.0% 10.1% 6.9% 17.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 14.373a 6 .026 .024
Likelihood Ratio 17.518 6 .008 .010
Fisher's Exact Test 14.189 .024
Linear-by-Linear Association .001b 1 .977 1.000
N of Valid Cases 247
a. 2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.85.
b. The standardized statistic is -.029.
Performance Budgeting Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Performance Budgeting * Budget
Function Location
247 99.6% 1 .4% 248 100.0%
Performance Budgeting * Budget Function Location Crosstabulation
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of
Mayor or
Manager
Performance Budgeting Line item budgeting is
primarily used for budget
development
Count 92 11 4 22 129
Expected Count 85.1 13.1 8.9 21.9 129.0
% within Performance
Budgeting
71.3% 8.5% 3.1% 17.1% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
56.4% 44.0% 23.5% 52.4% 52.2%
% of Total 37.2% 4.5% 1.6% 8.9% 52.2%
Performance measures
are reported in budget
document and line item
budgeting is primarily
used for budget
development
Count 43 7 6 8 64
Expected Count 42.2 6.5 4.4 10.9 64.0
% within Performance
Budgeting
67.2% 10.9% 9.4% 12.5% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
26.4% 28.0% 35.3% 19.0% 25.9%
% of Total 17.4% 2.8% 2.4% 3.2% 25.9%
Performance measures
are used for departmental
and organizational
decision-making; they also
support allocation
requests
Count 28 7 7 12 54
Expected Count 35.6 5.5 3.7 9.2 54.0
% within Performance
Budgeting
51.9% 13.0% 13.0% 22.2% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
17.2% 28.0% 41.2% 28.6% 21.9%
% of Total 11.3% 2.8% 2.8% 4.9% 21.9%
Total Count 163 25 17 42 247
Expected Count 163.0 25.0 17.0 42.0 247.0
% within Performance
Budgeting
66.0% 10.1% 6.9% 17.0% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 66.0% 10.1% 6.9% 17.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Exact Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.789a 6 .095 .093
Likelihood Ratio 10.923 6 .091 .107
Fisher's Exact Test 11.221 .075
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.666b 1 .056 .057
N of Valid Cases 247
a. 2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.72.
b. The standardized statistic is 1.915.
Program Evaluation
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Program Evaluation * Budget Function
Location
244 98.4% 4 1.6% 248 100.0%
Program Evaluation2 * Budget
Function Location
244 98.4% 4 1.6% 248 100.0%
Program Evaluation * Budget Function Location Crosstab
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of
Mayor or
Manager
Program Evaluation Program evaluation is not
part of the routine
workplan
Count 15 3 2 4 24
Expected Count 15.8 2.5 1.7 4.0 24.0
% within Program
Evaluation
62.5% 12.5% 8.3% 16.7% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
9.3% 12.0% 11.8% 9.8% 9.8%
% of Total 6.1% 1.2% .8% 1.6% 9.8%
Program evaluation is
done as-needed
Count 108 18 10 26 162
Expected Count 106.9 16.6 11.3 27.2 162.0
% within Program
Evaluation
66.7% 11.1% 6.2% 16.0% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
67.1% 72.0% 58.8% 63.4% 66.4%
% of Total 44.3% 7.4% 4.1% 10.7% 66.4%
Program evaluation is a
routine part of the
workplan
Count 38 4 5 11 58
Expected Count 38.3 5.9 4.0 9.7 58.0
% within Program
Evaluation
65.5% 6.9% 8.6% 19.0% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
23.6% 16.0% 29.4% 26.8% 23.8%
% of Total 15.6% 1.6% 2.0% 4.5% 23.8%
Total Count 161 25 17 41 244
Expected Count 161.0 25.0 17.0 41.0 244.0
% within Program
Evaluation
66.0% 10.2% 7.0% 16.8% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 66.0% 10.2% 7.0% 16.8% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.585a 6 .954 .959
Likelihood Ratio 1.638 6 .950 .957
Fisher's Exact Test 2.097 .922
Linear-by-Linear Association .067b 1 .796 .807
N of Valid Cases 244 a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.67. b. The standardized statistic is .259.
Program Evaluation2 * Budget Function Location
Crosstab
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of Mayor
or Manager
Program Evaluation2 Program evaluation is not
part of the routine
workplan or is done
as-needed
Count 123 21 12 30 186
Expected Count 122.7 19.1 13.0 31.3 186.0
% within Program Evaluation2 66.1% 11.3% 6.5% 16.1% 100.0
%
% within Budget Function
Location
76.4% 84.0% 70.6% 73.2% 76.2%
% of Total 50.4% 8.6% 4.9% 12.3% 76.2%
Program evaluation is a
routine part of the
workplan
Count 38 4 5 11 58
Expected Count 38.3 5.9 4.0 9.7 58.0
% within Program Evaluation2 65.5% 6.9% 8.6% 19.0% 100.0
%
% within Budget Function
Location
23.6% 16.0% 29.4% 26.8% 23.8%
% of Total 15.6% 1.6% 2.0% 4.5% 23.8%
Total Count 161 25 17 41 244
Expected Count 161.0 25.0 17.0 41.0 244.0
% within Program Evaluation2 66.0% 10.2% 7.0% 16.8% 100.0
%
% within Budget Function
Location
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0
%
% of Total 66.0% 10.2% 7.0% 16.8% 100.0
%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.346a 3 .718 .749
Likelihood Ratio 1.403 3 .705 .723
Fisher's Exact Test 1.414 .728
Linear-by-Linear Association .235b 1 .628 .651
N of Valid Cases 244
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.04. b. The standardized statistic is .485.
Policy Analysis
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Policy Analysis * Budget Function
Location
245 98.8% 3 1.2% 248 100.0%
Policy Analysis2 * Budget Function
Location
245 98.8% 3 1.2% 248 100.0%
Policy Analysis * Budget Function Location Crosstab
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of
Mayor or
Manager
Policy Analysis Policy analysis is not part of
the routine workplan
Count 12 3 1 1 17
Expected Count 11.2 1.7 1.2 2.8 17.0
% within Policy Analysis 70.6% 17.6% 5.9% 5.9% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
7.4% 12.0% 5.9% 2.4% 6.9%
% of Total 4.9% 1.2% .4% .4% 6.9%
Policy analysis is done
as-needed
Count 108 18 9 29 164
Expected Count 108.4 16.7 11.4 27.4 164.0
% within Policy Analysis 65.9% 11.0% 5.5% 17.7% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
66.7% 72.0% 52.9% 70.7% 66.9%
% of Total 44.1% 7.3% 3.7% 11.8% 66.9%
Policy analysis is part of the
routine workplan
Count 42 4 7 11 64
Expected Count 42.3 6.5 4.4 10.7 64.0
% within Policy Analysis 65.6% 6.3% 10.9% 17.2% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
25.9% 16.0% 41.2% 26.8% 26.1%
% of Total 17.1% 1.6% 2.9% 4.5% 26.1%
Total Count 162 25 17 41 245
Expected Count 162.0 25.0 17.0 41.0 245.0
% within Policy Analysis 66.1% 10.2% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 66.1% 10.2% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.347a 6 .500 .502
Likelihood Ratio 5.554 6 .475 .547
Fisher's Exact Test 5.309 .476
Linear-by-Linear Association .678b 1 .410 .416
N of Valid Cases 245
a. 4 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.18.
b. The standardized statistic is .823. Policy Analysis2 * Budget Function Location
Crosstab
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of
Mayor or
Manager
Policy Analysis2 Policy analysis is not part of
the routine workplan or is
done as-needed
Count 120 21 10 30 181
Expected Count 119.7 18.5 12.6 30.3 181.0
% within Policy Analysis2 66.3% 11.6% 5.5% 16.6% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
74.1% 84.0% 58.8% 73.2% 73.9%
% of Total 49.0% 8.6% 4.1% 12.2% 73.9%
Policy analysis is part of the
routine workplan
Count 42 4 7 11 64
Expected Count 42.3 6.5 4.4 10.7 64.0
% within Policy Analysis2 65.6% 6.3% 10.9% 17.2% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
25.9% 16.0% 41.2% 26.8% 26.1%
% of Total 17.1% 1.6% 2.9% 4.5% 26.1%
Total Count 162 25 17 41 245
Expected Count 162.0 25.0 17.0 41.0 245.0
% within Policy Analysis2 66.1% 10.2% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 66.1% 10.2% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.338a 3 .342 .348
Likelihood Ratio 3.299 3 .348 .364
Fisher's Exact Test 3.268 .343
Linear-by-Linear Association .189b 1 .664 .707
N of Valid Cases 245
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.44.
b. The standardized statistic is .434.
Strategic Planning
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Strategic Planning * Budget Function
Location
245 98.8% 3 1.2% 248 100.0%
Strategic Planning2 * Budget Function
Location
245 98.8% 3 1.2% 248 100.0%
Strategic Planning * Budget Function Location
Crosstab
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of Mayor
or Manager
Strategic Planning No strategic plan or
long-term goals are in
place
Count 15 2 2 6 25
Expected Count 16.5 2.6 1.7 4.2 25.0
% within Strategic Planning 60.0% 8.0% 8.0% 24.0% 100.0%
% within Budget Function Location 9.3% 8.0% 11.8% 14.6% 10.2%
% of Total 6.1% .8% .8% 2.4% 10.2%
The organization has an
informal strategic plan with
long-term goals
Count 87 15 9 17 128
Expected Count 84.6 13.1 8.9 21.4 128.0
% within Strategic Planning 68.0% 11.7% 7.0% 13.3% 100.0%
% within Budget Function Location 53.7% 60.0% 52.9% 41.5% 52.2%
% of Total 35.5% 6.1% 3.7% 6.9% 52.2%
A strategic plan with L-T
goals has been formally
adopted by gov. body;
used for decision-making
during budget process
Count 60 8 6 18 92
Expected Count 60.8 9.4 6.4 15.4 92.0
% within Strategic Planning 65.2% 8.7% 6.5% 19.6% 100.0%
% within Budget Function Location 37.0% 32.0% 35.3% 43.9% 37.6%
% of Total 24.5% 3.3% 2.4% 7.3% 37.6%
Total Count 162 25 17 41 245
Expected Count 162.0 25.0 17.0 41.0 245.0
% within Strategic Planning 66.1% 10.2% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
% within Budget Function Location 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 66.1% 10.2% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 3.037a 6 .804 .813
Likelihood Ratio 3.000 6 .809 .827
Fisher's Exact Test 3.307 .774
Linear-by-Linear Association .000b 1 .984 1.000
N of Valid Cases 245
a. 3 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.73.
b. The standardized statistic is .020.
Strategic Planning2 * Budget Function Location Crosstab
Budget Function Location
Total
Finance
Department
Administrative
Services
Independent
Office
Subunit of
Mayor or
Manager
Strategic Planning2 No strategic plan or
long-term goals are in
place or these are informal
Count 102 17 11 23 153
Expected Count 101.2 15.6 10.6 25.6 153.0
% within Strategic
Planning2
66.7% 11.1% 7.2% 15.0% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
63.0% 68.0% 64.7% 56.1% 62.4%
% of Total 41.6% 6.9% 4.5% 9.4% 62.4%
A strategic plan with L-T
goals has been formally
adopted by gov. body;
used for decision-making
during budget process
Count 60 8 6 18 92
Expected Count 60.8 9.4 6.4 15.4 92.0
% within Strategic
Planning2
65.2% 8.7% 6.5% 19.6% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
37.0% 32.0% 35.3% 43.9% 37.6%
% of Total 24.5% 3.3% 2.4% 7.3% 37.6%
Total Count 162 25 17 41 245
Expected Count 162.0 25.0 17.0 41.0 245.0
% within Strategic
Planning2
66.1% 10.2% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
% within Budget Function
Location
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
% of Total 66.1% 10.2% 6.9% 16.7% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.089a 3 .780 .787
Likelihood Ratio 1.083 3 .781 .787
Fisher's Exact Test 1.096 .787
Linear-by-Linear Association .416b 1 .519 .532
N of Valid Cases 245
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.38.
b. The standardized statistic is .645.
Appendix V
I would like to thank my committee members, Bill Rivenbark (chair), Greg Allison, and Rick Morse, for